Kurdish Nationalism
The Kurds have inhabited a large region north of the Arabian Peninsula for nearly 3,000 years. They have retained their own language and culture through the rise and fall of various empires and yet have never been considered as an independent nation. Today, in the 21st century, you may have heard of the Kurds and their involvement in the Syrian Civil war, as well as their strong desire to be recognized as an independent state. However, for the purposes of this committee, we will be considering the Kurdish people as they were in 1918 when nationalist thinking was significantly less widespread.
The modern definition of nationalism is tied closely to a desire for sovereignty and independence. This kind of ideology only began to grow in the Kurdish region around the mid-nineteenth century, when other regions in the Ottoman Empire were beginning to seek independence. But to understand why and how this thinking took so long, we need to look back a little earlier.
The region of Kurdistan was first named in 1157 as a province, by Selçuku Sultan Sancar, and it was a much smaller region in the Zagros mountains than in 1918. A later shift in trade routes eventually caused the Kurdish people to adopt a nomadic lifestyle and spread out across a larger region. Nonetheless, despite this dispersion, the geographic inaccessibility of the regions they occupied caused them to be able to maintain their own unique tribal culture. This tribal structure both helped and hindered the growth of nationalist sentiments among the people. On one hand, being part of a tribe reinforced the people’s territorial attachment to their land. However, the differences between tribes meant little chance of unification against the Ottoman Empire.
Most historians agree that the rise of widespread nationalism in the Kurdish population began to show in the nineteenth century. The Kurds initiated three separate failed tribal revolts against the Ottoman Empire, which indicate the possibility that the various Kurdish leaders were aware of national Kurdish identity, and sought to protect it. Of course, others also argue that the leaders of revolts were only using the concept of nationalism as a “cover” for their personal ambitions, rather than fighting for a unified Kurdistan.
After the revolts, many tribal leaders were exiled from their territory, and came to live in Istanbul. Ironically, it was these displacements, initiated by the government of the Ottoman Empire, that fueled a new wave of nationalism among the Kurds, who found themselves exposed to a variety of new intellectual and political views in Istanbul. A number of these exiled Kurds, referred to as the Kurdish elites, ended up participating in the Young Turk movement.
Beyond that point, there was no real movement for unification of the tribes, as each tribal leader preferred to consolidate his own power rather than sacrifice it for a greater cause. However, as nationalist sentiments grew throughout Europe before and during World War I, the Kurdish people’s desire to establish themselves as an independent state grew as well.
Whether or not you are representing the Kurds in this committee, it is important to consider their influence in the events that will occur past October 31st, 1918. They may be divided as we begin committee, but the possibility of unification remains, and should not be discounted.
Here is a map to give you an idea of the region occupied by the Kurds in 1914
To read more about this subject, check out Chapter 4 of this paper: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/645/1/Zeynep_Maps_into_Nations.pdf
Just as other groups emerging from the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds should be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination if unified. Unified groups with a sense of nationalism must be allowed the right to self-determination to prevent abuse and conflict. If groups like the Kurds are merged with another country as a minority, their rights could be infringed upon. Due to this, as well as a unified nationalism, the groups will rebel, causing conflict and violence. A way to prevent this violence is to allow self-determination. Then, newly formed political entities will have their own government, governing their own people, making it unlikely for rebellion or poor treatment to minorities. The problem then becomes preventing violence between these newly formed political entities. A way to do this is Allied intervention in the region to ensure peace between groups for 10 years, allowing the newly formed countries to developed a military and police force, as well as with the goal of improving relations between groups and promoting tolerance. The location of these new entities is also significant, as groups with history of intolerance should be separated. I look forward to discussing ways to maintain peace within the region during committee.
ReplyDelete- Woodrow Wilson (President of the United States)