Perspectives on Kurdish International Relations: ­Cross-border Kurdish agency between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan

Abstract

This paper analyses the specific transitional, cross-border, transnational characteristics of the Kurds from different theoretical perspectives, highlighting an application of one of these perspectives through a case study. It first outlines the possible analytical perspectives on the Kurds, emphasising the analytical value of borderland studies. Focusing on the political, economic, social, and governmental processes of the borderlands enlarges the scope of international relations and enables closer cooperation among different social sciences. The paper concludes with an illustrative case study on the importance of the study of borderland by exploring the rapprochement between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey in the mid-2000s. The main question discussed is how the southeastern borderland of Turkey shaped Ankara’s stance towards the Kurdish question and the country’s political and economic relations with the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). Beyond this bottom-up approach, the paper highlights the agency of the Kurds in developing positive relations between Turkey and the KRI.

Keywords:

• Kurds
• Borderland
• Turkey
• Iraq

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 R. Mills, Under the Mountains: Kurdish Oil and Regional Politics (Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2016), p. 2.

2 This type of analysis has significant obstacles, both for the researcher and in terms of methodology as well. For such a comprehensive (‘pan-Kurdish’) analysis, the researcher needs to be familiar with all four major Middle Eastern languages (Kurdish, Turkish, Arabic, Persian, and their variants) and also with the internal relations (or at least their Kurdish-related aspects) of the four countries with a significant Kurdish population. This approach confronts the researcher with the obstacle that, after the ‘consolidation’ of state borders in the Middle East in the 20^th century, it has been rather difficult to treat the Kurdish communities of four countries as one since the existence of borders has led to a multi-directional development and the emergence of at least four points of orientation for them. In addition, analysing the international relations of the Kurds in the diaspora poses an additional challenge to experts studying Kurdish relations.

3 L. Csicsmann,"A Közel-Kelet demokratizálódásának esélyei a 21. században" ‘The chances of democratisation in the Middle East in the 21st century’, Grotius, (24 May 2010), p. 3.

4 K. László,"Közel-Kelet-tanulmányok és a nemzetközi kapcsolatok elméletei" ‘Middle East studies and international relations theories’, Grotius, (1 October 2014), p. 17.

5 O. Bartov and E. Weitz, Shatterzone of Empires: Coexistence and Violence in the German, Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Borderlands (Bloomington-Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2013), pp. 1–22.

6 M. Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (London-New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 1–14.

7 E. Rothman, Brokering Empire: Trans-Imperial Subjects between Venice and Istanbul (Ithaca-London: Cornell University, 2012), pp. 1–28.

8 V. Aksan, Sabri Ateş, The Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands: Making a Boundary, 1843-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 1–85.

9 M. Kumral, Rethinking Turkey-Iraq Relations (New York: Palgrave, 2016), p. 231.

10 R. Kasaba, A Moveable Empire: Ottoman Nomads, Migrants, and Refugees (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009), p. 38.

11 S. Deringil, ‘‘They live in a state of nomadism and savagery’: the late Ottoman empire and the post-colonial debate’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 45(2), (2003), pp. 311–342.

12 U. Makdisi, ‘Ottoman orientalism’, The American Historical Review 107(3), (2002), pp. 768–796.

13 L. Benton, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400-–900 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 1–39.

14 After the First World War, despite the turbulent political situation, there were few substantial border changes (apart from the creation of the state of Israel and the occupation of the formerly Syrian province of Hatay by Turkey); the border of 1639 remained intact.

15 From a Turkish-Iraqi perspective, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) activity in Turkey and Iraq represents a specific phenomenon, and to understand it, the focus of the analysis must encompass the local context.

16 The PKK (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan, Kurdistan Workers’ Party), established in 1978, represents the militant branch of the Kurdish movement in Turkey, which was initially based on the ideology of communism mixed with nationalism. After the end of the Cold War, nationalism came to the forefront, while the weakened communist ideology was pushed into the background of the party’s ideology. From the 2000s onwards, the party and its sister organisations in neighbouring Kurdish-inhabited countries adopted a new ideological line, briefly described as democratic confederalism or ecological socialism. The PKK is considered a terrorist organisation by both the United States and the European Union.

17 M. Özcan, ‘From distance to engagement: Turkish policy towards the Middle East, Iraq and Iraqi Kurds’, Insight Turkey 13(2), (2011), p. 72.

18 T. Dudlák, "Törökország és iraki Kurdisztán kapcsolatának átalakulásai (1991-2014) - 2. rész"’ Nemzet és Biztonság 13(1), (2020), pp. 88–110.

19 K. Kirişçi, ‘The transformation of Turkish foreign policy: the rise of the trading state’, New Perspectives on Turkey 40, (2009), pp. 29–56.

20 M. Özdemirkıran, ‘Soft power and the challenges of private actors: Turkey-Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) relations and the rising role of businessmen in Turkish foreign policy’, European Journal of Turkish Studies 21(2), (2015), p. 9.

21 S. Al, E. Tugdar, ‘Ethnic capital across borders and regional development: a comparative analysis of Kurds in Iraq and Turkey’, in S. Al and E. Tugdar, eds., Comparative Kurdish Politics in the Middle East. Actors, Ideas, and Interests (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), pp. 173–175.

22 O. Pusane, ‘The role of context in desecuritization: Turkish foreign policy towards northern Iraq (2008-2017)’, Turkish Studies 21(3), (2020), p. 401.

23 Political and Economic Foundations of the Transformation in Ankara-Erbil Relations from Northern Iraq to ‘Iraqi Kurdistan’, in O. Oktav and H. Ertem, eds., Turkish Foreign Policy in the 2000s: Opportunities, Risks and Crises (Ankara: Nobel Akademik, 2015), p. 305.

24 Legally, Turkey recognized autonomy in 2005 with the adoption of the Iraqi constitution, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (2002–2014) admitted in a speech in Diyarbakır that year that Turkey had mishandled the Kurdish issue. G. Tol, ‘Untangling the Turkey-KRG energy partnership: looking beyond economic drivers’, in S. Aydın-Düzgit, D. Huber, M. Müftüler-Baç, E. Keyman, J. Tasci, and N. Tocci, eds., Global Turkey in Europe II: Energy, Migration, Civil Society and Citizenship Issues in Turkey-EU Relations (Roma: Edizioni Nuova Cultura, 2014), pp. 69–80.

25 H. Ertem, ‘From northern Iraq to ‘Iraqi Kurdistan’, Birikim, (2015), p. 295.

26 F. Wuthrich, ‘Kurdish nationalist organizations, neighboring states, and ‘ideological distance’’, in S. Al and E. Tugdar, eds., Comparative Kurdish Politics in the Middle East: Actors, Ideas, and Interests (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), p. 87.

27 M. Haas, The Ideological Origins of Great Power Rivalries, 1789–1989 (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2005), p. 1.

28 H. Milner, ‘Review: international theories of cooperation among nations: strengths and weaknesses’, World Politics 44(3), (1992), p. 478.

29 Y. Bozdaglioglu, Turkish foreign policy and Turkish identity: a constructivist approach (New York: Routledge, 2003), p. 29.