Aysenur Gunakan - International Relations Case Study: The Kurd Crisis

This case study examines the complex Kurd crisis in Syria, focusing on the shifting dynamics between the Kurds, Turkey, and the United States. The analysis applies the principle of "Political Realism" to understand the changing balance of power, particularly in light of Turkey's involvement and the US's evolving role. The paper explores the implications of Turkey's support for the Kurds, examining how it might shift the conflict from multipolarity to unipolarity, and the potential impact on the USA's involvement. It considers the interplay of "defensive realism" and "offensive realism" in the context of the conflict. The study also discusses the potential for a deal to achieve peace, considering the status of the Kurds and the need for a stable government, while also addressing the potential for the USA to influence the democratic practices in the Kurd region, emphasizing the importance of peacekeeping forces and human rights.

A deal dependent on the changing status of the active players
The dynamism of international relationships may change within no time because of the external
as well as internal causative factors. It can also change the perspective of the stakeholders quite
considerably. While dealing with a condition that is related to international affairs, the principle
of “Political realism” can be utilized to decipher any complex situation. For instance, in the case
of the Kurd Crisis, we can witness the changing role of the Kurds with the help of three factors;
the first factor is related to a change in the “balance of power.”
Turkey’s accreditation of the Kurds is a major factor that is challenging the balance of power in
the area. Obama administration set up a target line for a battle which was necessary to invite the
peace in the region. Turkey adopted a policy of the appeasement and changed the dynamism. A
few years ago, when the United States intervened in the region, it was a case of Multipolarity
where a mighty nation of the world was trying to safeguard the interests of the weaker
community. Turkey’s affiliation to a Kurd Group can be seen as an attempt to convert this
multipolarity in the unipolarity. We are aware of the fact that unipolarity restricts the role of
mighty countries and confines an issue to become a regional or local issue, in the case of Syria,
the proximity of Turkey with Syria gives them enough rights to intervene in the issue and take
sides to secure their best interests. This is important because Turkey has all the rights to
safeguard its own interests because of the proximity to the political environment in Syria.
Until this point, the United States was following the policy of “defensive realist assumption.”
However, the present case of Turkey’s intervention can convert it into a “change in the offense-
defense balance” of the area. Under a condition like this, it is very important for US authorities

to have a look at the condition from the point of view of the “likelihood of a future war” in the
region.
As a stakeholder in the conflict, the USA is playing the role of a peacekeeping force working
with a policy statement of “offense is the best defense” and “ the removal of the root cause.” The
realistic and liberal assumption on this condition can be drawn from the fact that Turkey’s
support to Kurd fighters will act as a temporary truce in the area because they will try to come up
with some democratic ways to put forward their demands. The support of Turkey will act as a
key factor for them to raise their voice as a democratic country resonating with the opinions of a
strong and organized society of human beings.
While thinking in the terms of a deal to purchase peace in Syria and adjacent areas it is important
for the USA to first think about the status that they are going to give to the Kurds, the support
given by Turkey changed the political environment of the area and convert it into a structuralist
argument raise against the polarity of the international system where unconcerned countries like
the USA are showing a keen interest in a region where they don’t have a direct bearing or a
probable threat. It can also be considered as imperialism caused with the help of the weaponry or
military technology.
While striking a deal with this new setup, the USA can take the plea of the “offensive realism”
disguised in the “defensive realism.” Ideally, the USA should come up with a case where they
can pin-point the present status of the Kurd society to form a stable government, the concept of
selective acceptance can also be applied here. The USA can accept Kurd nation as a separate
nation, however, this acceptance should be a conditional acceptance where the USA along with

the other concerned parties of the world can take care of the certain factors that can change the
political environment of a newly formed nation.
At present Turkey is presenting it as a defensive realism by saying that a democratic country is
emerging and the theories related to the political environment states that it minimizes the chances
of war. The USA, on the other hand, has all the good reasons to raise concerns related to the
practice of democratic practices in this new country because the voice of the masses is still
unheard, Turkey can be forced to rethink about their position on the formation of a new nation or
a democratic power. The USA can demand a selective control over the democratic practice in the
Kurd region while representing the peacekeeping forces and human right activists of the world
who can” use might for setting everything right”, in the case of the breach of democratic
practices in the region.