Thursday, March 25, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
A Case Commentary: Preparing the Kurdish Case in Turkey
A simple introductory comment for Dr. Ralph D. Fertig - in reference to his interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DY2cMSWIWg
-Published on Kurdish Aspect:http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc022310KH.html-
An accurate description and understanding of the Kurdish case for the right to self-determination will be helpful for the supreme court of the United States, the government, the attorney acting on behalf of Kurdish people’s right to self-determination in that part of Kurdistan. Let us begin by answering the following questions, which will provide a number of definitions central to the understanding of the Kurdish case:
Who are the Kurds?
Kurds are the people who speak Kurdish language as a native language. Kurdish is the language of the ethnic Kurds – who have been living in Kurdistan proper for thousands of years. Kurdish language consists of two main dialects: the northern and the southern Kurdish.
What is their population count/census?
There is no accurate census of Kurdish population. According to most creditable sources about 30 – 40 million Kurds live in “Kurdistan proper: one of the most accurate maps of Kurdistan proper http://www.ardalan.org/images/sine.jpg” (parts of Kurdistan divided between Iraq, Syria, Turkey, former Soviet Union, and Iran) and outside.
Where do the Kurds live?
90 up to 95 percent of Kurds live in “Kurdistan proper: one of the most accurate map of Kurdistan proper: http://www.ardalan.org/images/sine.jpg”.
What is the Kurdish case?
The Kurdish case is not the case of a specific organization and political party. It is the case of Kurdish people: 30 – 40 million Kurds for the right to self-determination. Precisely, “the Kurdish case is the case of the right to life, liberty, security and property for the Kurds". Almost 100% of conscious Kurds of all ages, gender, classes, and locals…etc. agree such rights can not be guaranteed by other means than the formation of an independent Kurdish state in “Kurdistan proper”. The following brief history is the main logic, which has given "the Kurdish case" credibility and viability in many international forums and the United Nations:
During the rulership of the Ottoman and the Persian empires the Kurds lived and coexisted with the Turks and Persians. In the last period of these two imperial powers, most of the the Arab regions were ruled by the Turks. The Kurds governed local regions of Kurdistan through provincial types of governments mainly connected to the center of the imperial powers in Istanbul or/and Teheran and other Persian imperial capitals until the first world war, when the Ottomans and the Persians lost in the war.
After the first world war, modern state system emerged in the Middle East. Current states of Iraq, Iran, and Syria and Turkey…were formed and recognized by the League of Nations. Kurds were granted a state of their own under sections of Severs Treaty in early 1920s – Kurds were not successful in establishing an independent Kurdish state. In 1923 the Lausanne Treaty replaced the Severs Treaty, and the Kurds were left without a state of their own.
As a nation without an independent state of their own, Kurds have never accepted the rule of the governments of those states. The main reason has been, all those states have subjugated Kurds to slavery of exploitation and Kurds indiscriminately were deprived of the basic rights to “life, liberty, security and property” contrary to the full rights of the dominant ethnic groups of those states: Turks, Persians and Arabs.
Since the foundation of the modern states system in Middle East in 1920s, countless cases of human rights violations, genocide, mass-expulsion, mass deportation, forcible migration, linguicide, ethnocide of the Kurds have occurred under the rulership of those states. Thus, the logic of the Kurdish case for a Kurdish state-formation has been in formation since the foundation of modern state-system in the Middle East.
Kurds in Turkey: Turkey has been objecting to the recognition of the “Kurdish case”. It is the objection and denial of the Kurdish case, the incrimination of the Kurdish movement for the right to self-determination has to be challenged and criticised by the United Nations and the international community. Last year the Turkish government banned peaceful and legally operating Kurdish political party Democratic Society Party (DTP), arrested 100s, may be 1000s of high ranking members of the party which was legally operating. The United Nations Security Council and the United States government have to reject and deny the incrimination of innocent Kurds who are working for their “right to life, liberty, security and property” through peaceful means of political and civil society institutions.
The Turkish government has been incriminating any actor or entity which recognizes the “Kurdish case” both as the “Kurdish right to life, liberty, security and property” and in its final solution form “the formation of an independent Kurdish state”. The preamble and the first 4 sections of the Turkish constitution deny the recognition of any other ethnic identity except Turkish ethnic identity in Turkey.
Thus, the Kurds of Turkey must be de-labelled, must not be blamed, and de-incriminated. For lack of justice and recognition of Kurdish and other ethnic identities in turkey and their basic rights - the Turkish government must be criticised, blamed and ordered by the United Nations’ security council, United States government, the European parliament to change its laws and practices. If Turkish government changes its approach and accepts Kurdish rights and freedom grounded on the rights to nations to self-determination and universal declarations of human ritghs, there will be no-threat to Turkish sovereignty; in fact Turkey may become a just-democratic and a progressive state.
A sovereign is acceptable and has validity only when provides for its constituents full "rights to life, liberity security and property" and acts in their best interest. If a sovereign does not guarantee these rights to its subjects, its rulership will be challenged in various capacities as it has been in Turkey. Thus, the Turkish government is not a legitimate sovereign with which the Kurds agree.
The Turkish government has used two main methods against the Kurds:
1) Regard less of work method; the Turkish government has intimately incriminated any political organization and civil society institution which have been advocating Kurdish rights and freedoms. For example since early 1970s the Turkish government has banned over 20 Kurdish political parties for various alleged reasons. The parties represented the Kurdish legitimate rights and freedoms which every nation enjoys. The work methods of those parties for obtaining those rights and freedoms were peaceful and legal by all united nation's standards - but they were banned.
2) A number of Kurdish political parties took up armed campaign, which were automatically banned and labelled violent.
The conclusion is: it has not made much difference whether the Kurdish political parties in Turkey mobilized a violent method or peaceful democratic methods of politics for obtaining Kurdish rights and freedoms, the Turkish government banned the parties, as we know recently in October - November 2010 the banning of Kurdistan Democratic Society Party (DTP).
* The project of supporting/accepting Kurdish right to democracy, to self-determination and removing Kurdish liberation movement in Turkey from violent list, based on the principles set out in the universal declarations of rights of nations can not succeed - if the court does not lawfully with due diligence accept the realities of the injustice and violations of Kurdish “right to life, liberty, security and property” by the Turkish government.
- the following two pages may further aid understanding the Kurdish case/question, including that of Kurds within administrative borders of the state of Turkey:
-http://www.xing.com/profile/Karim_Hasan
- http://karimhasan.wordpress.com/
___________
Note:
1) Kurdish case in Syria, Iraq and Iran share main components with the Kurdish case in Turkey - in each part of Kurdistan, the case is in different stages of its solution.
* I am still experiencing minor instances of distorted communication.
-Published on Kurdish Aspect:http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc022310KH.html-
An accurate description and understanding of the Kurdish case for the right to self-determination will be helpful for the supreme court of the United States, the government, the attorney acting on behalf of Kurdish people’s right to self-determination in that part of Kurdistan. Let us begin by answering the following questions, which will provide a number of definitions central to the understanding of the Kurdish case:
Who are the Kurds?
Kurds are the people who speak Kurdish language as a native language. Kurdish is the language of the ethnic Kurds – who have been living in Kurdistan proper for thousands of years. Kurdish language consists of two main dialects: the northern and the southern Kurdish.
What is their population count/census?
There is no accurate census of Kurdish population. According to most creditable sources about 30 – 40 million Kurds live in “Kurdistan proper: one of the most accurate maps of Kurdistan proper http://www.ardalan.org/images/sine.jpg” (parts of Kurdistan divided between Iraq, Syria, Turkey, former Soviet Union, and Iran) and outside.
Where do the Kurds live?
90 up to 95 percent of Kurds live in “Kurdistan proper: one of the most accurate map of Kurdistan proper: http://www.ardalan.org/images/sine.jpg”.
What is the Kurdish case?
The Kurdish case is not the case of a specific organization and political party. It is the case of Kurdish people: 30 – 40 million Kurds for the right to self-determination. Precisely, “the Kurdish case is the case of the right to life, liberty, security and property for the Kurds". Almost 100% of conscious Kurds of all ages, gender, classes, and locals…etc. agree such rights can not be guaranteed by other means than the formation of an independent Kurdish state in “Kurdistan proper”. The following brief history is the main logic, which has given "the Kurdish case" credibility and viability in many international forums and the United Nations:
During the rulership of the Ottoman and the Persian empires the Kurds lived and coexisted with the Turks and Persians. In the last period of these two imperial powers, most of the the Arab regions were ruled by the Turks. The Kurds governed local regions of Kurdistan through provincial types of governments mainly connected to the center of the imperial powers in Istanbul or/and Teheran and other Persian imperial capitals until the first world war, when the Ottomans and the Persians lost in the war.
After the first world war, modern state system emerged in the Middle East. Current states of Iraq, Iran, and Syria and Turkey…were formed and recognized by the League of Nations. Kurds were granted a state of their own under sections of Severs Treaty in early 1920s – Kurds were not successful in establishing an independent Kurdish state. In 1923 the Lausanne Treaty replaced the Severs Treaty, and the Kurds were left without a state of their own.
As a nation without an independent state of their own, Kurds have never accepted the rule of the governments of those states. The main reason has been, all those states have subjugated Kurds to slavery of exploitation and Kurds indiscriminately were deprived of the basic rights to “life, liberty, security and property” contrary to the full rights of the dominant ethnic groups of those states: Turks, Persians and Arabs.
Since the foundation of the modern states system in Middle East in 1920s, countless cases of human rights violations, genocide, mass-expulsion, mass deportation, forcible migration, linguicide, ethnocide of the Kurds have occurred under the rulership of those states. Thus, the logic of the Kurdish case for a Kurdish state-formation has been in formation since the foundation of modern state-system in the Middle East.
Kurds in Turkey: Turkey has been objecting to the recognition of the “Kurdish case”. It is the objection and denial of the Kurdish case, the incrimination of the Kurdish movement for the right to self-determination has to be challenged and criticised by the United Nations and the international community. Last year the Turkish government banned peaceful and legally operating Kurdish political party Democratic Society Party (DTP), arrested 100s, may be 1000s of high ranking members of the party which was legally operating. The United Nations Security Council and the United States government have to reject and deny the incrimination of innocent Kurds who are working for their “right to life, liberty, security and property” through peaceful means of political and civil society institutions.
The Turkish government has been incriminating any actor or entity which recognizes the “Kurdish case” both as the “Kurdish right to life, liberty, security and property” and in its final solution form “the formation of an independent Kurdish state”. The preamble and the first 4 sections of the Turkish constitution deny the recognition of any other ethnic identity except Turkish ethnic identity in Turkey.
Thus, the Kurds of Turkey must be de-labelled, must not be blamed, and de-incriminated. For lack of justice and recognition of Kurdish and other ethnic identities in turkey and their basic rights - the Turkish government must be criticised, blamed and ordered by the United Nations’ security council, United States government, the European parliament to change its laws and practices. If Turkish government changes its approach and accepts Kurdish rights and freedom grounded on the rights to nations to self-determination and universal declarations of human ritghs, there will be no-threat to Turkish sovereignty; in fact Turkey may become a just-democratic and a progressive state.
A sovereign is acceptable and has validity only when provides for its constituents full "rights to life, liberity security and property" and acts in their best interest. If a sovereign does not guarantee these rights to its subjects, its rulership will be challenged in various capacities as it has been in Turkey. Thus, the Turkish government is not a legitimate sovereign with which the Kurds agree.
The Turkish government has used two main methods against the Kurds:
1) Regard less of work method; the Turkish government has intimately incriminated any political organization and civil society institution which have been advocating Kurdish rights and freedoms. For example since early 1970s the Turkish government has banned over 20 Kurdish political parties for various alleged reasons. The parties represented the Kurdish legitimate rights and freedoms which every nation enjoys. The work methods of those parties for obtaining those rights and freedoms were peaceful and legal by all united nation's standards - but they were banned.
2) A number of Kurdish political parties took up armed campaign, which were automatically banned and labelled violent.
The conclusion is: it has not made much difference whether the Kurdish political parties in Turkey mobilized a violent method or peaceful democratic methods of politics for obtaining Kurdish rights and freedoms, the Turkish government banned the parties, as we know recently in October - November 2010 the banning of Kurdistan Democratic Society Party (DTP).
* The project of supporting/accepting Kurdish right to democracy, to self-determination and removing Kurdish liberation movement in Turkey from violent list, based on the principles set out in the universal declarations of rights of nations can not succeed - if the court does not lawfully with due diligence accept the realities of the injustice and violations of Kurdish “right to life, liberty, security and property” by the Turkish government.
- the following two pages may further aid understanding the Kurdish case/question, including that of Kurds within administrative borders of the state of Turkey:
-http://www.xing.com/profile/Karim_Hasan
- http://karimhasan.wordpress.com/
___________
Note:
1) Kurdish case in Syria, Iraq and Iran share main components with the Kurdish case in Turkey - in each part of Kurdistan, the case is in different stages of its solution.
* I am still experiencing minor instances of distorted communication.
A review of “Kurds don’t need a country to build a successful state”
Note: this review has been published with Kurdish Aspect (http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc010310KH.html)
A review of “Kurds don’t need a country to build a successful state”
Published on January 31, 2010, the article [1] presents a distorted reading of Kurdish right to state-formation through misuses of facts, distorted concepts and expressions. I am sincerely concerned about the credibility of Chatham House – a teaching an educational institute long has been praised for an “independent thinking on international affairs”. There are three main areas which I have reviewed: the writer’s intentions, the distorted concepts and the distorted facts.
After such a long period of denial of Kurdish genocide, the project for complete invasion of Kurdistan Region by Iraqi government which began in 1970s, it reached its peak during expulsion, deportation of Kurds from the country side in late 1970s and 1980s, the chemical bombings of 1980s, the mass-exodus of approximately 4 million Iraqi Kurds to the border regions with Turkey, Iraq and Syria in early 1991, sanctions and middling by Iran, Turkey, Syria and Iraq in to the affairs of Kurdistan Region – Iraq between 1991 – 2003, the Kurds did survive and progressed to formalize and to attain international recognition of federal arrangement between Kurdistan Region and Iraqi central government.
Kurds and Kurdistan have paid very heavy price to achieve the present condition of progressive stability and growth in Kurdistan Region. This stability has been accomplished under the formalization and internationalization of Kurdish and Kurdistan rights, freedoms and responsibilities. About 40 percent of outstanding political economic, territorial rights of Kurdistan region has remained to be returned to Kurdistan Regional Government.
Kurdistan Region in Iraq is a federal region within Iraq – administered by Kurdistan Regional Government are the provinces of Slemani, Hewler, and Duhok. The remaining Kurdish towns and cities have been left to be returned, and to rejoined with Kurdistan Region under the legal framework provided in Article 140 of Iraq’s Constitution. The regions of Kurdistan which have to rejoin Kurdistan Regional Government administration are parts of province of Neineua, the province of Kirkuk, parts of province of Diyale.
The author of “Kurds don’t need a country to build a successful state” pretends that there are not any outstanding Kurdish financial, economic, political, territorial Kurdish rights which are legally ingrained and guaranteed in Iraqi’s constitution left to be consented to by the Iraqi government. The author intentionally trivializes, under states Kurdish rights and freedoms.
He along with the Arab countries owe serving the Kurds and the people of Kurdistan a viable just approach in assessing and establishing a Kurdish state as their duty of good neighbourly relations with the Kurds and the people of Kurdistan. If they want to be considered accurate, justifiable, and accepting of in their relations with Kurdish neighbours, whom are about 40 million living in Kurdistan proper and outside, they must not discriminate.
A few of the main ill-intentioned approaches are: “The Kurds understood that the international status quo would forces them to reconnect with Baghdad. Thus, they moved to their second best
option: they rejoined Iraq but made sure it would be a federal union that would give their northern regions enough cultural, economic and political independence”.
First, it was not the international community which pressured the Kurds. It was the hasty and greedy neighbours of Kurdistan which made trouble and objected to Kurdistan’s independence. Contrary to the position of Kurdistan’s neighbours, the international community gets along with Kurdish region very well and most of members of the UN do not object to Kurdish independence.
Second, in the definition and application of rights and independence – there are not categories of “enough independence” and “enough right” as the author points out. In legal terms, “independence” is absolute, it is the sovereign that is independent and has independence, which is undividable. Less than that degree of independence, sovereignty can not be complete, and it can not be reduced to dependent and to dividable entities.
A “right” is defined in law, i.e., Kurdistan has the right to be independent under the right of nations to self-determination. Independence and rights are measured, defined in relation with similar international entities, which have the right to independent and they are independent, for example, sovereign nation-states. Further, the author makes the following statement “Meanwhile, the Kurd’s quest for an independent state has all but vanished”. This is a naive and a disturbing fellow whom wants to deprive a nation of 40 million from their rights. There are too many of his or her kind – unfortunately they are not all close-by each other.
In the title of the article “Kurds don’t need a country to build a successful state”, the concepts of “country” and “state” are distorted. This is another example of intentional distortion of English language and lack of understanding of the correlation between a whole range of category of concepts which contribute to knowledge of fields of political science and various interdisciplinary approaches to the studies of the state, government, sovereignty and administration …etc.
If the author thinks – Kurdish attempts to obtain national rights, a category of rights which all the nations have been granted to have, is a dogmatic approach, why would not he apply his theories of dogmatism to his own home country of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations – I am certain he will get a very tough response. The author states “In 1986, Iraq’s former president Saddam Hussien ordered Operation Al Anfal, killing close to 150, 000 Kurds over the course of three years”.
According to the United States Foreign Relations Committee study report undertaken in late 1980s, and made public in early 1990s: 180, 000 Kurds were killed in “operation Al-Anfal” (the genocide of the Kurds) in 1980s by Iraqi regime.
The author states many other distorted facts. For example, the internal conflict among the Kurdish forces. An explanation, description of that time period and the disparities must be ingrained with viable research, which brings to the fore the hidden projects, plans and conspiracies of the Turkish, Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi governments created conditions of poverty, health problems…etc in Kurdistan Region.
The author has not achieved the necessary level of accuracy in presenting the facts without dispute. Thus, he has not achieved the level of consistency in answering his readers precisely the simple question of “what is”? This means – the author does not have sufficient knowledge about Kurdish and Kurdistan’s history, society, politics and the current state of affair. Thus, he can not be entrusted to undertake this project as a fellow in Chatham House for four main reasons.
First, he has presented distorted knowledge of the field of the study of government, state and state-craft, which means lack of knowledge of political science. Second, the evidence shown provides language games, and/or lack of knowledge of the language of the fields which has led to the distortion of English language.
Third, Kurds and Kurdistan never accept this type of project, because it has mobilized certain techniques to cover highly disturbing biases against Kurdish rights and freedoms to state-formation. Fourth, the production of such studies can not be accepted as knowledge.
At the end – I leave the writer with one simple question and a simple response. Is the writer of “Kurds don’t need a country to build a successful state” an author, a viable academic, researcher? The answer is: “No”, he is not. He is the distorter of the rights of 40 million Kurds to self-determination and state-formation.
Karim Hasan is an independent Kurdish scholar: karim.hasan@hotmail.com
Page: http://www.xing.com/profile/Karim_Hasan
_________________
1. I do not think the name is accurate “Hussian Abdul-Hussain” the author is supposedly a visiting fellow with Chatham House, London, in the United Kingdom: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/directory/view/-/id/154/ The article is published on United Arab Emirates “The National”: http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100201/OPINION/701319960/1006
Republished: http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2010/2/independentstate3470.html
A review of “Kurds don’t need a country to build a successful state”
Published on January 31, 2010, the article [1] presents a distorted reading of Kurdish right to state-formation through misuses of facts, distorted concepts and expressions. I am sincerely concerned about the credibility of Chatham House – a teaching an educational institute long has been praised for an “independent thinking on international affairs”. There are three main areas which I have reviewed: the writer’s intentions, the distorted concepts and the distorted facts.
After such a long period of denial of Kurdish genocide, the project for complete invasion of Kurdistan Region by Iraqi government which began in 1970s, it reached its peak during expulsion, deportation of Kurds from the country side in late 1970s and 1980s, the chemical bombings of 1980s, the mass-exodus of approximately 4 million Iraqi Kurds to the border regions with Turkey, Iraq and Syria in early 1991, sanctions and middling by Iran, Turkey, Syria and Iraq in to the affairs of Kurdistan Region – Iraq between 1991 – 2003, the Kurds did survive and progressed to formalize and to attain international recognition of federal arrangement between Kurdistan Region and Iraqi central government.
Kurds and Kurdistan have paid very heavy price to achieve the present condition of progressive stability and growth in Kurdistan Region. This stability has been accomplished under the formalization and internationalization of Kurdish and Kurdistan rights, freedoms and responsibilities. About 40 percent of outstanding political economic, territorial rights of Kurdistan region has remained to be returned to Kurdistan Regional Government.
Kurdistan Region in Iraq is a federal region within Iraq – administered by Kurdistan Regional Government are the provinces of Slemani, Hewler, and Duhok. The remaining Kurdish towns and cities have been left to be returned, and to rejoined with Kurdistan Region under the legal framework provided in Article 140 of Iraq’s Constitution. The regions of Kurdistan which have to rejoin Kurdistan Regional Government administration are parts of province of Neineua, the province of Kirkuk, parts of province of Diyale.
The author of “Kurds don’t need a country to build a successful state” pretends that there are not any outstanding Kurdish financial, economic, political, territorial Kurdish rights which are legally ingrained and guaranteed in Iraqi’s constitution left to be consented to by the Iraqi government. The author intentionally trivializes, under states Kurdish rights and freedoms.
He along with the Arab countries owe serving the Kurds and the people of Kurdistan a viable just approach in assessing and establishing a Kurdish state as their duty of good neighbourly relations with the Kurds and the people of Kurdistan. If they want to be considered accurate, justifiable, and accepting of in their relations with Kurdish neighbours, whom are about 40 million living in Kurdistan proper and outside, they must not discriminate.
A few of the main ill-intentioned approaches are: “The Kurds understood that the international status quo would forces them to reconnect with Baghdad. Thus, they moved to their second best
option: they rejoined Iraq but made sure it would be a federal union that would give their northern regions enough cultural, economic and political independence”.
First, it was not the international community which pressured the Kurds. It was the hasty and greedy neighbours of Kurdistan which made trouble and objected to Kurdistan’s independence. Contrary to the position of Kurdistan’s neighbours, the international community gets along with Kurdish region very well and most of members of the UN do not object to Kurdish independence.
Second, in the definition and application of rights and independence – there are not categories of “enough independence” and “enough right” as the author points out. In legal terms, “independence” is absolute, it is the sovereign that is independent and has independence, which is undividable. Less than that degree of independence, sovereignty can not be complete, and it can not be reduced to dependent and to dividable entities.
A “right” is defined in law, i.e., Kurdistan has the right to be independent under the right of nations to self-determination. Independence and rights are measured, defined in relation with similar international entities, which have the right to independent and they are independent, for example, sovereign nation-states. Further, the author makes the following statement “Meanwhile, the Kurd’s quest for an independent state has all but vanished”. This is a naive and a disturbing fellow whom wants to deprive a nation of 40 million from their rights. There are too many of his or her kind – unfortunately they are not all close-by each other.
In the title of the article “Kurds don’t need a country to build a successful state”, the concepts of “country” and “state” are distorted. This is another example of intentional distortion of English language and lack of understanding of the correlation between a whole range of category of concepts which contribute to knowledge of fields of political science and various interdisciplinary approaches to the studies of the state, government, sovereignty and administration …etc.
If the author thinks – Kurdish attempts to obtain national rights, a category of rights which all the nations have been granted to have, is a dogmatic approach, why would not he apply his theories of dogmatism to his own home country of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations – I am certain he will get a very tough response. The author states “In 1986, Iraq’s former president Saddam Hussien ordered Operation Al Anfal, killing close to 150, 000 Kurds over the course of three years”.
According to the United States Foreign Relations Committee study report undertaken in late 1980s, and made public in early 1990s: 180, 000 Kurds were killed in “operation Al-Anfal” (the genocide of the Kurds) in 1980s by Iraqi regime.
The author states many other distorted facts. For example, the internal conflict among the Kurdish forces. An explanation, description of that time period and the disparities must be ingrained with viable research, which brings to the fore the hidden projects, plans and conspiracies of the Turkish, Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi governments created conditions of poverty, health problems…etc in Kurdistan Region.
The author has not achieved the necessary level of accuracy in presenting the facts without dispute. Thus, he has not achieved the level of consistency in answering his readers precisely the simple question of “what is”? This means – the author does not have sufficient knowledge about Kurdish and Kurdistan’s history, society, politics and the current state of affair. Thus, he can not be entrusted to undertake this project as a fellow in Chatham House for four main reasons.
First, he has presented distorted knowledge of the field of the study of government, state and state-craft, which means lack of knowledge of political science. Second, the evidence shown provides language games, and/or lack of knowledge of the language of the fields which has led to the distortion of English language.
Third, Kurds and Kurdistan never accept this type of project, because it has mobilized certain techniques to cover highly disturbing biases against Kurdish rights and freedoms to state-formation. Fourth, the production of such studies can not be accepted as knowledge.
At the end – I leave the writer with one simple question and a simple response. Is the writer of “Kurds don’t need a country to build a successful state” an author, a viable academic, researcher? The answer is: “No”, he is not. He is the distorter of the rights of 40 million Kurds to self-determination and state-formation.
Karim Hasan is an independent Kurdish scholar: karim.hasan@hotmail.com
Page: http://www.xing.com/profile/Karim_Hasan
_________________
1. I do not think the name is accurate “Hussian Abdul-Hussain” the author is supposedly a visiting fellow with Chatham House, London, in the United Kingdom: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/directory/view/-/id/154/ The article is published on United Arab Emirates “The National”: http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100201/OPINION/701319960/1006
Republished: http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2010/2/independentstate3470.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)