RUS ENG
 

MAIN PAGE
AFFAIRS OF STATE
WORLD POLITICS
EX-USSR
ECONOMY
DEFENSE
SOCIETY
CULTURE
CREED
LOOKING AHEAD

March 19, 2007 (the date of publication in Russian)

Yaroslav Butakov

STRATEGIC BASE

Independent Kurdistan will serve as a first sign of the US's planned redrawing of borders in the Middle East

In June 2006 Ralph Peters published an article in the Armed Forces Journal entitled "Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look". It was accompanied by a map, which shows how, according to Peters, an excellent and fair division of territory in the Middle East should look. Iraq is divided into a Sunnite and Shiite state, with the city-state of Baghdad sandwiched between. In Eastern Saudi Arabia an Islamic Sacred State is created, encircling Mecca and Medina. Saudi Arabia itself is squished into the central desert regions; all of its neighbors gain territory at its expense. Iran must give up land to Azerbaijan and Free Baluchistan. It's obvious the author tried using ethnic and religious differences as a basis for the borders, plus a certain amount of his own creativity.

The large territory of Free Kurdistan immediately attracts our attention when we look at the map. It is made up of land currently ruled by Iraq, Iran, turkey and Syria.

At the end of WWI creating the free state of Kurdistan on part of the land confiscated from Ottoman Turkey was part of the Allies' plans. According to the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) Kurdistan was declared an autonomy, and a referendum was to be held within a year to finalize the details.

However this plan was never carried out, as a revolution in Turkey and the Kurds own fight for freedom intervened. Some of the Kurd leaders started fighting against the English occupants of the country as well as the Turks. When Mustafa Kemal Atatürk came to power the Treaty of Sèvres was reanalyzed and much of what it promised revoked. The Treaty of Lausanne (1923) established Turkey's new eastern border (it has remained unchanged since then) and divided Kurd lands between four different countries.

The English, technically, abandoned the Kurds, and the Kurd rebellion became allied with Ataturk. Lack of major cultural and ethnic differences between the Turks and Kurds formerly inhabiting the Ottoman Empire certainly helped bring this about. But Ataturk did not grant the Kurds the independence they were promised. The struggle for an independent Kurdistan continued, but all major attempts to gain this failed (the most notable occurred in 1925, led by Sheikh Said Piran, and in 1927-1931, led by Ihsan Nuri Pasha). Kurds also fought for freedom in Iran and Iraq, controlled at this time by the English, but all was to no avail.

After suppressing the Kurd rebellions Ataturk severely limited their rights. In Turkey Kurds are not allowed to use their language in public; the radical reaction to this discrimination has been terror, carried out by activists of the Kurdistan Workers' Party. The situation in Iraq is different. After the Baas party came to power in 1968 the Kurds were granted autonomy. The relations with the government have been uneven, sometimes changing for the better, or for the worse. The Hussein regime barely tolerated this autonomy, but did not remove it. The Kurds and the Persians are similar ethnically, which is why in Iran there is an independent Kurd province, which is not autonomous, but is controlled by the center, and yet conflicts are rare.

The American attacks on Iraq in 1990-1991 and in 2003 have led to an uprise in the Kurd fight for independence. Even the US-appointed puppet President of Iraq is Kurd. But this is probably a prelude to an independent Kurd state in Northern Iraq. The Kurds don’t want to rule Iraq; they want a country of their own.

The Kurds have become more active in Turkey too. This forced Turkey to remain neutral during the 2003 attacks on Iraq. Turkey did, however, attempt to use the American advance in order to invade North Iraq and destroy the terrorist bases of the Kurdistan Workers' Party. Turkey is one of the strongest countries in the Middle East and is an important ally of the US. Therefore, whether or not an independent Kurd state will be created will ultimately be decided by Turkey. It appears that the current situation is such that the US may substantially change its relations with its Middle Eastern allies in the near future.

The US needs a strategical base in the area. Plans to create one in Iraq have obviously failed. The US will have to leave the country, perhaps even before a supposed war with Iran is declared. The American presence in Afghanistan will also eventually end.

Turkey has stopped looking towards the US for approval when making decisions concerning its policy toward the region. Turkey, in lieu of Washington's warnings together with Georgia and Azerbaijan, has decided to build a transport corridor that bypasses Armenia. Turkey refused to allow Washington use of its territory and air space for a possible future attack on Iran. The last is a betrayal of "Atlantic solidarity" (however, if the US makes the attack on Iran a joint NATO operation, then Turkey may take part).

Many in Turkey want their country to enter the EU, but the government policy towards Armenians and Kurds still renders that impossible. It's hard to imagine a situation where Turkey "lets go" of its Kurd territories and thus enters the EU. But this is not impossible.

The Kurd project (like the Great Azerbaijan project) may be used by the US to undermine the situation in Iran. Will the US sacrifice the relationship with Turkey to establish itself in Kurdistan and weaken Iran? Much here doesn't depend on the US. But Turkey, especially if offered a greater reward, such as entering the EU or the Great Azerbaijan project, where the country will be Turkey's protectorate, may start seeing the Kurd problem as a headache that it will only be too glad to get rid of.

Only a slight jolt is needed in order to stimulate the creation of a united independent Kurdistan, such a push is well within the US's ability. There is, however, the problem of consolidating this Kurdistan from within. There are virtually no roads between the territories that this country proposes to unite. The Kurds live on the hillsides of the Zagros mountain range, the current borders run along the main ridge of this chain. The Kurd regions are economically tied to the markets of their respective countries, rather than to each other. But this drawback can be used as an advantage. The US can help the new country by investing in the creation of a new infrastructure, transport system and other national projects. This is both charitable and highly profitable.

If the US loses all legitimate reasons for remaining in the region, which is highly probable, it may use the "Kurdistan" project to destabilize the Middle East and fish around for whatever it can catch in the ensuing mess. But the US will probably not wait around for such a situation to develop on its own and will instead take the initiative. The US supported the anti-colonialist movement in the 1950s and 60s in its power struggle with the USSR. Such a strategy, though not in the context of a Cold War, may prove useful today.

The US's assistance in creating a new independent state will help repair the damage done by recent actions to the public image of the country in the Islamic world. Instatement of Pax Americana in the Middle East will be a redrawing of the map according to plans suggested by the US. These blueprints will reflect what the US considers fair and reasonable borders for the region and will serve as a "recommendation" to people actually living in the area. It would be odd if such a strategical move was not discussed in the White House.


Number of shows: 1235
(no votes)
 © GLOBOSCOPE.RU 2006 - 2024 Rambler's Top100