UTILITARIANISM

“Nothing can have value without being an object of utility” ~ Karl Marx.

There is a commentary at Israpundit from someone else who distrusts everything that the US and EU, and all their little allies, become involved with. I could find no link to indicate who wrote the comments or what the source is--and it's always important to evaluate sources--but there are some points made about the Kurdish situation in general. As a whole, it would seem that the author has just discovered the fact that there are no "friends" in politics, but only alliances, which I define as relationships to further one's own political interests. On the other hand, friendship is something which I define as only existing at the personal and individual level.

Given Kurdish history of the twentieth century, it is an extreme absurdity to speak of "friends" or "friendship" between the Kurdish people and any nation-state. The verb most frequently employed for the relationship between the Kurdish nation and other nations is the verb "to use," as can be seen in some of the comments on this blog post about Kurds. The ideas expressed by such phrases as "perhaps we are using," or "we should be using," Kurds, should set our teeth on edge. Another thing to notice about these kinds of comments, is that people who make them leave the impression that Kurds exist only in the small piece of land known as South Kurdistan, otherwise figuratively known as the "Good Kurds," with "good" having the meaning of "useful for someone else's interests." This is in opposition to the "Bad Kurds," those troublesome, restive and "terrorist" Kurds of Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, who, just as the "Good Kurds" of the South legitimately took up arms against successive Baghdad regimes, legitimately took up, and still do legitimately take up, arms against the occupying forces of the Ankara and Teheran regimes.

As I have noted before, it will be interesting to see if similar comment-writers ever take notice of the Kurds in Syrian- and Iranian-occupied Kurdistan, and, if they do, to see which label they will apply--Good or Bad. In other words, it will be interesting to see how useful the Rojavayî and Rojhelatî will be for the US, the EU, and all their little allies. In all of this, I am reminded of Şêx Mehmûd Berzincî, "whom the British never forgave for trying to use them in order to establish an independent Kurdistan, instead of allowing them to use him in order to subdue it," as Dr. Martin van Bruinessen so accurately puts it in Agha, Shaikh and State.

The most important thing to remember is that these enemies of Kurdistan all work together for their own interests and, by doing so, acquiesce in attempts to destroy the Kurdish people, even if individual self-interests do not have that destruction as their ultimate goal. The US and the EU are accomplices to the ultimate Turkish, Iranian, and Arab cultural and physical genocide, which means they share the guilt of the crime.

The commentary posted at Israpundit mentions that the US government supports HAMAS, which should be interesting to Kurds because of the fact that HAMAS is on The List®, just as the PKK is. We have not heard anything about Rice and Gul's discussions on HAMAS, not nearly as much as we have heard about PKK, which is interesting for two reasons. First, it would not be good for the image of either the US or Turkey to make a media event of the hypocrisy involved with any discussions between the two governments about HAMAS. Secondly, any such public discussion of this subject would be the slippery slope into the abyss of hypocrisy in which The List® was created, and from which it draws all its energy. To fall into that abyss would require a public discussion of Turkish atrocities against the Kurdish people, and America's overwhelming support for those atrocities. It would also involve a discussion of Europe's recent slide into that same abyss, clearly indicated by its recent support for the TSK and all other Turkish security force operations against Kurds, whether aimed at Kurdish military or political targets.

All of those who loudly clamor for the end of PKK, know exactly what they are clamoring for, and that is the complete destruction of the Kurdish people under Turkish occupation, in any way that it can be accomplished--by forced assimilation or by death. There is no way, otherwise, to remove PKK. Every time in the past, when the Ankara regime has declared the end of the PKK, it has always raised a defiant head, because that defiance which characterizes the Kurdish resistance, and which is derived from love of Kurdistan, is the inspiration for Kurds to seek an answer from the mountains. If there had ever been a political avenue under Turkish occupation for Kurds to use to insure justice, or if Turkey's allies, the US and EU, had ever used diplomatic and political means to end the severe repression of Kurds under Turkish-occupation, there would have been no need for Kurdish armed resistance. Apparently, it was not in the self-interests of these parties to seek justice for Kurds, it is not in their self-interests now, and it will not be in their self-interests in the future. Reliance upon them is, therefore, futile. Joost Lagendijk's current visit to Turkey reinforces Rice's recent visit on the matter of Kurds, as well as PKK. In fact, as Lagendijk's recent statement proves, the EU believes that Kurds will, one way or another, be forcibly assimilated.

The last item in the commentary article at Israpundit mentions the approval of the US for Turkish action against Kurds, even against South Kurdistan, saying, "Condi Rice has given the Turks the go-ahead to butcher the Kurds once again." Continued US support for butchering Kurds is consistent with past policies. However, there is an new angle from which to view future butchery, and that is the recent discovery of oil in South Kurdistan by the Norwegian company, DNO. It is no longer merely Kerkuk or Mûsil that are lucrative possibilities for Turkish militarist expansionism, but now all of South Kurdistan is a cash cow to be milked dry by the perpetually dismal Turkish economy. Why should Turkey be content to serve as the terminus for so many pipeline schemes, when it could own, by invasion, one entire system, at least, from beginning to end?

For a backgrounder on the energy question, the Baku Ceyhan Campaign site is a must read.

Everyone agrees there are deals to be had and profits to be made, with the only fly in the ointment being "terrorism," Kurdish "terrorism" in this case. Since HAMAS doesn't suffer from the region's curse--oil--they are acceptable partners for everyone. Kurds, on the other hand, are not acceptable partners, because the Kurdish dream of independence would reduce the control of Kurdish oil by occupiers. It is in the self-interests of the US, the EU, Turkey, and the rest of Kurdistan's neighbors to manipulate the current political situation in order to guarantee their full exploitation of Kurdish resources. Since it has become clear, through the experiment in self-rule in South Kurdistan, that Kurds are more than capable of governing themselves, it means that all Kurds are more than capable of the same.

Will the future, shaped by the enemies of Kurdistan, guarantee places on The List® for the KDP and PUK, as it does now for the PKK? Will the Kurds of the South become "Bad" then? When that happens, will it serve as the catalyst to Kurdish unity, or will it fuel greater division? The answer to such a question is moot, but the proposal of such a question means that it is time to remove all blinders and see the situation as it truly is. Now is the time for Kurdish political organizations to engage in pan-confederalism, leaving behind the divisions of the past and working together to use all others for pan-Kurdish self-interest.

If you listen carefully, you will hear the sound of hoofbeats. This is the sound of the Four Horsemen of the next Kurdish apocalypse. They may be distant yet, but it sounds to me as if they are coming this way.




[An NPR report on Iranian bombing of PKK/PJAK can be heard here]

ON A MUCH LIGHTER NOTE . . . There are some great photos of Yezidi kids here, here, and here by Onnik Krikorian from Oneworld Multimedia. The main page for this blog is in the sidebar, and I suggest you check out Onnik regularly, as he posts a lot of info and photos on Yezidi Kurds and Kurds often. The photos are always great.