For decades, the two-state solution has been the proposed remedy for the Israel-Palestine conflict. The rationale behind this approach is to invest more deeply in “regional stability” and “lasting and sustainable peace”, however, a pressing question arises: If regional stability and conflict resolution are the goals, why limit the application of the statehood solution to Israel-Palestine conflict alone? The Middle East is home to several significant conflicts, so why not extend support for self-determination to other cases, such as the long-standing aspiration for an independent Kurdistan? Recognising the right to self-determination for the Kurds could have a positive ripple effect on peace and security throughout the region, just as it is envisioned for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A Two-State Solution for Kurdistan
Since the partition of Kurdistan in the 1920s, Kurds have long been denied the meaningful exercise of self-determination within the states of Iran, Turkey and Syria and Iraq prior to 2003, with these host states exerting control over security, governance, and resources. This has sparked resistance and led to a situation reminiscent of colonial rule, where the international community often treats the issue as an internal matter for the states in question. However, the question arises: Can the status quo, which threatens international peace and security, be tolerated any longer?
Human rights violations against Kurds living in Kurdistani territories have escalated into large-scale atrocities and humanitarian catastrophes on several occasions, with the ever-present possibility of recurrence. The costs of maintaining this status quo are immense for the Kurdish people, even if their plight is not always prominently featured in global media. The question is, should the international community consider the Kurdish situation a pressing matter that requires its attention and intervention?
However, the denial of the Kurdish people’s right to self-determination has not only been a grave injustice but has also had a profound impact on international peace and security in the Middle East marred by strife. The partitioning of Kurdistan and the resulting century of human rights violations are interconnected issues that need to be addressed for the sake of peace and stability in the region. The time is long overdue for the international community to acknowledge the plight of the Kurds and consider statehood solution as a viable path toward a just and lasting resolution. You stand firm on the two-states solution and the Palestinian state recognition. However, the statehood approach advocated by you for the post-Hamas-Israel conflict period should also be reinforced and endorsed in support of the enduring Kurdish aspiration for self-determination.
A statehood solution for Kurdistan would not only address the historical injustices faced by the Kurds from their host states but also contribute to regional stability and security. It is essential to recognise that the Kurdistan issue is not merely an internal matter for the states involved; it is a matter of international concern. The international community, guided by the principles of self-determination and human rights, should play a more active role in facilitating an equitable resolution for the Kurds, ultimately paving the way for a genuine peace.
In addition, stability and security are intertwined throughout the Middle East. If the two-state solution is deemed a viable approach for resolving protracted conflicts and fostering regional stability, as is currently under consideration for the Israel-Palestine conflict, it should similarly be examined as a prospective resolution for the Kurdish nation. The Kurds have endured a century-long struggle for self-determination, warranting careful consideration of such a diplomatic framework. Recognising the Kurdish right to self-determination and actively supporting their path to statehood is not only a matter of justice but also a vital step toward a more stable and secure Middle East.
The prospect of two-state solution for Kurdistan was shared in a correspondence of 25 February 2024 with the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), addressing Lord David Cameron, the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, to explore potential avenues for international support towards Kurdish self-determination. The FCDO’s response, attached herewith, sheds light on the geopolitics of Kurdistan.
UK Foreign Office’s Position on Two-State Solution for Kurdistan
The letter showcases the UK’s multifaceted strategy concerning the Kurdistan issue, navigating between championing Kurdish aspirations and safeguarding the integrity of legal frameworks and diplomatic protocols.
The UK government delineates “Kurdistan” to denote the South of Kurdistan (in Iraq), while referring to the remaining three segments as “Kurdish communities” situated within the respective states of Syria, Turkey, and Iran.
Within this framework, the UK adopts a delicate balance, recognizing the complexities of the situation and the diverse interests at play. By advocating for the Kurdistan Regional Government’s autonomy within the constitutional framework of Iraq, the UK acknowledges the region’s unique status and strives to preserve its “semi-autonomous” governance structure. From a legal standpoint, it underscores the upholding constitutional arrangements and the rule of law within Iraq’s state framework.
The UK welcomes the forthcoming parliamentary elections in the Kurdistan Region and emphasizes the need for them to adhere to international standards. Moreover, the UK’s support for democratic processes, including the upcoming parliamentary elections in the South of Kurdistan, reflects the promotion political pluralism and inclusive governance.
At the same time, the UK’s stance of not recognizing the results of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s 2017 referendum on independence underscores adhering to legal frameworks and international norms. International law typically prohibits unilateral secession, emphasizing the necessity for any changes to a state’s territorial integrity to occur through peaceful and lawful means, including negotiation and agreement with the central government. By advocating for negotiated solutions and peaceful resolutions to territorial disputes, the UK aims to prevent escalations of conflict and preserve the stability of the region.
In general, For the UK, the geopolitics of Kurdistan remain frozen; the UK’s approach to the geopolitics of Kurdistan remains cautious and reactive, contingent upon the adherence of involved parties to established legal frameworks and diplomatic protocols. As long as stakeholders uphold the principles outlined in the letter and refrain from initiating any significant territorial or political developments, the UK’s stance is to maintain a status quo in the region. This entails a state of relative stability and predictability, wherein the UK’s engagement and interventions are primarily driven by a commitment to preserving peace, fostering cooperation, and upholding international norms. However, any deviations from this equilibrium could potentially disrupt the frozen state of affairs and prompt the UK to reassess its approach and response to the Kurdistan issue. The ongoing tension between the governments of Southern Kurdistan and Iraq, particularly their disagreement over budgetary matters and oil exports, has resulted in a relative stalemate. However, unilateral actions or escalations of conflict could potentially disrupt this impasse in their relationship. Therefore, the UK’s geopolitical stance on Kurdistan is inherently contingent upon the actions and decisions of all involved parties.
Notes:
