Related Resources

The paradox of a border that is at once fluid and impenetrable is central to Marooned in Iraq’s drama, Amitay argued. Smuggling and border crossings are common in the film, and yet each passage is accompanied by immense physical exhaustion. Indeed, to understand the plight of Kurds in Iran, Amitay contended, one must first understand the connectedness of Kurds across borders.

Displacement, dislocation, and discrimination are themes that unite Kurds, but each of these themes is trumped by the legacy of extermination, Amitay explained, and thus he looked first at life for Kurds in Iraq. At the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein bombarded Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons. He saw Kurds as traitors and saboteurs, and engaged in a brutal campaign to eradicate them. Amitay noted that genocide might have been a convenient method to test the effectiveness of Iraq’s chemical agents in an era when Saddam Hussein was engaging in a full-scale effort to weaponize. Hussein knew that Kurdish guerillas’ rural base of support was in the isolated mountainous regions of Iraq, and he thus used chemical weapons to force Kurds onto the roads, where Iraqi soldiers would then target them. Hussein was a United States ally at the time, and he thought he could get away with his actions. In Amitay’s estimation, he more or less has.

The impact of chemical weapons on the Kurds of Iraq is both physical and psychological, Amitay maintained. Although the 1988 attack on Halabja has become a symbol of the brutalities inflicted on Kurds, there were hundreds of such attacks and in Amitay’s estimation, 100,000-200,000 people suffered long-term neurological effects, many of whom were aid workers exposed after the initial assault. The magnitude of devastation in Iraq, coupled with what Amitay characterizes as the persecution of Kurds in Turkey, indelibly affects the psychology of Kurds in Iran, where discrimination is primarily political. Cross-border differences between Kurds are muted, then, by the legacy of Halabja.

Still, Amitay identified several cross-border divergences between Kurdish populations. For example, groups like PKK, KDP, and PUK derive power from political patronage systems that do not transcend borders.

Amitay concluded his discussion pointing out that the liberation of Iraq, and the subsequent focus on the plight of the Kurds there, has affected their kin in Turkey and in Iran. Halabja has become an important symbol in the war, Amitay argued, and international attention has had the effect of allotting more freedoms to Kurds in Iran and Turkey. In Iran, voting blocs with a Kurdish agenda have arisen. At the same time, Turkey, Amitay contended, is engaging in hasty diplomatic attempts to unite with its neighbors against autonomy in Kurdistan. Amitay characterizes this reaction as fear on the part of the Iranian, Turkish, and Syrian governments. Had these countries given Kurds the same rights as other citizens, he notes, there would be no need for such a response.

Finally, Amitay raised questions regarding the future of an independent Kurdistan: if it leads to the creation of an army, will neighboring states be more or less friendly to their Kurdish populations? Will Kurds flock to Kurdistan? Ultimately, Amitay concluded, ‘the Kurdish question’ is one that cannot be resolved until policy makers cease to compartmentalize the situation, and begin to treat Kurds as a unified group.