Published at Arab African Studies Foundation AVERROES
While Global attention is turning towards minorities’ issues, it can be seen that the Kurds are just around the corner from realizing their historical dream, which they have always pursued to achieve.
Through independence referendum, Kurds are presenting a new source of tension, and a “casus belli” reason of war, to be added to the regional conflicts in the Middle East.
Given all the regional variables, the timing of this referendum is absolutely critical, taking into consideration the weaknesses of the nation-states due to the events of the so-called Arab Spring, and its repercussions, which were translated by revolutions and counter-revolutions, causing not only significant international divisions (the crisis of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, for example) but also internal splits within the society (the secularism- Islamism conflict). Kurdish leaders cannot find more favorable time to move forward with their old plans.
Meanwhile, the international community has not shown a clear desire to support the separatist initiatives. Because supporting minorities within the Middle East would mean legitimizing separatism in the EU. Spanish-Catalonia Recent conflict is a living example of this dilemma.
On the other side, “Israel” appeared to be one of the strongest supporters of the Kurdish referendum, a fact which can never be surprising, because the appearance of a non-Arab state within Arab region means the emergence of a new ally, which by default will change the geostrategic balance of the region and will enhance the future security of “Israel” by all means.
Moreover, the emergence of a Kurdish state will have a vital role in the strengthening the legitimacy of the “Israeli” existence on a land that did not belong to them less than a century ago. The next phase might carry a comprehensive normalization of Arab-Israeli relations, which will create a need for a stronger “Israeli” narrative in dealing with both the Arab and global public opinions.
As Henry Kissinger defines it an international system requires maintaining a balance between power and legitimacy. Hence, As Israel has been accumulating the power, its’ existence will always lack legitimacy. Such a reprehensible legitimacy can be a serious obstacle towards being a normal state, but all of this might change with the emergence of a Kurdish state in the heart of the Arab Region.
Ironically, Israel wants to strengthen its legitimacy by relying on the Kurdish model who’s Legitimacy is fundamentally questionable.
Finding a valid answer to this legitimacy dilemma requires revising the basic concepts through which the current International order was defined.
The Social Contract and Wilson’s Right to Self-Determination
It is essential to conduct a clear definition of the social contract, as it is the core principle in establishing the nation-state under which minority rights has emerged.
The social contract can be traced back to philosophical trends that came to meet basic needs that emerged in conjunction with the revolutionary events later known as the age of enlightenment.
While Thomas Hobbes saw the establishment of a state under absolute authority as a necessity to regulate the lives of individuals within society in order to limit their barbaric acts in the absence of legislation, John Locke, on the other hand.
denied the need for an absolute power. Locke set legitimacy in the hands of the people who are entitled to rise against any authoritarian power. Moreover, he insisted that people have the right to be represented by a parliament.
The most important view was Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s romantic school, as it became one of the most prominent ideologies of the French Revolution, which in turn have a central influence in shaping the basic rules of the current international order.
In his social contract, Rousseau insisted that persons should abandon their individual identities (ethnic, religious, racial, linguistic), in exchange for a more comprehensive and inclusive collective identity “macro-Identity”.
Rousseau also considered that individuals should put their force and their rights fully into the hands of the sum “the state” as a basic condition towards achieving justice and equality, which will guarantee the freedom of the individual within the group.
It should be noted that the nature of the contract that Russo articulated is not completely compatible with the principle of the minority’s rights.
In fact, the minority’s rights were not prevalent in that period, because the focus was mainly on the concept of nation-state
The nation-state “in practice” derived the legitimacy of its actions from the standpoint of the national interest, as expressed by the policy of Cardinal Richelieu, In the period immediately preceding the appearance of Rousseau, an earlier determination to the international order called “Raison D’etat”.
Following the First World War minority’s rights, became one of the international system’s dominant principles.
The minority rights most prominent pioneer was the American President Woodrow Wilson, who formulated a fourteen-point plan aimed to define a new international order that would restore stability and security to the world.
One of Wilson’s principles was the right to self-determination, which aimed to protect the minorities that formulated the multi-ethnic societies of the dissolved empires after losing the war (Austria and the Ottoman Empire).
The League of Nations, which formed the basis of what is now known as the United Nations, was the result of Wilson’s fourteen principles. The League of Nations was originally concerned about sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all the nations, and aimed to restore all of these concepts by means of collective security.
This hypothesized that the morality of Wilson’s Principles was based on the idea of a social contract and a nation-state. From this point of view, principles such as the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity must be viewed as the main framework within which the concept of minority rights is found.
This justifies the assumption that the narrative of the Kurdish leadership can be fundamentally demoralized, due to the referendum violation of the main framework within which only the of the right to self-determination can be considered legitimate.
From Morality to the International Law
*An expert in International Law Mr. Jalal Selmi pointed in a detailed article at the illegality of the Referendum, due to the legal obstacles that prevent converting the results of the referendum on the status of a ” One-Sided Jurisdiction ” to a soft law Rule.
Additionally, Mr. Selmi points out an important dilemma as he argues “the rules of international law cannot be considered as a law originally because they are a result of political consensus and not legal laws, which makes them flexible rules.
that each political party can develop according to its objectives, thus if Mr. Barzani really wants to split from Iraq, the Article 51 of U.N charter allows the support of the international coalition, that could be lead by Israel.
Thus, The nature of international law imposes that challenging the moral legitimacy of the referendum does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to find a legal outlet through which the referendum can be viewed as legal.
Romantic Nationalists Searching For Legitimacy
The most prominent example of romantic nationalism is the German nationalism, whose subjects experienced a long struggle to find their own unified state. However, there are relatively few similarities between German nationalism and Kurdish nationalism, because neither Barazani’s tactics can be compared to Bismarck’s Realpolitik, nor the 19th-century European balance of power can be compared with the current Middle Eastern regional balances.
Another model of romantic nationalism could be Israel who faced different circumstances leading to a “unique” project.
Similarly to Kurdish-Germany comparison, only a few similarities could be found between the Kurdish and the Israeli nationalistic models.
The most striking aspects of this similarity are the existence of both states within an Arab region, and their dependence on historical facts and legends that contribute to the romantic nature of both national projects, a fact that could be considered among the most important motives leading “Israel” to support the establishment of an independent Kurdish state in order to strengthen its own legitimacy.
The term romantic nationalism refers to the existence of a group of individuals united by certain characteristics (national, ethnic, race, religion, language), and sharing a common project that aims to establish an independent country on a targeted land.
This land will be probably occupied and/or governed by a different group of individuals, from a different (National) mixture and called “the others”.
The romantic nationalist’s looks toward “the others” with hostility, mostly because they consider them “usurpers of Nationalist’s right to self-determination.” Thus, an existential conflict arises among the nationalists and “the others”.
This explains the ability to translate romantic nationalist sentiments into diversified sort of actions in the process of implementing their project, ranging from creating a radical terrorist movement to constructing a “democratic” governing system.
An example of these terrorist movements could be “Zionist gangs formed following the Balfour Declaration” and “PKK founded by Ocalan in Turkey”.
It is important to note the fundamental value of the national narrative in formulating such a project. The national narrative might be encoded within literature “consists of a collection of historical stories, heroes, myths, and legends”. Furthermore, narratives will have greater effect when including stories of the oppression, persecution, and the diaspora literature.
This narrative aims to strengthen the national feelings among the group and to justify violent acts against “the others” whom will be seen as an obstacle to the realizing of nationalists project.
More importantly, this narrative aims to reshape international public opinion so as to provide more legitimacy to the national project.
Based on all of the above, it is asserted that the emergence of a new national Kurdish state within the Arab region will enhance the legitimacy of “Israel” and make its position more powerful in any possible peace negotiations in the future.
Furthermore, such a movement will intensify “Israel’s” narrative in facing of public opinion, in accordance with the so-called right of self-determination.
This Israeli strategic objective should not be considered less important than security, military, and intelligence cooperation between Israel and the potential Kurdish state.
Tarek Albitar is a specialist in Middle Eastern and International affairs, currently pursuing his Ph.D. in International Relations at Kocaeli University in Turkey.
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق