Reconceptualizing Kurdistani Foreign Policy

Free Kurdistan and the Kurdish movement of liberation needs to leave the tragic inheritance of religious imperialism behind and instead become an exporter of verified feminist social innovation in embracing and fashioning a Kurdistani foreign policy as based on feminist democratic realism in combining reason and emotion in good judgment by thinking out of the narrow boxes of phallogocentric male systemic “thought” that is perhaps better described as “non-thought” or “non-thinking” since it is usually based upon mere phallogocentrically unthinking imitation of others. Rojava and Bashur need to work closely diplomatically together in exporting the feminist revolution of Rojava to elsewhere in the broader Middle East and indeed so to countries around the world.


The Kurdish liberation movement has a tragic history of being used and subsequently abandoned by occasionally “friendly” occupying neighbors and culturally Euro-Christian great powers alike. Many Kurds therefore still claim that “the Kurds have no friends but the mountains” despite massive pro-Kurdish public opinion in Israel and the United States and politically almost unconditional support from Jerusalem and Washington for our Kurdistani estemeed allies and cherished friends. Of course America and Israel cannot condone brakuji (Kurdish internecine warfare) or our Kurdish partners otherwise harming Kurdistani interests but other than that is America’s and Israel’s support for Free Kurdistan and the Kurdistani movement virtually unconditional.

The first Israeli-sponsored project to engage in Kurdistani state-building (1963-1975) collapsed due to the more strictly realist (as opposed to idealist) foreign policy of the United States at the time. Strict realism in US foreign policy has long since been completely abandoned as the US has not had a strictly realist foreign policy for decades now. The Trump-Pence administration rather promotes democratic realism and moral clarity in foreign policy in thus having the most neoconservative foreign policy of any US administration in American history. Political wisdom cannot be solely based on logic (leading to realism) but need also be based on values (leading to idealism) yet not just any values! International politics is typically based on realism with nominally idealist rhetoric, yet democratic realism is rather based on political wisdom as taught by Leo Strauss of correctly reading political reality in fighting tyranny while in that struggle staying true to the values of freedom. You simply cannot afford to not be both realistic and idealistic when opposing and fighting illegitimate tyranny if you wish to prevail in the struggle between liberty and evil.

The paradigmatic idea among leaders and diplomats of Iraqi Kurdistan (Bashur) has long been that there is no idealism in international politics and only realism although they believe that appealing to the individual subjectivity of diplomatic counterparts is a useful diplomatic tactic indeed. This strictly realist conception although appealing to subjectivity in diplomatic interlocutors is typically indeed also the perspective of most non-totalitarian dictatorships worldwide. Leaders and representatives of Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava) have little diplomatic experience and tend to believe that the world is ruled by money/capital which of course is not true since even money is ruled by ideas. While Bashur believes in a purely realist foreign policy does Rojava believe in a purely idealist foreign policy. Both perspectives are clearly removed from reality since international politics is precisely the combination in various forms and shapes of realism and idealism.

Free Kurdistan needs instead a feminist foreign policy as based on democratic realism in being able to carefully distinguish between friend, foe and unreliable interlocutors. The current US administration surely cannot be blamed for the strictly realist foreign policy of the Ford administration in 1975. However, had self-governing Bashur at the time been a liberal democracy would it under no conditions whatsoever had been abandoned by the United States government since doing everything to protect liberal democracies was considered a core United States national interest even during the Ford administration although due to at time to at least nominally realist considerations.

Feminist foreign policy should mean integrating logic and emotion in a deliberate, ethical and intelligent fashion as based on democratic realism in understanding that freedom and representative government are core Kurdistani national interests indeed. This should mean promoting grassroots democratization from below in Bashur as is so successfully already being done in Rojava.

There is also a tendency in Kurdistani diplomacy to not adhere to diplomatic etiquette in being influenced by Islamdom’s structural suspicions towards friendly cultural Christians and friendly Rabbinic Jews who are thus perpetually indeed suspected of being purely self-interested (i.e. strictly realist) potential backstabbers. Israeli diplomats and American diplomats are thus used to receiving offensive insinuation from Kurdistani representatives airing structurally Muslim prejudice against Jews and Christians respectively. The usual response to this from Israeli and American diplomats is to diplomatically reassure Kurdistani leaders of our pro-Kurdish commitment which of course in the minds of Kurdistani counterparts only reinforce culturally Muslim suspicions against Jews and Christians in spite of the fact that these representatives do not believe in Islam. Despite these occasional outbursts of structural prejudice which is part of the tragic inheritance of historical and contemporary Islamic imperialism are most Kurds strongly pro-American and pro-Israel indeed.

Kurdistani leaders thus need creating truly reciprocal relations with genuinely pro-Kurdish peoples, countries and governments in the international community instead of giving rise to emotional complications in offending their best friends by incompetently airing culturally Muslim xenophobia against cultural Jews and cultural Christians respectively. After all, who likes being treated as a Dhimmi? This creates the impression among international counterparts of rural unsophistication, political immaturity and of course political and diplomatic incompetence which may be construed as relative psychological unpreparedness for independence of unified Kurdistan.

Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister  Netanyahu was the first liberal democracy to publicly support Kurdistani independence in 2014 and the Trump-Pence administration is the most pro-Kurdistani ever in US political history. US support for free societies and for those seeking freedom is not about “capital” as some in leadership positions in Rojava still tend to believe or even about strict realism as some in leadership positions in Bashur tend to believe but rather about democratic realism considering that opposing tyranny is at the very core of US political culture and Leo Strauss despite being born in Germany was profoundly influenced by the American revolutionary intellectual tradition of opposing tyranny. This does not mean that wrongs have not been committed throughout US history as indeed in the history of all other countries or that US society is a perfect society as no human society is perfect and how could it be? Indeed open society enables discussing and finding remedies to societal imperfections and what need would there actually be for democracy were society already “perfect”? Rather, it is the very structural state of societal imperfection that enables social progress through social innovation. The notion that democracies are not actually democracies unless exhibiting societal perfection is rather a totalitarian notion used by Soviet Cold War propaganda to generally malign nations of open society and liberal democracy and was of course deployed against America and Israel in particular.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a highly prominent Israeli neoconservative and advocate of democratic realism and the Trump-Pence administration is even more strongly committed to democratic realism than are most Israeli leaders. Free Kurdistan thus needs to enhance its strategic perspective and deepen its relationship with its two core allies by adopting a feminist foreign policy as based on democratic realism in understanding and conceptualizing freedom as part of the very core of of the Kurdistani national interest. Adopting feminist democratic realism as the basis of Kurdistani foreign policy will indeed help Kurdistani leaders more clearly make careful distinctions between foes, genuine friends and potentially unreliable partners in the international community.

Free Kurdistan thus needs to do everything possible to create truly reciprocal relations of mutual interdependence and partnership with its genuine friends, make new friends while using diplomatic opportunities to advance its relationship with the international community at large. Democratic realism means being open-eyed and clear-eyed indeed about the always threatened nature of freedom and this obviously includes Kurdish freedom as well. Free Kurdistan must however existentially only depend depend on its genuine friends although it should certainly seek to make more friends by promoting people-to-people engagement.

Acting as tribal leaders, speaking as if they were uneducated peasants, being cognitively stuck in the past and airing structural prejudice are never good in diplomacy and although this criticism may sound extremely harsh coming from someone long committed to the Kurdistani struggle of liberation is instead being truthful as much as possible an important element in genuine friendship. Sustainable independence means existential self-reliance and in the meantime has Free Kurdistan no other choice but to rely on the genuine friends that it has; namely Israel, the sole great power in the power in the Middle East and America the sole superpower in the world. The appropriate way to assuage fear and suspicion on the part of Free Kurdistan is to mutually create political interdependence and prioritize nurturing people-to-people relations and so Kurdistani leaders need to make the conscious decision to upgrade themselves from clients to multidimensional full partners of America and Israel on the regional arena of the broader Middle East.

The feminist PKK movement (whose affiliate PYD rules the feminist libertarian state of Rojava) is a formerly Marxist-Leninist political movement which used to serve as a proxy of Ba’athist Syria and the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union. The PKK movement has undergone and is still undergoing a comprehensive process of deradicalization in embracing social innovation in self-governance and feminist revolution as well as leaving totalitarianism and its perceptions and worldview behind. Similar to post-fascist political parties in Western Europe still having some rhetorical, political and psychological residues of their fascist past does the contemporary feminist PKK movement likewise still have some rhetorical, political and psychological residues of their communist past. In particular is the PKK worldview misinformed through the metaphysical device of historical materialism as the world clearly is not ruled by Karl Marx’s 1841 doctoral dissertation.

The Cold War is long since over and although the old communist PKK used to spread Soviet propaganda rhetoric against Israel and the United States is that historical era long since over and there are no hard feelings about that past in Jerusalem and Washington since we need to embrace the future with an open mind yet in a open-eyed and emotionally rational manner of feminist democratic realism. Being leftwing or rightwing in terms of domestic economic policy are in contrast mere historical derivatives of Christian metaphysics and have no longer any influence over or consequence whatsoever in international politics. Feminist social innovation in contrast requires being able to think out of the narrow-minded confines of male boxes of thought and rather being able to intelligently integrate emotions with innovation and indeed optimally ethically so without falling into the traps of naivety or cynicism.

Free Kurdistan needs to reconceptualize its national interest and foreign policy in terms of spreading freedom and representative governance on the model of Rojava to the rest of the broader Middle East. While it is important that Free Kurdistan continually communicates its real life problems and real life needs to Israel and the United States is it also in the national interest of Free Kurdistan to aid others in the broader region considering how they themselves can contribute in helping in terms of successfully spreading freedom and self-governance to the rest of the broader Middle East. Free Kurdistan thus needs to start think of itself as an exporter of social innovation in terms of functioning, working and indeed well tried out social innovation that is thus precisely extensively verified in terms of its actual quality in social outcome.

Free Kurdistan hence needs to become a contributor of political know-how to the broader region and not merely a receiver of assistance from Israel, America and others friends of Kurdistan. Rojava and Bashur need to figure out how they by coordinating the foreign policy of Free Kurdistan towards others in  the broader Middle East can themselves engage in helping others help themselves far beyond Free Kurdistan. For example should Free Kurdistan help set up feminist Pashtun YPJ units in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban totalitarian menace. Kurds of all genders have long been treated as females by those oppressing the Kurdish people as were in the past Diaspora rabbinic Jews and so help ending oppression against females everywhere in the broader Middle East is a core Kurdish national interest indeed.

By sharing verified social innovation and ethico-politically helping others help themselves can Free Kurdistan thus gain many new friends in the broader region and beyond and so leave structural prejudice of religion and ethnicity behind while indeed staying open-eyed & clear-eyed about the threat that tyranny poses to liberty, including to the freedom of the people of Kurdistan.

There are many similarities between the civil religions of Israel, America and Free Kurdistan as all are based on patriotic belief in the crucial importance of freedom and self-governance. This does not mean that Israel, America and Free Kurdistan are perfect societies but rather that freedom enables social innovation and thus social progress which simply is not possible in a totalitarian society believing in the reactionary ideal of final stale perfection.

Nationalism and socialism emerged in Europe as a reactionary urban longing for return to Blut und Boden (German for Blood and Soil), namely the desire to somehow recreate lost rural life in in the urban context of the industrializing city on a large scale in the face of the economically ruthless historico-economic processes of industrialization in 19th century Europe.

Leo Strauss as devoted to recovering and reconstituting the pre-Christian nature of Greek philosophy saw his purpose as promoting political wisdom and that is clearly not a matter of left or right as that binary thinking is a superficially secularized phallogocentric derivative of Christian metaphysics with its perpetual internal struggle between Judaizers and Hellenizers as what is known as Christianity socially emerged within the historical context of Hellenistic Judaism in the Aegean world and later become politically synthesized with a Roman imperialist version of Greek ethnocentrism.

Free Kurdistan thus needs to leave the tragic intellectual inheritance of religious imperialism (whether Arabian or European) behind in embracing and reciprocally appreciating its genuine friends as well as sharing know-how in verified social innovation with many others and thus gain more and more friends in the broader region and beyond.