« Previous |
11 - 15 of 15
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
12. Squaring the Circles in Syria’s North East
- Author:
- International Crisis Group
- Publication Date:
- 07-2019
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- International Crisis Group
- Abstract:
- The U.S. decision to leave troops in north-eastern Syria has bought the area time but not lasting stability. Washington should press its Kurdish YPG allies to loosen their PKK ties – lest Ankara intervene – and stop obstructing their autonomy talks with Damascus. What’s new? After President Donald Trump announced a full U.S. withdrawal from Syria, his administration decided to leave a residual force there. All parties – the U.S., Turkey, the Syrian regime, Russia and the PKK-affiliated People’s Protection Units (YPG) that control the north east – are adjusting their stance to the resulting uncertainty. Why does it matter? The withdrawal reprieve provides an opportunity to prevent a violent free-for-all in the north east. Had U.S. troops left precipitously, Damascus might have tried to recover the territory and Ankara to exploit the vacuum to destroy the YPG. A resurgent Islamic State could have filled the void. What should be done? Washington should use its remaining influence to address Turkish concerns about the PKK’s role in the north east while protecting the YPG; and Moscow should help the YPG and Damascus reach agreement on the north east’s gradual reintegration into the Syrian state on the basis of decentralised governance.
- Topic:
- Islamic State, Syrian War, Autonomy, and YPG
- Political Geography:
- Turkey, Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America
13. In the eye of the storm? (In)stability in Western Iraqi Kurdistan
- Author:
- Erwin van Veen and Hamzeh al-Shadeedi
- Publication Date:
- 07-2018
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
- Abstract:
- Iraqi Kurdistan has done well for itself in recent decades by carving out a largely autonomous region free of most governance and security interference from Baghdad. The alliance of convenience between the two pre-eminent Kurdish parties (PUK and KDP) effectively seized a number of opportunities to consolidate and expand Iraqi Kurdistan, such as the international no-fly zone (1991), the US intervention (2003), the crafting of a new constitution for Iraq (2005) and, arguably, even the rise of the Islamic State (IS) (2014). Yet, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) also faces a triple crisis. Politically, this includes the exclusive and increasingly repressive rule of the KDP and PUK in a context of mediocre governance, as well as strained relations between Erbil and Baghdad over the disputed territories. Economically, it includes a general downturn combined with serious financial disputes with Baghdad. Socially, it includes deteriorating popular satisfaction with the quality of rule and life in Kurdistan. In this report Erwin van Veen and al-Hamzeh al-Shadeedi analyse four factors that could drive future (in)stability in western Iraqi Kurdistan: 1) geopolitical tensions; 2) further clashes over the disputed territories; 3) growing dissatisfaction with the KDP and 4) protracted displacement. On balance, it does not consider the risk of immediate crisis or violence as being very high, but the report does note that many elements are in place that could easily trigger violent incidents with the potential of escalation. For each factor, the report proposes restraining factors, developments to monitor and trigger events. While international influence on the domestic politics of Iraqi Kurdistan is limited, coupling an offer of international (UN) mediation to facilitate resolution of the disputed territories with the development, or strengthening, of a dedicated fund that can rapidly initiate the reconstruction of the Greater Mosul area (including some of the disputed territories) would be a valuable intervention to further the peaceful development of Iraqi Kurdistan.
- Topic:
- Governance, Political stability, and Autonomy
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Middle East, and Kurdistan
14. Kurds in Iraq seek independence 100 years after Sykes-Picot
- Author:
- Janko Bekić
- Publication Date:
- 05-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
- Abstract:
- In February, Masoud Barzani, President of Iraqi Kurdistan, announced that a referendum on the independence of the autonomous region would be held by the end of 2016. He stressed that Kurdistan had the same grounds for demanding statehood as Scotland, Catalonia or Quebec. Equally, he opined, the right of the Kurdish people to decide their own fate was unnegotiable. During an earlier encounter with Western journalists, Barzani pointed to the upcoming centenary of the Sykes-Picot agreement (16 May 1916), which divided Ottoman assets in the Middle East into British and French zones of interest, laying the foundations for the creation of multi-ethnic and multi-religious Iraq and Syria. The President of the Kurdistan Region underlined that 2016 would be the year in which the Franco-British agreement of World War I would be annulled and the policy of “compulsory co-existence” in the Middle East �inally abandoned. The purpose of this brief is to succinctly discuss the case made for Kurdish independence, but also the many obstacles on the way towards it. Solid arguments in favour of secession Mr. Barzani’s central argument in favour of Kurdish statehood is the fact that international borders in the Middle East largely do not correspond to popular will; i.e. they have no legitimacy, only legality. Historically, they are by-products of foreign – Ottoman, and later Western European – rule. As such, they are open for revision, especially if the states in question have a track record of discriminating, forcibly assimilating, or – in the worst case – physically exterminating segments of the population. Another argument made by Mr. Barzani is one concerning “compulsory co-existence”. It's well-known that international power brokers are rather conservative when it comes to recognizing border changes or granting independence to secessionist entities. As a rule, these are considered only in instances of grave human rights violations, and only as a last resort. The Westphalian sovereignty of states has been greatly eroded by the concept of humanitarian intervention. However, international borders are still considered to be sacrosanct and – generally – untouchable. This often leads to the involuntary co-existence of ethnic, national and/or religious groups with no sense of shared identity or mutual interests. In such unfavourable conditions, democracies – if they exist – are little more than tyrannies of the majority.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Human Rights, and Autonomy
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Middle East, Syria, and Kurdistan
15. What are Kurds and Zazas Thinking About? A Look to the Shared Values and Symbols
- Author:
- Salih Akyürek
- Publication Date:
- 01-2011
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- BILGESAM (Wise Men Center for Strategic Studies)
- Abstract:
- Today, it is not the demands and choices of the people who are personally at the heart of the problems in southeastern Anatolia that have come to the agenda, but instead the thoughts and demands of the third-persons or people speaking on behalf of people. This, in turn, results in the issue losing its essence, a high tension between different ethnic groups and drags Turkey into a struggle and a polarization period. The easiest way to overcome this problem is to directly search the opinions of the people in the region, not the people who speak on behalf of them. Therefore, taking a fresh look at the existing problem with field researches and direct knowledge from the local community will provide more realistic information for the accurate strategies and solution proposals of the future. Recently, a confederative proposal of rights called “Democratic Autonomy” (collected under eight main topics) has come onto agenda and has been discussed as a claim for the Kurdish people’s views and demands. According to some estimates, this proposal of rights is useful to be discussed but also there are other considerations believing that it just establishes a ground for the separation of the country. Before arguing on the current demands, one has to prove whether or not these demands are really the Kurdish demands. Another issue is to find out what are the real Kurdish demands and expectations and to generate some solution strategies concerning this problem. At this point, once more, one needs to underline the importance of field work which designate the problems and set the expectations.
- Topic:
- Democratization, Sectarianism, Minorities, Kurds, and Autonomy
- Political Geography:
- Turkey and Middle East