The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > For Kurds, sovereignty easily beats out the Iraqi constitution > Comments

For Kurds, sovereignty easily beats out the Iraqi constitution : Comments

By Bashdar Ismaeel, published 24/10/2005

Bashdar Ismaeel argues the breakup of Iraq may be only a question of time, whether voluntarily or through civil war.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Kurds are only part of Iraq now because Iraq has been an artificial post-World War I creation from the start. Uniting the Kurds of Iraq with those of Turkey and Iran will certainly not be easy, but if they want their own state, we ought to support them in that.

ANZACs fought in Turkey and the Middle East to bring the domination of the Ottoman Empire to an end, but we only managed to replace one kind of oppression with another.

If we went into the current Iraq war to help bring democracy, surely that must also involve a commitment to self-determination for the peoples that make up Iraq, not just for "Iraqis" as an artifical abstraction.
Posted by Ian, Tuesday, 25 October 2005 1:42:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The notion that other nations have taken it upon themselves to be the arbiters of Kurdish sovereignty is gross hypocrisy. The US, all the Europeans, Turkey and all other middle eastern nations are UN Member States who are signatories to The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

See http://austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1976/5.htm

Article 1. states;

All peoples have the right to self determination. By virtue of that right THEY freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

At no point is there any provision for outside parties to veto such self determination. It is not their call. Our State constitutions include a right of the majority to veto new states but those provisions were written long before the world had given the issue proper consideration under the convention. So Turkey's threat to invade if the Iraqi Kurds achieve independence is in clear breach of UN principles, without the slightest sniff of a higher moral intent.

And where have all the high moral principles of the Europeans gone? Why did they not advise Turkey that entry to their community would not be possible for any state that was so blatantly in breach of the convention? This would give the Turks the choice of joining Europe sans Kurdistan or remaining outside as just another middle eastern despot regime.

And the so-called analysts who claim an independent Kurdistan would be a source of instability are all sounding a little hollow in the face of the real and present instability in a united Iraq. It seems the only people who really insist on a united Iraq are the supporters of Saddam. He's the enemy, remember.

If 20 million Kurds have no right to self determination then, it follows, that the right of 20 million Australians can be just as easily ignored.
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 25 October 2005 9:55:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With a strong and able UN or Federation of Nations as the German philosopher Immanuel Kant suggested in the late 1700s, Iraq, Turkey and Iran, could have been possibly pressured to give up the portions of former Kurdish land that they occupy and let Kurdistan become a cultural nation once again.

Kant, who was formerly a supporter of the French Revolution, thought up the idea when Napoleon changed his mind about Liberty Equality and Fraternity, after so much success in his European campaign, deciding to make himself Emperor.

From now on, declared Kant, we must not trust any one person, or any one nation to take charge of this world. Even under God one person cannot be trusted, because they put themselves in place of God, twisting God to suit their own image, as Caesar did when he threw out the Roman Assembly and let Rome come under tyrants, allowing barbarians to command its armies, and one day the emperor arrived back in Rome to find a Germanic general in occupation.

Using Kant's reasoning we can see how the US has got carried away with its own importance first after WW2, and much much more so since the end of the Cold War, particularly believing with George W' Bush and Oil man Dick Cheney and his gang in charge, as well as backed by the American Assembly of God, that the US is very much favoured by Our Father in Heaven. Moreover, the born again George W Bush, is just the kind of leader that Imannuel Kant warned about, and no doubt would have not been surprised at the title typifying the new American Way - The New World Order.

It is believed if the Americans had been far more humble, even after 9/11, much more could have been achieved even without war, the rather idiotic Tony Blair backing the US only making the Kurdish position worse, with our John Howard just meekly tagging along, yet full of beans in expression in bossing his own people, us Aussies.

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 25 October 2005 6:32:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy