By #Shakhawan Shorsh#

The current political landscape of the Middle East is, to a significant extent, a legacy of early 20th-century colonial interventions. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, orchestrated primarily by the United Kingdom and France with the assent of Russia and Italy, sought to divide the territories of the collapsing Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence. Although the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) briefly entertained the notion of Kurdish autonomy, the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 dismissed such considerations
altogether. The new geopolitical borders established in the wake of these treaties gave rise to modern nation-states such as Turkey, Iraq, and Syria—boundaries drawn largely without consideration for the complex ethno-national mosaic of the region.

Among the groups most adversely affected by these developments were the Kurds—an ancient, sizable,and distinct ethnic nation indigenous to the Mesopotamian region. The Kurdish people were fragmented across five states: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and the Soviet Union. This division not only denied them statehood but also embedded their political marginalization within the international legal framework that followed.
From that point forward, successive regimes implemented systematic policies of denial and suppression.Across these five states, the Kurdish identity has often been treated as a security threat rather than a legitimate expression of cultural and national rights. The methods have ranged from cultural assimilation and political exclusion to outright violence and genocide.In Turkey, initial promises of Kurdish autonomy were quickly reversed. The Zilan (1930) and Dersim (1937–38) massacres are emblematic of the brutal campaigns aimed at crushing Kurdish dissent. Turkish state policy for nearly a century adhered to a doctrine that denied the very existence of the Kurds, referring to them euphemistically as mountain Turks.
In Iran, Kurdish movements were violently suppressed during the 1920s and 1940s, and the Islamic Republic has continued this legacy, frequently equating Kurdish activism with religious heresy. Kurdish political demands have been criminalized, and executions of Kurdish activists are not uncommon. Iraq witnessed some of the most horrific episodes of state violence against the Kurds. During the British Mandate, air power was used to suppress Kurdish uprisings, including those led by Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji. Later in the 1960s, the nationalist government in Baghdad began committing mass killings and ethnic cleansing. Under Saddam Hussein’s regime, campaigns such as the Feily deportation and massacre
(1969 - 1981), the Barzani massacre (1983), and Anfal genocide (1988), which included chemical attacks on Halabja and other mountain areas, aimed to annihilate the Kurdish presence.
In Syria, the Kurdish minority was subjected to systematic discrimination. The 1962 census in al-Hasakah stripped tens of thousands of Kurds of their citizenship, rendering them stateless. Subsequent Baathist policies aimed at Arabizing Kurdish regions further marginalized Kurdish communities. Even in the Soviet Union, the fate of the Kurds was precarious. Stalin's policies led to the forced deportation of tens of thousands of Kurds to Central Asia and the dissolution of the short-lived Red Kurdish autonomous province “The Red Kurdistan” (1923–1929).
The cumulative effect of these policies has been a century of disenfranchisement, displacement, and repression for the Kurdish people. Despite this, the international community has largely remained passive,prioritizing geopolitical stability and non-interference over justice and minority rights.
The prevailing logic of the early 20th-century state system assumed that ethnic and religious diversity could be subsumed under the authority of dominant national groups, and that homogenized nation-states would lead to long-term stability. However, the past century has repeatedly disproven this assumption. The continued denial of Kurdish rights has been a recurrent source of instability in the region, exacerbating internal conflicts and cross-border tensions.In light of these historical and ongoing injustices, the principle of self-determination, enshrined in international law, becomes central. All indigenous and significant ethnonational groups—including the Kurds—should have the right to determine their political future, especially in cases where systemic oppression, assimilation, and genocide have denied them fundamental rights and existence.The creation of an independent Kurdistan is both a moral imperative and a geopolitical necessity. Morally,the international community bears a responsibility for its historical partiality and complicity—through the international community bears a responsibility for its historical partiality and complicity—through silence or active participation—in the repression of the Kurds. Although moral arguments are often insufficient in themselves to shape international policy, the case of the Kurds is also supported by strategic and security considerations.
First, unresolved Kurdish grievances continue to fuel cycles of violence and unrest, affecting not only the Kurdish populations themselves but also contributing to broader regional instability. The enduring conflicts between Kurdish movements and central governments in Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria have repeatedly escalated into wider confrontations.

Second, Iran and Turkey—both regional powers with expansionist tendencies—have used the Kurdish question to justify military interventions beyond their borders. These states, while themselves suppressing Kurdish aspirations at home, actively manipulate Kurdish dynamics in neighboring countries to pursue their own strategic objectives. In doing so, they undermine regional sovereignty and security.Third, in terms of broader Middle Eastern security, particularly in relation to Israel, both Iran and Turkey have supported actors that threaten regional stability. Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as its confrontational stance toward Israel, and Turkey’s support for various Islamist factions, present significant security concerns. In contrast, the Kurdish forces—especially in Iraq and Syria—have proven to be stable,secular, and reliable partners in the fight against extremism.
The Kurdish contribution to the defeat of ISIS was particularly notable. In Iraq and Syria, Kurdish military forces such as the Peshmerga and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) played a pivotal role in repelling jihadist advances, often at great human cost. This demonstrated not only their military capability but also their alignment with broader democratic and humanitarian values.

Conclusion: A century of repression, systemic injustice, and international neglect has proven that the status quo is neither sustainable nor just. The continued denial of Kurdish nationhood perpetuates instability and conflict. Establishing an independent Kurdistan, based on democratic principles and respect for human rights, would not only correct a historical wrong but could also contribute to a more balanced and secure Middle East. The international community, particularly those states that have benefited from Kurdish partnership in recent decades, should reconsider their policies. Supporting Kurdish self-determination—whether through full independence or meaningful autonomy—is not merely a matter of justice. It is also a pragmatic step toward a more stable regional order.[1]