5/27/2011
Article - Untitled Article
Publication: Guardian 1821-2000; Date: Oct 16, 1979; Section: None; Page: 12
Why the Kurds
are friendless
If the Palestin1a s, why not the Ilurds?
The practice whereby legitimate rights are
recognised only if those who claim them
can cause enough international turmoil is
well established. It is probably essential to
the sanity of foreign secretaries, whose
work-load would otherwise know no bounds.
But it is ¼ hard to justify on any other
grounds. The Kurds have been fighting for
autonomy siinertEf ore the Second World
War (longer, but that is about as far back
as the prSent link goes) and their periodic
defeats have restored the blissful rormality.
They IdlE no ambassadors. They hijack no
planes . They live in the hills. Who cares?
The ICurds are once• again pressing
hard the authorities under whom they Jive.
7hey are concentrating especially en Ir an
(keeping Iraq fur relief and supplies) T7
every success calls forth more determined
vows of vengeance Iron the conclave of
© Guardian News and Media Limited
ayatollahs. There Is no ‘noticeable dissent
Indeed the çnly people who appear to sup-
port the Kurds are the Soviet Union and Its
outliers. They 4 0' not' support them rhetori-
cally or with draft resolutions at the Unite4
NaUons ; and that I . only prudent, for the
Kurt ir , 'j1kely to lose once again. Mow
over the Idea that ethnic minorities have
special rights Is not' one which the Soviet
Union wlshep to encourage, lest it be put to
the test at; home. But the Kurdish
weaponry, unless captured n the flew . is of
Sbviet and Czech manufacture. In so far as
the iCurds keep a sector of the! Middle East
unstaoie they are to be' encouraged. Mos-
+ cow's reasoning is as simple as that. Convere
sely iran finds it easier to represent the
Xurdfl% a Marx1st insurgent force rather
than a disaffected national minority like the
Iranian Arabs.
The studied amblguity qf the, rest of
the world is almost as cynically explained
as the Soviet interest. One difference be-
• tweeri the Palestinians and the ICurds is
that the former are fighting an OK enemy _C
Israel—whereas the latter are fighting Mos-
lem governments which collectively speak
for the Third World. Another difference Is
that Palestinians .have a vicarious hold over
the West's oil supplies 1 through their spon-
sors in, the' producing states; whereas the
Icurds are opposing the oil producers of
iran and Iraq. Justice (however defined) for
YRT Palestinians Is therefore at the top of
the agenda. A meeting to advance the cause
will end with prolonged cheers. Justice for
theKurds is not even on the agenda and no
mQe R lake place.
There are said to be 12 million Kurt ,
though it is unusual knowingly to meet one.
Since the land they claim, Kurdistan , over-
laps Iran , Iraq, Turkey, and Syria, they face
a powerful establishment. ‘The many fewer
Palestinians, whose envoys are everywhere,
face an. establishment of one. On the face of
it there is little in equity to distinguish the
one liberation movement from the other. In
politics there Is a great deal 1 A thought for
the day is that all who support “the legiti-
mate rights” of the Palestinians without a
fleeting reference to Kurdistan should at
least examine their niotwes. For either the
Palestinians attract too much international
attention or the Kurds do not attract enough.
archive.guardian.co.uk/.../getFiles.asp?...
1/2
