The Kurdish question is a regional problem: Islamism fighting secular groups in the Middle East
I also would like to start off with a general overview of the changing Middle East, and I think as the previous speakers, Dr. Ramona and Dr. Holmes already pointed out, no matter what part of Kurdish territories or Kurdistan you talk about, whether it is the Kurdish question in Turkey, in Syria, Iraq, or Iran, the size of the Kurdish lands and the size of the Kurdish people and the division of them between these four major, Middle Eastern countries. I think it makes it not just a Turkish problem, not just a Syrian, Iranian, or Iraqi problem. This is at the very least a regional problem. I think in order to make sense of what can be done and what cannot be done, I would like to make an argument for the fact that the Middle East has underlined some fundamental changes.
I think one of the best examples that I have come up with so far is if you ask a Sunni Arab man or woman, and if you ask them whether they would like to live in Syria in Yemen, in Libya or in the West Bank, as of today, the obvious answer would probably be they as Sunni Arab men or women would prefer to live in the West bank. If you ask them the same question 10 or 15 years ago that West Bank may not have been the obvious choice because, in the last 10 years or so, the changes that the Middle East has undergone has turned West Bank into one of the safest places in the Middle East, which is an irony given the history of the Palestinian conflict and given the fact that Westerners especially, and Middle Easterners as well, were used talk about violence in the West Bank between Israelis and Palestinians, et cetera.
That’s no longer the case. So as of today, if the West Bank has become safer than Yemen safer, then Libya, safer than Syria, that tells us something very important about the new Middle East and looking at the number of people that live under the rule of non-state armed factions. So from Syria to Iraq, to Yemen, to Libya, we are looking at about 100 million people that do not have access to a functioning government. Again, 10, 15 years ago, that was not necessarily the case. There were a number of weak States back then, but there were not fail States here and there. So I think when we talk about the Kurdish conflict, the Kurdish issue in Turkey, or in Syria or Iraq, they are all interrelated to one another. And this is not necessarily a question or a problem that the Kurds themselves can resolve because it relates to both regional and global powers.
It has a lot to do with two visions, Islamism fighting secular groups in the Middle East, and with the only exception of the Kurdish groups in Syria and Iraq, and you could actually extend the list to Iran and Turkey as well. There are no other secular groups in the Middle East. So we are essentially looking at Islamism versus another form of Islamism. So we are either looking at a Shiite Islam competing with Sunni Islamism, and we have the Kurds in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere, these are the secular groups that are more than willing and moderately able to actually work with the West to not only stabilize, also secularize the region. I’m not saying democratizing it yet because democracy will take much longer time than just a few years of investing in this, but we must first stabilize and secularize Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. Then hopefully we can build on this to democratize the region in the long term.
What the Biden Administration can do and can not do
One of the things that I think the Biden administration can or cannot do, and I would like to recognize that our limits to what the Biden administration can do, and can not do. This is a fundamentally changed region, and this is a very complex situation we are facing. I think the first thing the Biden administration should and could do, would be as was mentioned earlier to listen. That was not what the Trump administration did in the last four years. Given the experience of President-elect Joe Biden, I think he has more than enough experience, more than enough wisdom, and some willingness to actually listen to different factions, different groups in the Middle East, and try to mediate the conflict between the Kurds and the Turkish State or the Syrian State or the Iraqi and Iranian State.
Separation of the Syrian and Turkey’s Kurds is not realistic
When it comes to the Kurdish conflict in Syria, even the conflict or the tensions between the PKK and the KRG in the last month or so, we must recognize that when it comes to the Kurdish issue in Turkey and primarily in Syria, and to an extent in Iraq and Iran, the real dominant group is the PKK. Without making peace with this dominant group, the other obviously, elephant in the room is a Turkish state, without Turkey making peace or coming to the negotiating tables with the PKK or the PKK related groups in the Middle East, the conflict in Syria, the tensions in Iraq are not really likely to end. Some commentators I hear here and there, sometimes they would talk about, ‘okay, let’s ask the Syrian Kurds to forget about the Kurds in Turkey.’
This is simply historically not a realistic thing to propose because of the historical, cultural, linguistic, and political relationship between the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Turkey, more so than the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq. It makes it almost impossible for these two people that should just forget about one another. I think the conflict in Syria unless it is resolved will keep feeding the conflict in Turkey and the conflict in Turkey will keep feeding the conflict in Syria and Iraq as well. As I mentioned earlier. I think President-elect Joe Biden at the very least, he probably would be more willing to listen. This would be a great start and other things I think that the Biden administration must do, to move away from a foreign policy towards the Middle East that is entirely transactional.
‘Wait and See’ policy by the US and recommendations to the new administration
I would like to think that the United States is more than just oil. Of course, oil is an important economic and financial resource. It is part of American national interest. I’m not denying that, but the United States should and must stand up for certain values that we have taken for granted. So forth, human rights, democracy, equality, gender equality, among others. If we are all about protecting oil in Deir Ez Zor, in Qamishlu, then the United States will lose this game in the long run. If we are all about, let them figure it out, then they’re not going to figure it out, It’s going to be Russia, It’s going to be Turkey, and it’s going to be Iran that will fill the vacuum.
Another important issue that I would like to emphasize is the Biden administration, which I think must work really hard to prevent the Kurdish conflict, turning into another Palestinian conflict in the Middle-East. Now the Palestinian conflict is still unresolved.It has been going on for about a century now and the way the Trump administration at least gave a green light to the Russians, to the Syrians, to the Turks, to advance their own territorial and political interest. It is increasingly turning the Kurdish lens into a fragmented piece of pockets of resistance. That is, I don’t think that the new American administration would like to see five or six other Gazas [Gaza] in the Middle East. As the Turkish army is penetrating into Northern Syria and the Turkish army is penetrating in Northern Iraq. It’s not only destabilizing these parts of the Middle East, it’s also potentially creating new Gazas. And I’m not sure if the Middle East can actually absorb several other Gaza as pockets of conflict that can explode and implode any time in the long run.
So I think when we talk about President Joe Biden’s policy, I’m not sure if we actually need a very elaborate coherent foreign policy in the long run. Obviously having such a policy would be wonderful, but even with the complications involved, I think wait and see seems to be a big part of the policy during the Obama administration. The Obama administration primarily was defined by when it came to the Middle East, which was what we did not want to see. It was not a proactive policy and hoping that the new American administration will move beyond just wait and see, and become more proactive. Nonetheless, even wait and see may not be a great policy. Wait and see is a much better policy than tweeting about the Middle East at 3:00 AM. So when it comes to the Kurds in Turkey and in Syria, I think the best thing that we can hopeful would be that the new administration encourages the parties involved, primarily with the Turkish government, the Kurdish groups in Turkey, as well as Syria, to reach a political solution.
I think we all have seen this going on for at least 30 or 40 years. No one is benefiting from the conflict. It is devastating the Turkish economy, it is devastating, the Turkish social fabric, It is devastating the regional stability, and it is encouraging the rise of different forms of Islamism in the long run. If Islamism is a problem for the United States, if the United States would like to promote secularization and hopefully democratization and gender equality in the Middle East, in the long run, I think the Kurds in all of these countries are wonderful allies. Potential allies, not to divide up Turkey, not to divide up Syria, to turn these places more secular, more stable, and hopefully more democratic in the long run.