America Must Recognize Kurdistan: Welcoming the Worlds 197 Nation Could Yield a Strong Democratic Ally and

Spur Resolution of the Syrian Civil War

th

By Robert Sklaroff & Sherkoh Abbas

Now that the Geneva peace convocation has predictably collapsed, so too has Americas paradigm for Syria thatat various timeshas favored Shiites (Alawite President al-Assad) and Sunnis (al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood). America should instead support the newborn, self-ruling non-Islamist entity Kurdistanas the core of a coalition Syrian government; Kurds have unsuccessfully sought freedom and self-determination since dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the legal basis of their modern-day independence-efforts. Perhaps a parallel history explains the longstanding friendship between Kurds and Jews, for the Kurdish experience (citing Svres) recapitulates Israels (citing Balfour). The Kurds Have Struggled for Independence The Kurds are an Indo-European ethnic groupdescents of Medes and Hurrianswho have, for four millennia, inhabited a region that includes parts of present-day Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Kurds are now largely Sunni Muslims, although non-Muslim Kurds are Jews, Christians, and Yazedi (who are, themselves, related to Zoroastrianism). About the time of the Arab conquests in the seventh century, the term Kurd (with Greek roots) was beginning to be applied as an ethnic description of the Persian-influenced Kurdish tribes. Kurds have historically befriended Jews, from Cyrus the Great (the only non-Jew to be viewed as a messiah for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple in 539 B.C.E., as per Isaiah 44:24, 2645:3, 13) to Sultan Saladin [who promoted coexistence of the three major religions in Jerusalem in 1187, abrogating the wishes of Muslims and Christians]. A few short-lived Kurdish dynasties had appeared during 830-1150 until the Seljuk Sultan Sandjar Turk annexed all Kurdish principalities by 1150 and officially established Kurdistan Province, composed of 17 principalities at that time. The Kurdish dynasty, Ayyubid, founded by Sultan Saladin Ayyubi, took over the Muslim leadership; his empire lasted almost one century (1169-1250), and he garnered long-term Christian antipathy for having allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem in masse and for having expelled the Crusaders from the Middle East. In 1514, Turkish Sultan Selim I forged an alliance with the Kurds to protect its eastern borders from the Persian empire; in exchange for this support, Kurds attained selfrule in Kurdistan, yielding three centuries of peace, stability and cultural renaissance. The Bohtan (Botan) Emirate (1812-1848), declared by Bader Khan Pasha as the first Kurdish kingdom, was absorbed by the Ottoman Empire in 1908; after World War I, just as the U.S.S.R. ultimately evicted Armenians, Kurdish interests were eroded by a sequence of treaties and betrayals. Kurds were promised independence in the Treaty of Svres (1920), which outlined a truncated Kurdistan located solely on Turkish territory (excluding Iran, British-controlled Iraq and French-controlled Syria), but it was supplanted by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which was silent regarding Kurdish rights. In this fashion, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern-day Turkey, betrayed the Kurds; as a result, Kurds were not mentioned in any subsequent international document until 1991, when U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 outlined the fate of Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait was reversed in the Gulf War.

The Kurds Merit Independence Thus, just as Israel was re-established as a Jewish state in 1948, the Kurds have yearned for self-rule; they merit a Homeland to allow their distinct history, language and culture to flourish. Although they enjoy quasi-sovereignty in northern Iraq, they have been repulsed during recent decades in eastern Turkey and they have been brutalized in Syria and Iran; perpetuating their promotion of tolerance from King Cyrus to Sultan Saladin are their staunchly pro-American and pro-Israeli views. An independent Kurdistan would therefore serve as a bulwark against Syrian antagonists; they need support from the United States, as they are surrounded by armies that covet their oil-rich landsand seek their demise. Were the U.S. and Western Nations to support the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria and its allies Kurdish National Council of Syria forceswhich dominate the Syrian Kurdish militia and political leadershipthey could vet leaders of anti-Assad forces among Turks and the rebels, lest support be rendered to Islamists of whatever stripe; this would yield the ability to form a republic led by an amalgamation of Kurds, non-Islamist Sunnis, non-Islamist Shiites, Assyrians and Christians. Yet, nations formed by mirroring British and French spheres of regional influence have drawn from a range of ideologies (from Leftists to Islamists) to penetrate, derail and undermine Kurdish movements aspiring for self-determination; the Kurdish masses have resisted and rejected such moves and tactics. Reversing American passivity would yield resistance to self-serving motives of those who resist Kurdish empowerment, particularly when it is possible to achieve incremental improvement in Syria that would promise the long-term stability of a representative government yielding, in turn, return of millions of refugees who had fled this war-torn country. Instead, America (officially, via humanitarian aid) and the Gulf States (overtly, militarily) support radical Pan-Arab Nationalists and Islamist groups such as the Syrian National Coalition and the Free Syrian Army (themselves encompassing terrorist groups such as The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS); through it all, the Kurds have resisted pressure to join them against the Assad regime in exchange for the promise of being recognized as citizens. The Kurds reject such entreaties not because of fealty for the Assad regime, which continues to massacre its citizenry; they perceive the rebel-groups as no different than the regime regarding how they treat minorities, particularly Christians and Kurds. They recall these regime-opponents supported father/son-Assad for four decades, aiding/abetting the oppression of the Kurds; they observe that these rebels want regime-change simply to accrue power. Kurds, however, want the revolution to promote a moderate, peaceful and democratic government that would undo injustice perpetrated on Kurds, yielding freedom, democracy, human rights and federalism. The Kurds Continue to Struggle for Independence To determine which group(s) merit support, entities purporting to represent Kurds must be identified. Even before the two-and-a-half-year uprising against Assad, Kurds [including civic, religious, political and tribal leaders] supported regime-change; now, they promote a new Federal Syria where Kurds and other minorities would achieve self-determination and prevent radical groups from controlling the nation. Conceptually, this resembles the governmental structure established by the United States Constitution, yielding a dynamic between central authority that ensures security and the exertion of states rights. Operationally, this necessitates scrutiny of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK); the former controls much of northwestern Syria near the Turkish border, and the latter is tethered to Turkey (which is itself experiencing persistent internal turmoil).

The PYDs Declaration of local Autonomythat Rojava, the western Kurdistan Region of Syria, should become a Federal entitytrisects Syrian Kurdistan by excluding eastern Turkey and northern Iraq; indeed, it serves the enemies of Kurds by setting precedent by compromising both by supporting tyrants and by accepting less land. This is why it is viewed as insufficient by most Kurds; they dont want to facilitate efforts by Assad (and others) to divide-and-conquer the pesky Kurds, and they certainly dont want their independence movement to be hijacked. By supporting PKK/PYD, neighboring countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria and Russia) are blocking efforts of more than 4 million Kurds in Syria and 5 million in Iraq to create a confederation or an independent Kurdistan; as a result, it is not possible to establish an entity similar to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq that is pro-west and pro-democracy, while being against radicalIslamists and butcher-leaders like Assad. Thus, this is how Assad and Syrian opposition groups actually collaborate to suppress the Kurds. In Turkey, PKKs senior leadership (top 5 leaders are non-Kurds) does not advocate for an independent Kurdistan; essentially, it only demands freedom for Abdullah calan and thereby harms the Kurds more than their enemies. Thus, an independent Kurdistan has not emerged following almost a century of working with status quo groups. When terrorism and instability abound, it seems necessary to support an alternative that is friendly to Western interests, thus promoting confederation or outright independence of Kurdistan. The Kurds Model Non-Radical Islam Those who lament the decision not to create an independent Kurdistan after the Gulf War (in lieu of the no-fly-zone) could now be vindicated by the creation of a Homeland for Kurds in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey; far from providing sanctuary for cross-border attacks, this would allow for peaceful interaction between Syrian Kurds and those living in a Diaspora. And such a federation would provide America a friend in the heart of a battle between Iranian/Soviet-supported Assad and Islamist-dominated rebels, precluding both from emerging victorious. Kurds can help to stop the radicalization of the Middle East by stopping Shiites and Sunnis from unfuling their flags with Islamist crescents; in the process, they can promote democracy, tolerance, and the pro-West agenda, which is compatible to Kurdish culture.

Dr. Sherkoh Abbas is President of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria; Dr. Sklaroff is a physicianactivist and supporter of the Republican Jewish Coalition.