"natural" states in the middle east after the collapse of the ottoman empire

[Gordy]

The "magic wand" would be giving them their actual ethnic majority lands, so that they have the power to stand on their own, which is what Kuwait could not do.

Give?

They already control much of them and declaring independence would not give them control over the Kurdish areas held by Arabs.

There is no magic wand. And if you recall Kuwait was independent, it did not improve its ability to stand up to the Iraqis, indeed the Kurds have proved rather better at that.

 

[Nein]

There is no magic wand. And if you recall Kuwait was independent, it did not improve its ability to stand up to the Iraqis, indeed the Kurds have proved rather better at that.

That's the point.

 

[Yasko]

The Emir of Bahrain upgraded his title to King in 2002. The Kingdom of Jordan has had a king, not a sultan since independence. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Morocco and Iraq all changed into kingdoms with a king upon independence. Following WWI, Hedjaz became a kingdom until it was annexed by the Saudis. Likewise the shortlived kingdom of Syria had a king, not a sultan. Only Yemen and Oman kept their Sultanates.

True, but all of them are pretty recent. Wasnt ruler of Marocco labeled as "Sultan" let say 200 years ago? I just have the feeling(could be wrong) that arab world have "shifted" to king title pretty lately. I just wonder why.

 

[Gordy]

That's the point.

Your point seemed to be that independence would improve the Kurdish ability to stand up to the Arabs, you cited Kuwait as evidence for this. That makes no sense.

They are de facto independent anyway so no huge gains would be made by becoming de jure independent.
This would, however, make the states of Syria and Iraq annoyed as they would never recognise the new states.
They cannot do much about it militarily but would boycott the new states.
Independence would not result in Kurdish areas controlled by Syria and Iraq becoming part of the Kurdish state.
Nor would it keep them safe from ISIS who will claim Kurdistan whether it is independent or part of Syria / Iraq.

 

[Nein]

What I'm trying to say is that, assuming Kurdistan becomes independent (with all the major communities, including those of Turkey and Iran. With independent I mostly mean a united state apparatus) and it is recognized by other states (obviously not those who have lost territory) it would have more power out of centralization and tools because of its interaction with other states that would prefer such a balance of power or share interests (by now the US should be beginning to understand the post-colonial situation is not stable and can't be kept that way).

 

[Gordy]

What I'm trying to say is that, assuming Kurdistan becomes independent (with all the major communities, including those of Turkey and Iran. With independent I mostly mean a united state apparatus) and it is recognized by other states (obviously not those who have lost territory) it would have more power out of centralization and tools because of its interaction with other states that would prefer such a balance of power or share interests (by now the US should be beginning to understand the post-colonial situation is not stable and can't be kept that way).

Yes, but that is never going to happen. Iraq and Syria are weak and secession is a possibility (may even be odds-on in the case of Iraq) but Iran and Turkey aren't. It is highly unlikely that all four countries are ever going to be vulnerable at the same time.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Not to mention, Kurds and Iranians get along quite well. Kurdish is an official language in Iran and in any case it's apparently not too difficult to understand each others' languages.

Turkish Kurdistan is also a lot different from Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan. The Kurds in Turkey are a community which is living not just in a neatly-defined geographical area but all throughout the country. The biggest "Kurdish" city is Istanbul. All parties in the national assembly have Kurdish MPs, AKP most of them. The parties that define themselves as Kurdish serve only a lesser part of the Kurdish community, and in any case they are not comparable in any way to the two "state parties" of Barzani and Talabani (KDP and PUK) that run Iraqi Kurdistan and serve as the twin political manifestation of their societies, similar (in scope but not in ideology) to the Communist Parties that ran the socialist nations of old times, with youth organizations, party militias, and social organizations that are enmeshed on every layer of society.

Turkey is, for all intents and purposes, a much more individualist and (socially) modern country than Iraq or Syria where everything is about group identities and group politics. In Iraq and Syria, the individual is nothing (politically / socially) and will be preyed upon if he's not part of a clan or subordinates himself in other ways to a group. While in Turkey different values have taken root, and you have more individualism. (Although by western European standards it's still a very clannish place with much less individualism than you or me might be used to IMHO.)

Therefore Turkish Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan can't really be treated as parts of the same whole. They are only like than on Wikipedia maps.

 

[Yasko]

Kurds in Iraq speak Sorani dialect, Kurds in Turkey speak Kurmanji and you have Zaza who lately considers themselfs different from the Kurds in Turkey. Kurds in Iraq uses arabic letters, Kurds in Turkey latin etc. etc. You have Barzani mostly conservative right politician vs the Stalinist PKK leader Öcalan in Turkey. There are some diffeences there. Its cute to see the romantism about kurds in West though. Its same kind of romantism when some Turks Dreams of "The turkish World" from Balkans to China... :laugh:

 

[Kurdistani]

Kurds in Iraq speak Sorani dialect, Kurds in Turkey speak Kurmanji and you have Zaza who lately considers themselfs different from the Kurds in Turkey. Kurds in Iraq uses arabic letters, Kurds in Turkey latin etc. etc. You have Barzani mostly conservative right politician vs the Stalinist PKK leader Öcalan in Turkey. There are some diffeences there. Its cute to see the romantism about kurds in West though. Its same kind of romantism when some Turks Dreams of "The turkish World" from Balkans to China... :laugh:

You might find it strange, but I kind of agree with some of this, although I have a different take.

1) In the political situation that existed after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, in a certain sense, the Kurds were not a unified nation. In Istanbul and in some of Kurdistan's larger towns, there were elements of society (elites and intellectuals) who began to see themselves as part of a Kurdish nation - although most were loyal to the Ottoman polity right until the very end. The Istanbul based intellectual elite in particular is interesting in that it was made up of Kurds from all over Kurdistan and speakers of different dialects. What is interesting that in many ways they 'imagined' themselves as part of a Kurdish nation through the medium of Ottoman Turkish.

2) Hence, I would disagree that difference in dialects or religion are the main reason for the differences amongst Kurds today. I would focus on politics. The separation of Kurdish populations across the middle east has lead to the evolution of several distinct Kurdish 'nations' tied to the politics of their host country. This differences have been strengthened by the act that the intellectual and political elites amongst the Kurds often studied in the capitals of their host country (Baghdad, Ankara etc.) and were subject to different state policies making the political issues and character of each Kurdish region very difference. Now, it is argued that Kurds in Turkey are Kirmanji and in Iraq are Sorani. However, the Barzanis are Kirmanji speakers as are many in the Dohuk and Mosul region. However, political differences are not along dialect lines but political ones. Erbil and Rawanduz, for example, are Sorani speaking and pro-Barzani...

 

[unmerged(371768)]

No system is long term viable. No state lasts more than 500 years. Most do not last 400 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark

We have been Danes living in the independent, christian monarchy of Denmark for more than a thousand years. There have been minor political and dynastic changes, surely, but our Queen IS in fact the current heir to the throne of Harald Bluetooth and Sweyn Forkbeard. It CAN work, even with poor lands absent minerals, resources or defensible terrain.

 

[Arilou]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark

We have been Danes living in the independent, christian monarchy of Denmark for more than a thousand years. There have been minor political and dynastic changes, surely, but our Queen IS in fact the current heir to the throne of Harald Bluetooth and Sweyn Forkbeard. It CAN work, even with poor lands absent minerals, resources or defensible terrain.

Err, Denmark is one of the more fertile regions of Europe. Hardly devoid of resources.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Err, Denmark is one of the more fertile regions of Europe. Hardly devoid of resources.

AFAIK Jylland has mostly sandy soils, and is not very fertile at all.

 

[Andrelvis]

No system is long term viable. No state lasts more than 500 years. Most do not last 400 years.

Portugal has lasted more than 500 years.

 

[User29]

Portugal has lasted more than 500 years.

I believe you are blanking out on all the revolutions and coups of the early 20th century?

I'm saying governments for states, not countries. China has lasted a millenia, but No Chinese government has.

 

[Enravota]

Portugal has lasted more than 500 years.

An independent Brazil kind of didn't, republican Brazil even less so.

 

[Andrelvis]

I believe you are blanking out on all the revolutions and coups of the early 20th century?

I'm saying governments for states, not countries. China has lasted a millenia, but No Chinese government has.

Oh so. You said "states" so that's what I thought you meant, and not regimes. Of course, particular regimes are usually not that long-lasting. But even then there probably are (although rare) examples of regimes which lasted for more than 500 years (in Ancient Egypt, perhaps?).

 

[User29]

Oh so. You said "states" so that's what I thought you meant, and not regimes. Of course, particular regimes are usually not that long-lasting. But even then there probably are (although rare) examples of regimes which lasted for more than 500 years (in Ancient Egypt, perhaps?).

The Roman Republic was a state not a regime, The Roman Republic fell not a single regime

You're kinda just trying to get technical though. I do think it is very clear what my point it and you seem to be trying to circumvent it. No regime or state lasts forever. And I don't believe any one dynasty lasted 500 years in ancient Egypt either.

Japan is the closest example you will find and the State of Japan has undergone quite a few transformations from the Fujiwara to the Taira to the Shoguns to the restoration to the end of WW2. At the end of WW2 you could say it was just a regime change. The State survived. by was this state really the same one the original emperor founded? Everything evolves, and the days of the Shogun were violently usurped. You are confusing State and country. Government and Regime are quite close in meaning and can mostly be used interchangeably but I'm trying to point out the difference to you if you understand.

 

[Riotkiller]

I do believe the Venetian Republic lasted longer than 500 years. Habsburg Austria, too, even if it gained and lost of non-core lands during that time.