Kurdish Solidarity Act of 2014 (Passed)

[Lumine]

The idea I can understand and I support the Kurds on their struggle against ISIS, although like Cranberry I have my concerns. First because, like it or not, the Kurdish Workers Party has been consistently engaged in acts of terrorism against civilians in Turkey and their current fights across Syria don't precisely erase that situation.

Second, we're completely ignoring Iraq here and I think that's were the real potential for the Kurds lies. Let's not forget that Iraq is now currently ruled by a Kurdish General (check Simfan's GM thread for that information) and the Kurdish forces there. If anything, I believe the Senate should consider giving its support to the peshmerga instead of pushing for the creation a Kurdish state ruled by the PPK without even consulting other nations. In that sense, Cranberry is right that it would be better to push for negotiations between Turkey, Iraq and other nations in the region, something that could be accomplished according to the plans of the Secretary of State.

[Lumine]

The purpose of this Act is to strengthen the sole revolutionary force left in the Middle East that is committed to participatory democracy and workers' self-management, which is at this juncture, the Kurds.

Trying to ignore the huge implications of that statement, that sounds more like trying to excuse and heavily empower the actions of the Kurdish Workers Party alone (which, mind you, has taken part in quite a good amount of terrorist actions) than the Kurds in the general sense.

[Lumine]

A Kurdish general is in charge of Iraq? What?!

I think these posts should be helpful in informing the Senate of the context:

And, what do you know, we have some news.

BREAKING NEWS

It is reported that President Jalal Talalbani has dismissed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. This comes at a time of heightened crisis as the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) are threatening to march on Baghdad, having captured several major cities in the country in recent days. His replacement at this time is unknown.

BBC News- Iraq military head appointed PM

The head of Iraq's military, General Babakir Zebari, has been appointed Acting Prime Minister following the sudden dismissal of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki earlier today.

The announcement came from the office of President Jalal Talabani, in the form of a brief missive declaring that Zebari had been appointed to form a "government of national unity" in "consideration of the present situation".

Several units of troops were seen moving around central Baghdad Friday evening before the announcement was made.

In a televised address, broadcast around midnight Baghdad time, General Zebari vowed to restore order to the country and to "beat back the terrorist elements that threaten our unity", a clear reference to the Islamist insurgents of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS).

However, General Zebari denied his appointment was the result of a military coup. It is not clear whether or not Iraq's constitution allows for the President to unilaterally dismiss the Prime Minister.

The announcement came as the militants widened their grip in the north and east, and threatened to march south, towards Baghdad.

The UN says hundreds have been killed - with militants carrying out summary executions of civilians in Mosul.

President Duke has said Atlasia is reviewing its options over Iraq.

Iran has also promised to help the fight against the insurgency.

The insurgents have threatened to push towards the capital and other regions dominated by Iraq's Shia Muslim majority, whom they regard as "infidels".

General Zebari, a Kurdish Sunni, has served as the commanding general and Chief of Staff of Iraq's Joint Forces since 2003. Prior to that, he fought with the Kurdish Peshmerga rebels in opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Zebari served briefly in the armed forces of the Baathist regime, but deserted in 1973 after atrocities were committed against Kurds.

General Zebari will have to restore confidence in the country's armed forces and attempt to organise the various sectarian militias opposing the insurgents- Shia, Sunni, and Kurd- into a coherent fighting force.

So yes, General Zebari appears to be the current Iraqi Prime Minister, and I have assumed that's the case when it has come to my approach towards Iraq and ISIS.

[Lumine]

The PKK is not a "terrorist" organization anymore than the Sons of Liberty were.

All the same, the PKK has engaged (between other things) in drug trafficking, suicide bombing, calculated attacks on resort and turist areas, and so on. What you're asking for is for us to create a nation out of nowhere based on a party that a few years ago was a marxist-leninist organization with widespread use of terrorism, and all of that while causing major problems with Turkey and Iraq, allies that have been crucial to fight ISIS, no to mention that the Kurds in Iraq (better organized and a much better force to negotiate with) get very little in comparison.

Look, I'm not opposed to see the PKK take a role in extended negotiations and a peace process (as one of many forces, and not the basis of a potential Kurdistan or, most likely, a process of increased Kurdish autonomy) because there seems to be interest in a democratic government and the PKK does seem to support gender equality, but certainly not until they refuse to continue terrorist activities.

[Lumine]

So what would you have the PKK do? Just sit on their arms while ISIS rolls into town and beheads them?

I'm not talking about their fight against ISIS, Senator, you know very well that is only a small part of the history of the PKK. I'm talking, for example, about all the terrorist acts against Turkey. I find it ironic that many in Atlasia speak against the mentality of arming groups that they think will turn hostile (idea that they seem to think only comes from the right) and then find that there's actual advocacy for us to just ignore what the PKK has done in the past.

[Lumine]

Right, I wish to propose an idea (not an amendment yet). I'm really not a fan of amending an entire bill to make it completely different (because objetively speaking it is in poor taste), but there is some potential for significant achievements in this issue. A good part of the language here is just tentative (Section 4 dealing with PKK is very poorly written, for example), but does the Senate think something along these lines could work?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Sponsored for you.

Thank you, Windjammer, but it's not an amendment, xD, I just want to see what the Senate thinks before actually offering it.

[Lumine]

I'm not sure if most of the Senate has seen the more recent developments in Iraq, but I believe now more than ever we must stand with them in their fight against ISIS due to the challenges the government and the Kurds are facing. This is but a fraction of what we could be doing in terms of help, and I dread the thought of what would happen should Iraq collapse.

[Lumine]

I would ask Windjammer to object. I get Bore's point, but allowing the PKK into the negotiations without any kind of formal committment is just asking for Turkey to bail out along with other problems. However, I would support modifying that section rather that leaving it out.

[Lumine]

I'm wary of starting a final vote because this current version is likely to just have Turkey walk out of the negotiations, which defeats a good part of the purpose. I'm not opposed to having the PKK at the table, but there should be way in which we can be sure that they take the talks seriously and stop attacking Turkey.

[Lumine]

In light of the ongoing situation, and despite not having enough time to sign a final version myself, I propose an amendment. I don't want to get rid of the talks, but the truth is that they could be accomplished in a more efficient way by the Secretary of External Affairs, and the military help is crucial right now. Thoughts?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Senator, you do know Turkey (a key ally whose help is crucial not only to defeat ISIS, but to secure the stability of the region) is very close to marching on Northern Iraq, do you?

Would you really advocate for a path that could leads us into an even worse situation for the sake of holding talks that already look pretty hard to accept to many of the interested nations?

[Lumine]

I thank the Senators for supporting the idea, and I do hope that the amendment passes. I can't say Senator TNF's comments surpise me at all, and well, he knows I have a similar opinion on quite a good amount of his policies.