Technically you could go all the way back to the Sykes-Picot agreement never giving them a defined state and thus shattering them across multiple borders only relevant to long dead empires. Things really only keep getting worse as history marched on, since the nation-states in each of the countries that the Kurds reside within have political- or resource-based incentives to not allow the Kurds to form a genuine independent state combining their existing communities (and resolving the conflict they have with their respective “home countries”).
From a logical/ethical standpoint, it should be simple to allocate a state to right a historical wrong inflicted by an Englishman and Frenchman who didn’t consult any of the residing population, but it’s more valuable to the current nations presently involved in the middle east to keep them around to be exploited as pawns or scapegoats. Just dangle the carrot on the stick that is Kurdish autonomy/independence every few years or so.
As an individual not analyzing the circumstances from the nations’ perspective however, this is fucking horrible diplomacy and I do not blame the Kurdish people at all for being distrustful of anyone who worked with them in the past.
The lines drawn by the agreement hardened into borders, but the actual control of the territories by Britain and France never came into actual effect due to the decolonization after WWII (and in the post-WWI era).
So in a sense, yes, the Sykes-Picot agreement did not come into effect as intended, but the lines those men drew did, and their consequences persist to the present.
This does not exonerate the various atrocities and actions committed by the various parties involved since then, of course. Lines on a map will be difficult to modify in the modern era no matter who drew them.
Technically you could go all the way back to the Sykes-Picot agreement never giving them a defined state and thus shattering them across multiple borders only relevant to long dead empires. Things really only keep getting worse as history marched on, since the nation-states in each of the countries that the Kurds reside within have political- or resource-based incentives to not allow the Kurds to form a genuine independent state combining their existing communities (and resolving the conflict they have with their respective “home countries”).
From a logical/ethical standpoint, it should be simple to allocate a state to right a historical wrong inflicted by an Englishman and Frenchman who didn’t consult any of the residing population, but it’s more valuable to the current nations presently involved in the middle east to keep them around to be exploited as pawns or scapegoats. Just dangle the carrot on the stick that is Kurdish autonomy/independence every few years or so.
As an individual not analyzing the circumstances from the nations’ perspective however, this is fucking horrible diplomacy and I do not blame the Kurdish people at all for being distrustful of anyone who worked with them in the past.
The only problem with your theory is Sykes Picot was never implimented.
The lines drawn by the agreement hardened into borders, but the actual control of the territories by Britain and France never came into actual effect due to the decolonization after WWII (and in the post-WWI era).
So in a sense, yes, the Sykes-Picot agreement did not come into effect as intended, but the lines those men drew did, and their consequences persist to the present.
This does not exonerate the various atrocities and actions committed by the various parties involved since then, of course. Lines on a map will be difficult to modify in the modern era no matter who drew them.
Again the problem with your thoery is the notion that Sykes Picot is the cause of the issues in that region.