It's unusual that there would be an article in The Iranian on
such a controversial topic ["The
last country"]. Unfortunately, ethnic groups who want their own
country usually fail to consider the economic factors involved in building
a country. Their driving motivation is purely based on cultural and ethnic
considerations. What would an independent Kurdistan export; what will
it trade? How would it maintain a viable economy? It is precisely for
this reason that Scotland has consistently voted against full independence,
instead choosing a limited form of self-autonomy within Great Britain.
The Kurdistan issue is very complex, to be sure. It sounds like I'm
oversimplifying the issue, but these are very real questions. Realistically
speaking, it is very unlikely that a Kurdistan will ever happen. There's
not a chance in Jahanam that Syria, Iraq, Iran, and especially Turkey will
ever relinquish territory. Ultimately, I think that Kurds need to wake
up to reality and realize that this will never happen.
Most Iranian Kurds I know of, including my mother's side of my family,
are both Kurdish and Iranian, and they're proud to be both. They are more
than content to allow their Kurdish roots to simply be just another ethnicity
in the rich melting pot of ethnicities that we have in Iran.
The author brought up the point that if you give the Kurds a country,
you have to give the Arabs, Turks, and Lurs their own country too. Ahh...but
they haven't "asked" for one. But what if they DID ask for one?
Then the "non-issue" becomes an issue.
There's no more compelling reason to give the Kurds independence than
there is to give any other ehtnic minority in Iran independence. Instead,
the Kurds would be better off simply campaigning for greater freedom of
cultural and linguistic expression, in Iran and elsewhere, and allow
the rich cultural diversity in Iran and these other countries to remain
so.
Nariman Neyshapouri
