The Transitory Statehood of Sudan and Kurdistan

While there are numerous definitions, O'Neil defines a state as "a set of institutions that society deems necessary to achieve basic goals regarding freedom and equality" and it is from this very definition that one can view states transitory nature (1). Societies are comprised of groups of people and the largest or most powerful groups usually decide which institutions are necessary. Because the opinions and other factors change, the larger group or the most powerful group can change. From these shifts in society, we see the basis of states transitory nature. Since the beginning of time states have been created, removed, and merged, and while some of the changes have been just, others have not. There are some states that should be removed and other groups that should be made states, but there are numerous factors involved in these processes. The following will explains these processes with the Kurds in the Middle East, a prime example of what should be a state, and Sudan, an example of a state that does not deserve to be.

Although they meet the necessary qualifications and deserve to become a state, the Kurds are not considered a state. For years, the Kurds have attempted to gain statehood yet are continuously failed to be recognized. The primary reason for the Kurds failure to achieve statehood is the failure of cooperation between other established states in the region. For the Kurds to achieve statehood, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey would be forced to give up land for the Kurdish state to have a land of their own. While it might seem possible for this to happen, it is unlikely that any of these previously established states will so willingly give up and of their land. When the Treaty of Sevres transformed the Ottoman Empire in 1920 after the end of the First World War, the Kurds were promised their own state. Despite this promise, Turkey forced "a renegotiation of the treaty" and the Kurds were left as a "nation without a state". Almost a century later, the Kurds, a people with their own language, culture, and approximately twenty million people in the Middle East, are still struggling to be recognized as their own state (2). During this time, the Kurds have created a strong sense of nationalism. It is through their common beliefs and desires for a Kurdish state that the Kurds have begun create their own form of government.

Creating a governmental institution is vital in statehood because of the organization and structure it brings to the society. Becoming quite organized, especially over the past few decades, the Kurds have set up governmental institutions, some of which have begun to become recognized internationally. Set up about a decade ago, the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government has flourished and now has established a self-rule in the northern part of Iraq (3). The creation of the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government is important because it shows the Kurds desire to become an internationally recognized state. Furthermore, it shows that the Kurds are able to govern themselves and function on their own, united as one people. Without the establishment of government, statehood is not possible. Knowing this, the Kurds have made other strides to create a national government that will unite all Kurds and become recognized and respected on an international level.

In addition to the creation of the self-rule in northern Iraq, the Kurds have also set up several other government organizations. The Kurdistan National Congress has created an international parliamentarian-forum that allows Kurds to voice their opinions (3). Despite not gaining the support of other foreign governments, the Kurdistan National Congress is important because it shows the Kurds commitment to becoming a state and being recognized on an international level. By allowing the area's Kurds to voice their opinions, the National Congress has begun to further unify all of the Kurds in the Middle East. Even though the National Congress lacks international recognition, its establishment and underlying goals, it shows the Kurds desire for recognition and provides a solid base in the quest for Kurdish statehood.

One of the main reasons that the Kurds have been able to establish a self-government and National Congress is that the Kurds are all part of the same ethnic group. For the past century the Kurds have attempted to achieve statehood yet, every attempt has been in vein. As earlier mentioned, a Kurdish state was supposed to be created, but the more powerful state of Turkey renegotiated the treaty to allow for the growth of Turkey.

While the renegotiation left the Kurds without a land of their own, it brought them closer together as a people. By living in the same area and facing the same controversies over the past century, the Kurds have become closer as a people. Having the same culture and background strengthens the belief and trust in one another. It is from this unification that the Kurds have begun to work as one toward a common goal. The National Congress that has been created appears to be the beginning of the governmental institutions. Now that there is a forum for all Kurds to be heard, other institutions can be created in an effort to finally achieve statehood. With this many Kurds, who all maintain a similar background, culture, and beliefs, living in such close proximity, the creation of a Kurdish state seems absolutely necessary.

While there are some groups of people that deserve to become a state, there are other states that truly do not deserve to be recognized as a state and Sudan is a prime example. Over the past half century, Sudan has been at war with itself and the differences in ethnicity and nationalism are the reason Sudan does not have one national identity. Sudan encompasses a wide variety of ethnicities and cultures, and it is these differences which have caused the country to be in almost a constant civil war over the past half century. These vast differences in beliefs, lack of system to resolve grievances, and weak government, has made civil war the most efficient way for the opposing sides to settle their differences.(4) With all of these differences and conflicts within its borders, Sudan has become a failed state.

Sudan is composed of numerous different peoples, and each of these peoples has a different culture and system of beliefs. The problem within Sudan is not the vast differences, but rather with how these differences are settled. The main struggle has been between the peoples of the north and the people of the south. Although it appears there are only two interest groups, there are actually numerous different subgroups within the north and the south. While there is a government in place in Sudan, it is not "willing to tolerate a reduction in size or a rationalization of different sources of power...and democracy is unsustainable over the long run" (5). Because there are so many different interest groups with vast differences, the government can not possible hope to satisfy each group. If the government continues to try and please each of the numerous interest groups in Sudan, nothing will ever be accomplished. Because no significant legislation has been passed or actually can be enforced, the different interest groups take matters into their own hands and the result is a constant civil war. If a nation is unable to govern itself, have control over its people, and is constantly at war, then the nation is not deserving of being considered a state.
The failure of government not only has caused civil war but, it has also caused the Sudanese economy to fail.

Because of Sudan's location, it has the potential to have a successful economy. Being in northern Africa, Sudan has access to the Nile and is somewhat rich with oil. Despite these advantages, Sudan's economy is failing as "their per capita GDP rates are very low, life expectancies are declining, and basic governmental services are lacking" (6). While a select few groups might be prospering, the country on a whole is suffering. These problems that Sudan faces are very serious and the government is doing very little to fix them. Since the government is not acting, the economic problems will continue and Sudan will no longer be able to support itself. As the Sudanese economy continues to fail, more outside support will be necessary to keep Sudan a state. Because of this economic collapse, Sudanese statehood should be reconsidered.

Furthering the argument against a Sudanese state is the genocide that is occurring in Darfur. The mass murder of innocent people that takes place everyday in the Darfur region of Sudan is absolutely unacceptable. While Darfur is receiving international aide and support, very little has been done within Sudan to combat the atrocities that are occurring daily. A group of people that can not prevent the genocide that is occurring in part of its nation is not a properly run governmental institution. Keeping this in mind, there is nothing keeping other atrocities and malicious acts from occurring inside the country. With the Darfur genocide and the constant civil war within Sudan, there is no stability or organization. With so many different groups looking to hold power, the people of Sudan can not decide who is in control. The people can not decide what faction is controlling because there truly is no one in control. Sudan does not have an effective government, it has a failing economy, and there is genocide and civil war occurring within the state. Because of this lack of organization and structure, Sudan does not deserve to be considered a state.

Throughout time, the one constant in society has been change. New societies and states have been formed, while others have been erased. The constant struggle for power and recognition as a state is the result of an effort by a society to be run more efficiently. Although new states are being created and others removed, there is no uniform explanation for this constant change. As I argued there are societies, such as the Kurds, who have begun a self-rule and are able to independently function. Groups such as the Kurds have unified and strove for statehood for years, yet are not recognized as a state. Still there are other states, such as Sudan, that can not regulate its people nor be economically prosperous on an international level. States such as these show no signs of improvement and are vastly behind the rest of the world due to the inner conflict, but are still recognized as a state. The biggest point shown by these two contrasting groups is that the Kurds "realize some level of socio-cultural cohesion" (7), while the Sudanese rage civil war. If the will of the society is present then the group can begin to meet the other qualifications of statehood. To some, the qualifications for becoming a state might be obvious, but there is always underlying factors and conflicts that keep the process of statehood precise. While this conflict will always be present, it is the transitory nature of states and effects of time that will allow for the proper formation and elimination of states.

Works Cited
1. O'Neil, Patrick. Essentials of Comparative Politics. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2007.

2. "Ocalan, Turkey and the Kurds." Time.

3. Natali, Denise. "Transnational networks: new opportunities and constraints for Kurdish statehood." Middle East Policy 11.1 (Spring 2004): 111(4).
Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Clemson University. 22 Sept. 2007 .

4. Gatkuoth, James Mabor. "Ethnicity and nationalism in the Sudan." The Ecumenical Review 47.n2 (April 1995): 206(11). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Clemson University. 23 Sept. 2007 .

5. Spears, Ian S. "When good governments go bad: leadership and the limits of intervention in Africa.(A tribute to James Eayrs)." International Journal 62.2 (Spring 2007): 344(18). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Clemson University. 23 Sept. 2007 .do?prodId=EAIM>.

6. Rotberg, Robert. "Failed States in a World of Terror." Foreign Affairs. 81.4. Expanded Academic. Research Database. Clemson University. 23 Sept. 2007.

7. Kraxberger, Brennan. "Failed States." Third World Quarterly. 28.6. Expanded Academic. Research Database. Clemson University. 24 Sept. 2007.