The last decade has seen many maps published by 'Think Tanks' and/or 'intelligence organisations' in which the Middle East gives birth to 'new nations/states'. The latest developments in the Middle East have had Western specialists-strategists-analysts playing with their pencils, rulers and compasses, doodling all over their maps of the Middle East; once again hoping to carve up the region to best fit the interests of their imperial masters.
In most prophecies Iraq is divided into at least three parts, Syria is hurtling towards dissection and, well, it seems no country in the Middle East will remain unscathed by the rearrangement of what were already pretty horrendously drawn borders. Who is behind this? Who is supporting who? Who does not want this to happen? Although all of these are legitimate questions, they are already heavily speculated on by the media and therefore do not require any additions; in fact, no addition will be original, so there is no point.
However, there is one new country — that most pseudo-strategists have been predicting since the second Gulf War — that became a dead certainty when a few days ago Israeli Foreign Minister told his US counterpart it was a "foregone conclusion" and that is the emergence of an independent Kurdish homeland: Kurdistan.
With a population of over 40 million spread across four countries in the region, the Kurds have been referred to as "the largest nation in the World without a state". A reference which has led to the creation of a deep inferiority complex among a people credited with being the ancient people of a land (Mesopotamia) that has been referred to as "the cradle of civilisation". However, the Kurds — the revolutionaries of the Neolithic Era — have been largely deprived of taking their place in the "World System" ever since.
The latest surge from sectarian extremists, among other things (of which most are not even inline with human decency), has de facto marked out the borders of South/Southwest Kurdistan. The successful defence of Rojava (west) Kurdistan by the Kurds against al-Qaeda and its offshoots has, in the minds of most, already established Rojava as Kurdistan's first 'fully liberated' territory and the previously 'disputed territories' in South Kurdistan are now seemingly undisputed and under the control of the Kurdistan Regional Government.
However, it is still not straight-sailing from here for the, all but rubber-stamped, newest country in the World. The burning question now — and according to some it has always been — is what kind of Kurdistan? The answer to this — though maybe not as much of a turbulent ride as it has been to actually get the existence of Kurdistan acknowledged — is where the new internal and external struggle lies for the Kurds.
Some may say that it is not helpful for the Kurdish national cause that the two most popular political institutions in Kurdistan (The PKK and the KDP) each have their own different answers to the question posed above. However, although the PKK and KDP have in the past even engaged in military battles against each other, it is widely accepted that in the foreseeable future the political and ideological differences between the two organisations will be fought out politically rather than militarily. This fight has long kicked off.
The backgrounds and profiles of both organisations are full of clues as to what their answers are to the question of what kind of Kurdistan they would like to see constructed:
The PKK is a socialist organisation; the KDP is not.
The KDP is pro-corporation; the PKK is not.
The KDP's strategic partners: USA, Israel, EU, Turkey.
The PKK's strategic partners: Trans-national civil society organisations, socialist/ecologist/feminist organisations, Latin American social movements.
The KDP's vision for Kurdistan: A Kurdish nation state, capitalist-free market economy, representative parliamentary democracy.
The PKK's vision for Kurdistan: A stateless multi-national Kurdistan, communal-ecological economy, confederal-localised direct democracy.
As we can see above, the KDP's vision for Kurdistan is one that will easily fit into the current globalised capitalist system, whereas the PKK's vision for Kurdistan will stick out like a sore thumb. Maybe this was one of the reasons as to what led Kevin McKiernan to call his brilliantly shot documentary "Good Kurds, Bad Kurds" all the way back in 2000 (the "Good Kurds" being the KDP led Kurdish uprising in the South and the "Bad Kurds" being the PKK led Kurdish uprising in the North).
While both the PKK and the KDP took up arms to struggle for Kurdistan, it is the PKK that takes its place on terrorist organisations lists in the USA, EU and the UK; whereas the KDP takes its place in official state visits to the very same countries, not to mention regularly plays host to the visits of their Secretaries of State. Is it really a far stretch to think that the ideological differences between these two organisations is what really determines the approaches of these Western states?
So, we can see that the long-running ideological-political-military confrontations between the PKK and the KDP cannot be solely explained by a power struggle between the two as to who will dominate Kurdistan. This is a systemic confrontation; and the PKK and the KDP are not the sole players. The global capitalist powers are actively trying to suffocate the socialist countries of Latin America on a daily basis; and here, they are actively working on preventing a Kurdistan that will be a threat to the capitalist system (PKK's vision for Kurdistan), but pushing for one that will fit like a glove (KDP's vision for Kurdistan).
This would also explain the West's silence and reluctance to acknowledge Kurdish efforts in Rojava. Whereas the KRG administrated South Kurdistan is a prototype for KDP's vision for an independent (by independent I mean West leaning) Kurdistan; Rojava Kurdistan is a prototype for PKK's vision for a socialist, ecologist and confederal Kurdistan. Both of these comparative societal constructs are formed by Kurds; however, one is promoted by the West as a beacon for the Middle East, the other is being isolated and left to face its own destiny in the face of attacks from sectarian extremists.
Although the formula seems extremely clear:
PKK for a socialist Kurdistan.
KDP for a capitalist Kurdistan.
It would seem preferential for the Kurdish national cause if this ideological junction could be dealt with after Kurdistan addressed its immediate adversaries. However, the likelihood is that we will see more bloodshed before we get an answer to what kind of Kurdistan will emerge...
- Giran Ozcan