The Prospects of a Two-State Solution for Kurdistan

The “two-state solution” is often touted as a response to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Could it be the answer to the Kurdistan issue as well?

For many years, the proposed solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict has been the establishment of two separate states, commonly referred to as the two-state solution. This approach aims to foster “regional stability” and achieve “lasting and sustainable peace.” However, if the objective is regional stability and conflict resolution, why restrict the implementation of a two-state solution solely to the Israel-Palestine conflict? Given that the Middle East grapples with numerous significant conflicts, why not also support self-determination in other cases, such as the longstanding desire for an independent Kurdistan? Acknowledging the Kurds’ right to self-determination could potentially yield a far-reaching positive impact on peace and security throughout the region, mirroring the envisioned outcomes for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A Two-State Solution for Kurdistan

Since the division of Kurdistan in the 1920s, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Kurds have been consistently deprived of the opportunity to freely exercise self-determination in their own political destiny within the territories of the former Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. These states have maintained authority over security, governance, and resources, effectively controlling Kurdish affairs. Consequently, this has incited resistance and resulted in a scenario akin to colonial governance, where the global community often regards the matter as internal to the states involved. Yet, can the existing state of affairs, which jeopardises international peace and security, endure any further?

The escalation of human rights abuses against Kurds residing in Kurdistani territories has led to significant atrocities and humanitarian crises on multiple occasions, with the constant risk of recurrence. The repercussions of maintaining this current status quo are profound for the Kurdish people, even if their suffering is consistently overlooked in global media coverage. The situation in Kurdistan does not need to reach the point of becoming an urgent issue that necessitates immediate international attention and intervention. The plight of the Kurds has been an ongoing concern and deserves consistent recognition, awareness, and support.

Implementing a statehood remedy for Kurdistan would not just redress the historical wrongs inflicted upon the Kurds by their governing states, but also bolster stability and security across the region. It would empower a key ally to human rights and global norms in the region, enhancing regional security. A stable and secure Kurdish state would effectively combat terrorism and extremism, mitigating the risk of conflict spillover into neighbouring countries and the broader global community. Additionally, the emergence of Kurdistan as a sovereign state could potentially rebalance power dynamics in the region. This could foster more equitable political arrangements and greater respect for minority rights, ultimately reducing the likelihood of internal conflicts and external interventions. It is crucial to acknowledge that the Kurdistan predicament transcends the borders of the states concerned — it is a matter of global significance. The international community must take a more proactive stance in fostering a fair resolution for the Kurds, thereby laying the groundwork for genuine peace.

The prospect of a two-state solution for Kurdistan was shared in a correspondence, on 25 February 2024, with the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), urging its foreign secretary David Cameron, to explore potential avenues for international support for Kurdish self-determination. The FCDO’s response, which may reflect a prevalent global practice, sheds light on the geopolitics of Kurdistan.

UK Foreign Office’s Position

The UK’s multifaceted strategy concerning the Kurdistan issue navigates between championing Kurdish aspirations and safeguarding the integrity of legal frameworks and diplomatic protocols.

The British government delineates “Kurdistan” solely to denote the South of Kurdistan (in Iraq), while labelling the remaining three segments as “Kurdish communities” situated in the respective states of Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Nevertheless, within Greater Kurdistan, the terms “Eastern Kurdistan,” “Western Kurdistan,” “Northern Kurdistan,” “Southern Kurdistan,” and “Central Kurdistan” (referring to the connection of the Kurdistani segments) commonly appeared in British government documents up to 1926. Subsequently, in 1930, Joseph Stalin incorporated Red Kurdistan (Krasnyi Kurdistan) into Azerbaijan, and deported the majority of Kurds from that region to other Soviet republics.

Within this framework, the UK adopts a delicate balance. By advocating for the autonomy of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) within the Iraqi constitution, the UK acknowledges the region’s status and strives to preserve its “semi-autonomous” governance structure. From a legal standpoint, it underlines the upholding of constitutional arrangements, adopted in 2005, in Iraq’s state framework.

The UK welcomes the forthcoming parliamentary elections in the KRG and stresses the need to adhere to international standards. Moreover, the UK’s support for democratic processes reflects the promotion of political pluralism and inclusive governance.

At the same time, the UK’s stance of not recognising the results of the KRG’s 2017 referendum on independence underscores a preference for adhering to legal frameworks and international norms. International law typically prohibits unilateral secession, emphasising 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 — practices widely observed by states — the UK aims to prevent conflict escalation and preserve regional stability.

Overall, the UK’s stance on the geopolitics of Kurdistan appears stagnant; its approach remains cautious and reactive, contingent upon the adherence of involved parties to established legal frameworks and diplomatic protocols. As long as stakeholders adhere to the principles outlined in the letter and refrain from initiating any significant territorial or political developments, the UK’s stance is to maintain the 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 respecting 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.

Dr Loqman Radpey is an independent researcher, based in Scotland. Over the past decade, he has written extensively about the legal status of the Kurdistan question and the application of international law to the right to self-determination of the Kurdish nation. Routledge is publishing his monograph, titled “Towards an Independent Kurdistan: Self-Determination in International Law.” 

This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution.