Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
By that logic there should be no arab states either. They didn't exist until the 1940s. Prior to that they too were loosely allied emirates. I think the world is full of examples of nations that were founded from the breakup of larger ones. Creating a states that have never existed happens constantly throughout history. To give legitimacy to Iraq because it has been around since the 40s (and never before that), but deny Kurds a state seems fairly ridiculous.
For the record Kurdish states have existed in the past. The land that Kurds are now claiming has been indeed part of the Ottoman and Persian empires for quite some time. But like I said before, none of the countries in the Ottoman empire existed before the 1940, so I see the lack of existence prior to now as a pretty weak argument.
|
Not exactly true in regards to the Arab kingdoms in the region. Jordan was a semi-autonomous hashemite kingdom under the Ottomans, and the Hashemites existed as a dynasty long before that. Iraq, too, was semi-autonomous under the Ottoman state. Certainly the Saudis have had political claim over at least part of the region that they occupy going back to the 1700s. Syria has an ancient history, but was completely subjective to Ottoman rule, so are on a similar level to the Kurds. You are right, however, that there is a large arbitrary element to the borders in the region, and the Kurds were amongst the groups campaigning for their own country in the post-ottoman divisions, but were largely ignored by the british and french. The Kurds have more of a legitimate claim than some groups, and less than others. I'm not against the formation of a kurdish state, I just think we need a better reason to risk further escalations of war and conflict in an already volatile region than 'all these people are of the same ethnic background and they want to have their own country.'