No PKK support to Kurdish state plans in northern Iraq

[Anthea]

As I said, KRG is not a nation state and includes all of the different ethnicities in its political formation, so no Kurd should take Karayilan's words negatively.

Except that 98% of Kurds within KRG are FOR a Nation State…

By the way if he told that, he repeated just what Öcalan said since ages. Not a surprising event. But considering that he is uses KRG as a shelter since many years and now for all his troops it is not very elegant to say that.

There is another danger : if PKK obey blindly to Öcalan (and until now it was the case) it means that it will apply the Turkish policy toward KRG, hostile or benevolent, so it is like welcoming wolves among the cattle.

While the PKK were fighting for some form of independence, autonomy or self-rule the Kurds in Kurdistan (they refer to themselves as Kurdish and their country as Kurdistan NOT South Kurdistan) were tolerant and to a certain extent supportive of them.

When the Kurdish government toyed with the idea of removing the PKK from Kandil mountains, they did not take any actions due to the support of the Kurdish population.

We all know that the Kurds of what we refer to as South Kurdistan, suffered a great deal more than Kurds in other parts of Kurdistan but the NEVER gave up. Now that the PKK have surrendered and destroyed any hopes for a future Great or United Kurdistan, they will find that the Kurds will no longer be so welcoming.

Already some of my friends from Kurdistan are voicing their disgust at the betrayal of the Kurdish people. I am certain that this feeling will grow into resentment and worse

Comments have been made about South Kurdistan not yet being a nation state. After the American invasion the Kurds were offered American support to become an independent country. The then leaders of Kurdistan refused to do so at that time because of the conflict within Iraq itself. The Kurdish government hoped that by working with Iraq for a period of time, they would be able to bring some stability to the region as a whole.

Had it not been for Kurdistan's involvement with the Iraqi government Iraq would have collapsed and there would have been tribal warfare. At that moment in time, the Kurdish infrastructure would not have been able to withstand such a conflict on it's borders.

However, as we all know, Kurdistan has grown from strength to strength economically, politically and militarily. It will become a Nation State, but it is still hoping that the conflict between the different tribes and Islamic factions clams down first before they make the final split.

Kurdistan is virtually independent as it is and has gained well deserved internal respect for it's achievements

Kurds had thought that the PKK was akin to their own Peshmerga, in supporting Ocalan the PKK have destroyed the Kurdish dream

[Qonyeyi]

If 98% of Kurds were for a nation state in KRG then there would be no education in Turkmen, Arab and Assyrian languages. There would be no freedom for Yezidis and there would be no non-Kurdish opposition allowed in parliament. Try and think for a second. Do you even know what nation state is? KRG in its current form is leaning towards a democratic federal state.

A federal KRG would mean that there is a region called Assyria, another Turkmenistan and a Rom land separated in their administration. Except Ankawa there is not ethnical homogeneity in KRG.

Why a nation state should mean one language, one race, one nation ? This is Jacobinism but not all nation states are built on this model. KRG constitution allows education in many mother languages and freedom of religion. It is the same rules in UE where most of states have more than one official language, languages of minorities, regional languages, etc.

You make a confusion between nation states and Jacobin States. Look at most of democratic states in the world and you could see easily that they have pluralism of languages, religions and origins. And these Democracies are nation states there are not much federal countries in the world.

There are also many federal states which are not democracies at all, and oppress or discriminate minorities : Russia, for example.

Yes a country where -95-98% of the population is of the same ethnicity can easily become a well functioning nation state with a nation state law which resembles the law in Turkey. But if KRG becomes a nation state it would cause a lot of trouble because SK has quite a lot areas with ethnic diversities. A lot of the ethnicities have been living there for a lot of centuries side by side with Kurds. Thus creating a nation state like the ones you are refering to would cause trouble. And this is not in the favour of Kurds. The Kurdish mentality and culture is tolerant and acceptable. It does not fit in with the basics of nation state ideas. Of course, in a future SK, the language would be Kurdish.

A nation state can have a democratic constitution that takes into consideration the various ethnicities of the nation state area. But then it is no longer a classic nation state, but rather, as I mentioned, a democratic nation. A democratic nation can turn into a democratic federal nation.

Russia is not democratic though. A better example would be Belgium or Canada or even Switzerland. Other nations have a nation state constitution, but in practice function with a democratic federal system like Spain.

But of course, when Karayilan is speaking of nation states, it is in the form of the ones seen in Middle East. And every nation state in middle east has ended in chaos.

[Piling]

But what PKK wants : sort of con-federalism or democratic autonomy (in fact no one could really understand what it is exactly) has nothing to do with federal states as they exist in the world. For example USA are a federal state but Americans think themselves as a nation.But that concept of nation differs from the ethnic belonging : the basis of this nation is citizenship and not ethnic origins (like French in fact) : jus soli. You born in a state you are a full citizen whatever your origin, your religion, etc.

Some states, at the contrary, gives their citizenship by birthright : Germany did, they are changing now, Turkey is still applying that concept of citizenship by blood.

For the moment, KRG inclines toward a jus soli citizenship : whatever you are (Christian Assyrian, Turkmen, Kurd), you are a a Kurdistani citizen (A Kurdistani, not a Kurd, that's the difference with Turkish conception of citizenship).

Kurdistan could build in the future a Kurdistani nation like an American nation, which has nothing to do with a Kurdish ethnic origin. Kurdistan could stay in Iraq as federal province, the status of its minorities won't change if it keeps the same constitution, it could be worse (if it adapts Iraqi restrictions for non-muslims).This has nothing to do with the fact to be a nation state. All depends on what people put in that 'Nation' concept.

Moreover KRG can be independent even without being a 'nation' state. When Karayilan says he is against an independent S. Kurdistan he makes a misinterpretation, then. S. Kurds could chose for the constitution they wish, federal or not, confederal (with Iraq, more probably, then), it has nothing to do with the fact to be independent.

[Cewlik]

Karayilan said in the interview clearly that their ideology is against a Kurdish sate. He also said that they want that Kurds remain parts of the states in which they live now.

So the case is not about nation state or federal state, its about that the PKK is generally against a independent Kurdistan.

[Anthea]

Karayilan said in the interview clearly that their ideology is against a Kurdish sate. He also said that they want that Kurds remain parts of the states in which they live now.

So the case is not about nation state or federal state, its about that the PKK is generally against a independent Kurdistan.

I cannot believe that the PKK are totally against an independent Kurdistan. My Kurdish friends who joined the PKK did so to fight for an Independent Kurdistan, or at the very least an autonomous Kurdish region.

My friends joined the PKK knowing that they were giving up their families and friends, and possibly their lives, in order to fight for a future for the Kurdish nation.

Any statement saying that the PKK "want that Kurds remain parts of the states in which they live now" and purporting to come from the PKK, actually comes from the minds of the TRAITOR Ocalan and his best friend erDOGan

I think that Karayilan should stand up against Ocalan before the fighters turn against the PKK leaders, because I am certain that statements such as this will disgust and anger the freedom fighters, as so many will have seen fellow fighters die for Kurdish freedom