What the Armistice Day Means 100 Years Later

Source: Irish Independent

Today is a big day. It is exactly 100 years since the Armistice was signed, silencing the guns across the Western Front and relieving fatigued, abused soldiers fighting the First World War. The leaders of France and Germany, hand in hand, walked up to the newly unveiled monument.

Leaders of the world were present in Paris to commemorate the occasion and observe remembrance of the fallen soldiers of probably the most traumatic battlefield experiences in history. The moment is celebrated around the world as two civilized nations reiterate the commitment to peace and promise to avoid war at all costs. People around the world aspire to moments such as these.

The European colonial powers have finally figured out how destructive war is and rightly so. The bitter experiences of centuries of war had reduced a very small continent to rubble. War has vanished from Europe, thank God. But has it from the world?

The Armistice Day 100 years later brings a message of hope and optimism. A message inspiring nations in conflict around the world to set aside their differences and settle issues with diplomacy. Even to nations like India and Pakistan and those in the Middle East.

More importantly, a message of caution was sent out by the French leader who recognized that the “old demons” were coming back to life again. He warned against “nationalism,” which like a century ago had become synonymous with fascism.

However, it also sends a message of disappointment to nations where many wars are actually being fueled, directly or indirectly, by the very nations that are commemorating the Armistice Day. The citizens of Libya, Yemen, and Syria might not appreciate this ode to European harmony too much. And not just out of plain envy.

Perhaps on this Armistice Day, the world is satisfied that the center of war and conflict has shifted outside Europe 100 years later.

Advertisements

A Historic Day for the Kurdish People

Source: rudaw.net

For too long, I have neglected the issue of Kurdish self-determination in my personal political view and wrongly so. The early formative years of my liberal viewpoint had been under the influence of false idealism that discourages nationalism on the basis of ethnicities. This approach could not have been more wrong as this is precisely the basis of several modern nation states adhering to the most liberal and democratic of values. Consider Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Britain as examples, but if the colonial powers are not a good analogy, then Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, and Macedonia should suffice.

Of course, not every nation can be as perfect ideologically as the United States of America is, which is supposed to welcome every liberty seeking human being to its shores. However, this does not mean that lower pursuits such as seeking sovereignty on ethnic basis instead of some lofty ideology take away the right of self-determination. Even though a liberal democrat could possibly see these influences as discriminatory and undemocratic, if not fascistic. Considering the trouble that the Kurdish people have been facing while divided in three of the most authoritarian countries in the world: Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.

However, the 2003 Iraq War opened a new door of opportunities for the helpless Kurdish people `brutalized by the Arabization policies of Saddam Hussein. Resisting against such brutality and authoritarianism became the hallmark of the Kurdish minority in Iraq and elsewhere. Some groups even resorted to even more brutal measures themselves, with many of the Kurdish terrorist groups behind several bloody bombings in Turkish cities, some of which involved suicide bombers.

Since the fall of Saddam, the Kurdish people have been in control of a semi-autonomous region in the north of Iraq, their population stronghold which had been shattered by the Islamic State. As the Islamic State goes on the backfoot in northern Iraq, the Peshmerga has captured some additional territory other than the official autonomous zone rich in oil including the city of Kirkuk.

Currently only openly supported by Israel, the cause of the Kurdish independence has still a long way to go. The Iraqi government obviously rejects the referendum, and Iraq and Turkey have even carried out joint military exercises, reminding them of the consequences that they can face. Iran would not be happy with this either but we are talking about three countries who have been the primary oppressors of the Kurdish people.

However, this day of the referendum, with 92.7% already voting for independence, stands as a beacon of hope for the Kurdish people and all the liberty-seeking nations around the world. Perhaps, it is about time that some of other nations, particularly the United States, will join the right side of the camp and put their foot design especially if Turkey and Iraq threaten military action.

I wish them all the best for realizing their dream of independence.