Kurds’ century-long statelessness overlooked amid global solidarity campaigns
QAMISHLI, Syria (North Press) – An opinion article by David Harris published in The Telegraph on Sunday renewed attention to what he described as the long-overlooked plight of the Kurdish people, arguing that the Kurds remain one of the Middle East’s most neglected national groups despite decades of repression, displacement and denied statehood.
Harris wrote that the Kurds, who number more than 40 million across Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran, have been denied an independent state for over a century, despite the recognition of Kurdish aspirations in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Instead, Kurdish-populated areas were divided among several modern states, leaving the Kurds without sovereignty and exposing them to repeated waves of persecution, cultural suppression and military campaigns, he said.
The article highlights the contrast between widespread international mobilization for some causes in the Middle East and the limited attention given to Kurdish demands for self-determination, despite what Harris described as a history marked by genocide, chemical attacks and political exclusion.
He noted in particular to Iraq’s Kurdistan Region as the strongest contemporary case for Kurdish independence, describing it as one of the most stable, pluralistic and open parts of Iraq. Harris said the Kurdistan Regional Government has shown relative openness to the West, religious diversity and a stronger environment for women’s rights compared with much of the wider region.
At the same time, he argued that Kurdish aspirations continue to face pressure from regional governments, especially Baghdad and Tehran, while drawing little sustained support from Western political movements and advocacy networks.
Harris also recalled the role Kurdish forces played alongside the United States and its allies in the fight against Saddam Hussein’s regime and later against the Islamic State group, saying Kurdish communities were repeatedly relied upon in times of conflict but sidelined afterward.
He concluded that the disparity in global attention toward different national causes raises questions about the consistency of international support for human rights, liberation and self-determination.