Why Kurdistan would be a Conflict in the Middle East

The Kurds are one of the indigenous people of the Mesopotamian plains and the highlands of what is now south-eastern Turkey, north-eastern Syria, northern Iraq, north-western Iran and south-western Armenia.in these modern times, forming a distinctive community, united through race, culture, and language, though they have no standard dialect. The current situations of the Kurdistan might seem very sympathetic, full of torture and denial of their independence right by other foreign states.

The subject of Kurdistan is recently the kind of issue that, at confront esteem, appears to be sufficiently simple to see at the same time, as a general rule, and has numerous greater number of aspects than essentially gathering mistreated individuals who want autonomy. Despite all this, situations facing the Kurdistan simply do not give sufficient evidence or support to make the Kurdistan state independent. Therefore Kurdistan should just remain in its current state and the movement by the few Kurdistan individuals be stopped immediately. Rather than baring positive fruits, it bares negative fruits as Kurdistan movement creates more conflict affecting other states in the middle east which can be proved by the following claims.

First up on the reasons is that it will bring territorial integrity, this is the guideline under the global law that country states ought not to endeavor to elevate secessionist developments or to advance outskirt changes in other country states. On the other hand, it expresses that inconvenience by the power from an outskirt change is a demonstration of hostility (Elden, pp. 2083-2104). The Kurdistan have commandeered the creation of admittedly artificial borders that were initially used by the English and French colonist at the past century in order to mark their territories from being invaded by another colonist. The suggestion here is that the borders which were and still are illegitimate and, because of this, Kurdistan is somehow made legitimate by default and no country can stop them from forcefully setting up the border lines.

While Sykes-Picot had real resonations in the Middle East at the time that are as yet being felt today , the basic suspicions by master Kurdistan promoters and Sykes-Picot promoters is that Middle Eastern people groups are fixated on race, religion, and ethnicity and in this way cannot work similarly as typical social orders in the West. The claim likewise recommends the Middle Eastern States are inalienably insufficient for a similar reason. This contention runs perilously parallel to the un-mindful “they have been battling about there for a thousand years” contention used to intimate that Middle Eastern people groups are buried in hundreds of years old religious war and that they can’t live respectively without in the long run slaughtering each other.

Territorial integrity at the Kurdistan will come with a heavy price to pay. This is in terms of the land shared that is owned or located to the other direct neighboring countries like Iraq, Turkey and the rest. Even though the Kurds have their own separate government that is under the regime government of the shared countries it cannot divide itself from the shared countries as most of the Kurdistan citizen has gone deep in the city of the shared countries. The land itself is a source of income to the regime government as the government collects taxes that are from the Kurdistan citizen and if Kurdistan becomes an independent state. The government of the ruling neighboring nation will lose their resource.

The second example as to why Kurdistan should not become a state is it will bring the conflict to the middle-east which will be brought about by the distribution of natural resources. As its’ well known that middle-east is famously known for their well rich land and that field with oil otherwise known as the black gold.  Middle-east alone supplies half the world with oil and natural gasses. Kurdistan, in particular, has some good oil reservoirs that supply parts of the shared countries this is done through pipelining the oil and gasses at no cost.

If Kurdistan becomes a state it will mean bad news for the countries that were initially supplied the oil and gasses at no cost, where they will have to pay for the products even though it will be at a cheaper price per barrel doesn’t mean it will be the same to the independent countries as it was given to them freely thus making profit out of it when they get to export the oil to other foreign countries.

It’s all through this buying of the product that no government would allow for them to be paying for a product that they used to receive free and export to other countries to make profits. Here a conflict of interest would have been developed and not only will the separate government negotiate terms of how to solve the issue but they will try to forcefully control the fields containing the reservoirs, thereby involving militaries action and where there is a war there is always casualty of circumstance or collateral damage that maybe deaths of thousands of people both young and old.

A perfect example of this statement conflict is the Iraqi Kurdistan oil, Iran and Turkey are trying to extend their economic influence over Iraqi-Kurdistan oil, even as controversy flares over surreptitious deals between Kurdistan and Turkey, in which Kurdistan is said to sell their field close to five billion dollars to the Turkey government (Mamouri, p. 2). All this was done without consulting Baghdad which shares a section of the Kurdistan land with them.Iraqi Kurdistan has been shipping oil to Turkey without Baghdad’s knowledge, resulting in Iraq violating an OPEC agreement (Gareth R. V. Stansfield, 2003). As you can see here if the issues aren’t solved in time it might go a level higher than it already is since this two countries have war history record.

The third reasoning for supporting Kurdistan from becoming an independent state is that, if it becomes a state the action of just them gaining independence will cause a sparking of independent movements or revolutions among their own Kurdish population. Such movements get to become possible in Kurdistan sections that are shared geographically with the independent countries. There have already formed of Kurdistan government which gets to implement their laws to the Kurdistan people example is the Kurdistan regional government (KRG).

The conflict in this section arises when the Kurdistan becomes a state by itself, here the chain of events will fall into place even without planning them. First the Kurdistan population that is already in the independent countries will first feel oppressed, they will feel like that most of the human rights are limited when it comes to them and that the human rights will be for the privileged who are the rightful owners or citizens of the independent countries despite they to having left their entire life in the foreign country.

The next step that shall follow is the constant grumbling of the Kurdistan population until when one individual decides to speak up in public. Since they Kurds’ now know that they have a home to go to that is state independently they shall feel encouraged and motivated to cause an uproar as they will have nothing to fear. Finally here is where the government of the Kurdistan population will then come in and cause movements that would disturb the peace of a particular place.

Another reason that is far-fetched is that since Iraq is anal to western countries specifically the United States if Kurdistan achieves independence it would have weakened the Iraq military whois partly a combination of the Kurdistan and the Iraq soldiers. The Kurdistan would want to support their motherland leaving the foreign land. In this section, the Iraq army plays a major role in helping United States army in fighting the militia groups like the Islamic state (I.S) militia which is a terrorist group (Pelletiere, Johnson, & Rosenberger, pp. 41-48).

If the I.S group remains untargeted by the army they shall continue to expand into newer horizons or territories becoming even stronger, and with time they will decide to take on an entire country overthrowing the government and enforcing their militia ways on innocent lives. Its’ because of such reasoning that the even United States is against the idea of Kurdistan becoming an independent country or state.

Finally, we can anticipate the achievement a potential Kurdish state by relating it to the international relations hypothesis of authenticity. In a region that is unstable as that of the middle-east, the essential type of keeping up security for a state is to be effective (Clifford, p. 86). It would be basic for a free Kurdish state to reinforce its energy in the middle-east as fast as conceivable keeping in mind the end goal will be to survive. In any case, it was to do this, a security predicament would emerge. In light of this, it’s believed that the absence of good methodologies for the Kurds in pragmatist terms will make a Kurdish state impossible to be governed or managed (David P. Barash, pp. 225-226).

It is because of such ideology that it should be content that the insecurity in the middle-east will make it hard for a Kurdish to pick up security and turn into an effective state with great relations with its neighbors. Making the Kurdistan to be a state that is full of conflict, and in time if the situations remains unchanged it spreads to other surrounding countries forcing them to directly or indirectly incur their problems, for example, will be; if the Kurdistan’s start fighting on within one another the individual few will flee to the neighboring state which in time if the conflicts persist the surrounding borders, shall be hit by the calamities causing them to put up guards on the borders. It will be ground zero which is a battleground between Kurdistan and the surrounding border.

At the end of the day we can draw a conclusion, if the Kurdistan becomes a state by its self it will draw more harm or danger than success upon itself and the surrounding countries. Kurdistan should just remain as it is simply because it is not yet ready and certainly they have chosen not the best time to become an independent state if they have never even been in solidarity from the beginning of time. Now that time has passed and their population has tripled up it just gets to show everyone that Kurdistan should just remain as dependent state and not an independent state.

Never in history has there ever been recorded in a country which fought for its independence to successfully begin their journey in life. The country first will have to adjust to the government that will be full of many corrupted individual examples is South-Sudan country which fought to be separated from the North-Sudan, in the year 2011 (Matthew LeRiche, pp. 40-50). Several years later have passed and the country up to recent isn’t stable as there is lots of coup mission on militia wanting to overthrow the government. This example only gets to show as that Kurdistan should not gain independence to become a state.

Works Cited

Clifford, W. W. (2013). State Formation and the Structure of Politics in Mamluk Syro-Egypt, 648-741 A.H./1250-1340 C.E. Göttingen, Germany: V&R unipress GmbH. Page 86.

David P. Barash, C. P. (26 Mar 2013). Peace and Conflict Studies. California: SAGE publication. Page 225-246.

Elden, S. (2005). Environmental and Planning A. Territorial Integrity and the War on Terror, Page(s): 2083-2104.

Gareth R. V. Stansfield, J. (2003). Iraqi Kurdistan: Political Development and Emergent Democracy. Routledge.

Kedourie, E. (1960 VOLUME 6, ISSUE 3). Sir Mark Sykes and Palestine 1915–16. MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES, Page 340-375.

Mamouri, A. (6, jan, 2017). IRAQ KURDISTAN OIL A SLIPPERY ISSUE. Iraq: Iraq Pulse. Page 2.

Matthew LeRiche, M. A. (2013). South Sudan: From Revolution to Independence. oxford unversity press. Page 40-50.

Pelletiere, S. C., Johnson, D. V., & Rosenberger, L. R. (30 MAY 1990). Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East. Page 41-48.