Ethnic conflicts and political stability: A study of patterns of ethnic conflict and an assessment of the methods used to address them

Dr. Baha Eldin Makkawi Mohammed Gaily



Ethnic and cultural pluralism has become the hallmark of today’s world. It is so clear that the nation-state, which intellectuals and politicians have always spoken of as the ideal type of political societies, has rarely been realized on the ground. According to reliable scientific studies, homogeneous countries do not exceed 9% of the world’s countries.

 But what is important here is that ethnic and cultural pluralism led to severe ethnic and racial conflicts. These conflicts prevail in most countries of the world at different economic, social and political levels([1]), and therefore, these phenomena are not concerning only the Third World countries , but located  also in the most advanced countries like France, Belgium, Spain and Canada. The problem was also found in the former Soviet Union and in the United States of America. ([2])

It is very clear that ethnic and cultural pluralism is not a problem in itself, but this type of conflict is often related to how the ruling authorities deal with this diversity. And, according to the government policies in this regard, it can be a source of cultural power and enrichment, or it can be a dangerous and destructive weapon.

As a result of bad policies, ethnic conflicts have led to the death of millions of people all over the world, the destruction and disintegration of many countries, the collapse of infrastructure, the waste of resources, the flight of millions of their homes, the subsequent deteriorating health conditions, malnutrition and the spread of crimes and social and psychological problems.

The aim of this paper is to identify ethnic conflicts, their causes, and consequences, and to study models of ethnic conflicts throughout the world, to demonstrate the universality of the phenomenon, and to examine various models and methods used by political leaders to deal with these conflicts.

The study was divided into three main areas as follows:

The first axis: the concept of ethnic conflict.

The second axis: models of ethnic conflicts.

The third axis: methods of settling ethnic disputes: study and evaluation

Firstly: The concept of ethnic conflict:

The definition of ethnic conflict requires, first, to define the concepts of “conflict” and “ethnicity” which ultimately leads to the definition of “ethnic conflict”. In the coming pages, the researcher will attempt to clarify these two concepts, despite the wide differences between scholars and thinkers in this regard.

The Concept of Conflict:

As previously noted, scholars and thinkers did not agree on the meaning of the conflict. For example, some see the conflict as “a violent and armed confrontation between groups and between the state, or between two or more states, and where some of those involved in this confrontation are injured or killed” ([3]).

According to this definition, the conflict refers to an (armed) confrontation between two or more parties that leads to (killing or injuring) some parties. Other definitions did not require armed confrontation but focused on competition between the parties to the conflict. For example, Peter Wallenstein defines the conflict as “a social situation in which at least two parties struggle for limited resources”([4]).

In this regard, Ahmed Fouad Raslan says that the word “conflict” reflects the circumstances under which a specific human group clings to a conscious opposition to one or more identifiable human groups because these groups follow what is incompatible with their objectives ([5] ).

This definition also focuses on conflict arising from a conflict of interest without specifying the form, scope, and tools used.

But others see the conflict as a “behavioral” or “action” behavior, such as a trade union strike to force the employer to raise wages, reduce hours of work, or improve its conditions, or the employer closes his work to pressure workers to accept his conditions.

But this definition is criticized because if it is true that only the actions constitute the conflict, the conflict ends with the end of the behavior, but the conflict ends only when the parties move towards the issues in the conflict.

The definitions we have mentioned are merely samples([6]) of the definitions of conflict, but conflicts differ in many respects: violent and non-violent conflicts, apparent conflicts and hidden conflicts, under control and out of control conflicts.

The concept of ethnicity:

But this definition is criticized because if it is true that only the actions constitute the conflict, the conflict ends with the end of the behavior, but the conflict ends only when the parties move towards the issues in the conflict.

The definitions we have mentioned are merely samples of the definitions of conflict, but conflicts differ in many respects: violent and non-violent conflicts, apparent conflicts and hidden conflicts, under control and out of control conflicts.

The concept of ethnicity:

The term “Ethnicity” is derived from the Latin word “Ethnos” which corresponds to the word “Nation”.

For example, Morris defines it as “a specific group whose culture differs from that of the larger society in which they live, and whose members believe to be associated with ethnic, national or cultural ties”([7]) . While some define them as ” A human group whose members share certain physical elements (as race) or culture (such as language, religion, history or other cultural components ([8]).

There is a great difference between these two definitions. The first definition requires that the group be in a larger society so that it is called the ethnic group, while the second definition called any group that has an association of ethnic, religious, cultural or religious origin “ethnic group”. Perhaps this latter definition is more appropriate because the talk here is about an ethnic group, not an ethnic minority, where a larger community is required to live alongside the ethnic minority, while this is not required in the ethnic group, because we do not usually talk about this group in relation to other groups in the society, but we are talking about the form of links between its members.

Some have identified four basic features of the ethnic group that can be summarized as follows:

1 / Common Belonging: which is an important factor in the formation of the ethnic group, through the long common history among members of the group and some believe that this feeling is the basis of the ethnic group and that the unity of religion, language and culture are only auxiliary factors.

2 / Cultural uniqueness: Because things are different in their antagonisms, the friction of the ethnic group with other groups makes them recognize their individuality and differentiation.

3 / Compulsory membership: In the sense that there is no option for the individual to belong to a particular ethnic group as he wishes, but gets membership in the ethnic group by birth ([9]).

4/Regionalism: The ethnic group is usually concentrated in a particular region within a larger political unit such as the Basque in Spain, Québec in Canada and the Fleming in northern Belgium ([10]).

Some see that there is a difference between ethnicity and ethnicity, the first of the race from which the group descends. Thus, the ethnic group is interconnected with the kinship and blood Association, where all members are of one origin, and the ethnic group means “cultural ethnicity” A group whose members are of one origin and have certain cultural characteristics. Or are meant to be those who share certain cultural characteristics that distinguish them from other groups that are shared by the homeland but not descended from one origin but some do not distinguish between ethnic and ethnic and use the words as synonyms.

In this regard, it is possible to refer to Azmi Khalifa when he defined ethnicity as “race “, and this is what Elia Harek and Abdul Ghani Saudi did, also Almawrid dictionary translated the word ethnic in racial, and ethno as “prefix: ethnic” Ethnocentric as an intrusive i.e. centered on race and Ethnogeny as the science of races ([11])

The Concept of Ethnic Conflict:

According to the above definition of conflict and ethnicity, ethnic conflict can be said to mean conflict between different ethnic groups within a single state, where each group seeks to impose its culture, language, and religion on the other groups, especially when the ethnic group is strong, and able to impose its visions on other groups([12]).

At the same time, the vulnerable groups often do not give up, but defend their cultural peculiarities, and despite their weakness, they do not recognize the legitimacy of the ruling majority and deal with government decisions as an attempt by the ruling majority to impose their vision and cultural model.

Sometimes, the ruling ethnic groups persecute other groups, leading them to rebel and use violence against the ruling authorities. In turn, the authority uses excessive force to counter it, which could trigger a civil war in the state, or at least lead to a state of instability in the state, which is reflected negatively on the legitimacy of the political system as a whole.

Secondly: Models of Ethnic Conflicts:

As stated above, pluralism and ethnic conflicts are a general phenomenon that exists all over the world and is not a phenomenon especially for developing countries as portrayed by some. The following table illustrates some of the world’s ethnic and cultural conflicts.

Table (1)

Models of conflicts in the world

Causes of conflicts Countries The Continent
Ethnic, religious, political (separatist) demands, border problems Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, Chad, Great Lakes region, Angola, Nigeria, Morocco, Algeria  



Ethnic, religious, political demands (secessionist) Ceylon, India, Pakistan, Burma, Cambodia, Philippines, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and Tibet Asia
Ethnic, religious, political (separatist) demands, economic, social or cultural injustice. Yugoslavia, Ireland, Cyprus, United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, United States Europe and North America

Source: Awad al-Sayyid al-Karasani, “Civil Conflicts in Sudan”, Journal of Nile Basin Studies, Neelain University, No. (1), December 1999, p. 135.

These conflicts led to 57 ethnic civil wars during the period 1946-2011. The following table illustrates the details of these ethnic wars.

Table (2)

Number of civil wars during the period 1946-2011

Region Number of Civil Wars
Africa 18
Middle East (Arab) 11
Latin America 9
Eastern Europe 8
Western Europe 3
Asia 8
Total 57

Source: Walid Abdel-Hai, A Model for Measuring the Separatism of Minorities in the Arab World, Amran Magazine for Social and Human Sciences, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, No. 4, Volume 1, Spring 2013, p. 33.

In the coming pages, and In order to demonstrate the universality of the phenomenon, the researcher will review some models of ethnic conflict at the global level. Three examples will be highlighted: the Quebec region in Canada, the ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and the Kurdish problem

The reasons behind choosing these examples are that they represent three different types of struggle: Quebec region (cultural conflict), former Yugoslavia (ethnic conflict), and Kurds (national conflict).

In terms of the authorities’ interaction with ethnic diversity, the three cases are different. In the Tito era, Yugoslavia used the method of “assimilation” to integrate different groups into the national community. Canada, by virtue of its democratic system, followed democratic methods through providing opportunities to express the problem, and organizing referendum in Quebec region. The Kurds, because they are divided among several countries, have been dealt with in different ways according to the nature of their political systems. Thus, the choice of these models is aimed at studying different groups in different circumstances in order to enrich the study.

  1. The Ethnic Problem in Canada (Quebec Region):

The province of Quebec is the largest province in Canada (594.860 km 2), and is second in population (Quebec population, according to the 1996 census, was 7,388,795 inhabitants ([13]).

The population of Canada is divided into two parts: English-speaking, and predominantly French-speaking, a minority based in Quebec, where French speakers make up 80% of the population of Quebec, and there are estimated numbers in the provinces of Brunswick and Ontario, as well as scattered groups in the rest of the provinces.

It is noted that while the French Canadians are a single cultural group based on language, the four English nationalities (British, Scottish, Irish and Welsh) do not form a single nation, each with a different history and belonging to different religions.

The beginnings of the French presence in Canada date back to 1535 when King Francis I of France, authorized the explorer Jacques Cartier, to stablish a French colony in the region. During his voyage, Cartier discovered a river named Saint Lawrence and took its place. In the early 17th century, a group of Frenchmen led by Samuel – de – Champlain settled in the province of Novaschocia and founded Quebec in 1608. Britain exploited the French preoccupation with their wars in Europe during the reign of Louis XIV and seized the French colonies there. After a conflict between the two sides around the region, France was forced to recognize Britain’s sovereignty over the region as a confirmation of the status quo (The Paris Convention of 1763).

In 1763, the French Canadians converted to a colonized people. Britain tried to integrate them with the English-speaking population. In 1763, it issued a law clarifying the boundaries of the state of Quebec. English laws were applied to it and deprived its inhabitants of public office, but it was changed during the war against the American colonies. Britain in the War and its Transition from the United States A number of Britons who settled in America have emigrated to Canada, increasing the number of English-speakers, with French speakers becoming a minority([14])

 Quebec residents who speak 80% of them in French feel injustice towards government policies and consider these policies as repeated attempts by the government to weaken their position and marginalize their culture and language. This led to the awakening of ethnic crystallized in the form of ethnic movements calling for the separation of Québec, the rich province of natural minerals, such as uranium, copper, and timber. We can distinguish between two types of ethnic movements in Canada:

1 / Progressive ethnic movements:

These movements do not aim to secede from the mother country but seek to improve the region and to expand the participation of French Canadians in the Department of Canada([15]). The best example of this type of movements is the Liberal Party, which came to power in the early 1960s under the leadership of Jean Lesage. Lesage confirmed that the Liberal Party aims to bring French Canadians into power in the context of what he called the “quiet revolution”.

2 / separatist ethnic movements:

Although these movements agree on the principle of separation and the need to pursue this, they differ in their methods to achieve this result. Below are examples of separatist movements:

A / Quebec Liberation Front:

This front appeared in May 1963.It relies on violence as a means to achieve its goal of secession. Therefore, the Front has engaged in organized violence targeting the federal institutions, armed forces and economic institutions of the English-speaking population. It also assassinated political leaders. ([16])

B / Quebec Party:

The Quebec Party (PQ) seeks the secession of Quebec from Canada but is pursuing a peaceful approach to this goal. Because of its flexible and peaceful positions, its popularity has been steadily increasing. In 1970, it obtained 23% of the seats (69 seats out of a total of 110 seats), and It was able in the 1994 elections to get 77 seats of 110 seats ([17]).

Despite the fact that he came to power twice (1976 and 1994), he was unable to achieve his goal of secession. In 1976, the referendum conducted under the administration of Rene Linacek showed that only 15% of Quebec residents supported Quebec’s secession from Canada, There is an urgent need for support from the central government. In the 1994 referendum, the result of the referendum showed that 46.4% of Quebec residents support separation while 50.6% oppose it ([18]). This result confirms important facts: the increasing power of the secessionist movement in Canada, and that the adoption of democratic methods such as popular referendum can lead to secession, and a decisive policy that may be overstated in the case of Canada, but liberalism adopted in Canada and North America generally prevents such a policy.

The problem of the province of Quebec confirms the following facts:([19])

1 / the problems of national integration are not specific to the backward countries of the Third World alone. This problem indicates that the developed state suffers from the same problems.

2 / Cultural differences, as well as ethnic and religious differences, can threaten the political stability of the state.

2- The Ethnic Problem in the Former Yugoslavia:

In the six republics of Yugoslavia, there are a large number of nationalities. The conflict is the hallmark of the relations between these groups, especially the Serbs and the Croats. The history of this conflict dates back to 395 AD when the Emperor Theodosius divided the Roman Empire into two parts:

1 / The Western Roman Empire, which includes the regions known as “Croatia”, “Slovenia”, “Bosnia” and “Herzegovina”.

2 / the Byzantine Empire, which includes Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro ([20]).

The Slavs ([21]) migrated from their original lands and settled in the area at the beginning of the 6th century AD.

Because of the distribution of areas of stability of Slavic migrants between the two Empires: Western and Eastern empires, these areas acquired the distinct cultural characteristics of both civilizations. Those who settled in the areas under the sovereignty of the Western Roman Empire converted to the Catholic Christian religion and used the Latin scriptures. Eastern Roman, used the Surrealist Alphabet and converted to Eastern Orthodoxy ([22]).

Although there are no major ethnic differences in the region, religious sectarianism is the main driver of the conflict between the two sides, which has reached the point of genocide, especially between Serbs and Croats.

The conflict between the Serbs and the Croats led to the defeat of the Yugoslav army and its retreat against Nazi Germany, where the Croats allied themselves with the Germans against the Serbs with the aim of establishing an independent Croatia. After the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia, three main conflicting currents emerged: the fascist movement in independent Croatia allied with the Nazis, The National Socialist Party led by the National Serbs, and the Communist Party led by Joseph Brus Tito([23]).

The struggle and rivalry between these three currents have led to horrendous massacres, where the Fascists killed more than 35,000 Serbs, and after the defeat of Germany, the Serbs killed more than 100,000 Croats. Joseph Bros Tito, the leader of the Communist Party, was totally hostile to nationalist fanaticism. Intolerance led to splits within the Communist Party itself. Tito founded the Partisan Party in 1941 and four years later, he established (The Socialist Union of Yugoslav Socialist Republics) which emerged on 29 November 1945.

Yugoslavia was a mixture of races, cultures, and religions. It included six republics: Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the autonomous regions of Kosovo and Vojvodina, comprising Yugoslavia, Serbs, Croats, Herzegovina, which has three different religions: Catholic, Orthodox, and Islam. They have five languages: Slovene, Croatian, Montenegro, Macedonian and Albanian ([24]).

From the very beginning, Tito worked to establish an effective administrative system that equated ethnic and religious minorities in rights and duties. The Yugoslav Constitution of 1946 provided for the full equality of all nationalities, races, and cultures. It also gave the republics the right to issue their own constitution and granted a kind of autonomy to Vojvodina and Kosovo, each of which had its own basic law ([25]).

Table (3)

Nationalities in Yugoslavia

Other ethnic groups Percentage of the dominant majority of the population Dominant majority Name of Republic
Albanians, Hungarians, Bosnian Muslims, Croats, Montenegrins, Roma (Gypsies) 66.2% Serbs Serbia
Serbs 71.1% Astonates Croatia
Serbs, Croats and Dawn 39.5% Bosnian Muslims Bosnia and Herzegovina
Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Dawn, Muslims, Bosnians, Croats 76% The Macedonians Macedonia
Croats, Arabs, Muslims, Bosnians, Albanians 68.5% The Slavs Slovenia
Croats and Serbs 90.5% The Slavs the Black Mountain

This table is based on the Information that came in the following books:

1 / Ted Robert Jarr, Minorities at Risk, Madbouli Library, Cairo, 1995.

2 / Abdalla Esmajić, The Conflict in Yugoslavia and the Future of Muslims, Institute of Political Studies, Islamabad, 1992.

In an attempt to reduce Serbian ambitions, Tito followed three strategies as follows:

1 / He established the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was divided between Serbia and Croatia.

2 / He established the Republic of Macedonia m and the Yugoslav Constitution of 1946, recognized in Macedonian as one of the three official languages ​​in order to eliminate Serb claims that the Macedonians were southern Serbs.

3 / in an attempt to reduce the area of ​​Serbia, Tito established two independent territories: Kosovo (90% of the Albanian population), and Vojvodina (one – third of the Serbian population) ([26]).

The Yugoslav Constitution also recognized the rights of different nationalities, such as the right to use their mother tongue before courts, and the right to attend schools that use the national language as an intermediary of education. The army was formed on the basis of recognition of all nationalities. When the Yugoslav regime assured its policy, in 1953 it adopted a new constitution, abolished the right to self-determination, and launched strong campaigns aimed at unifying Yugoslavia and creating a single Yugoslav nation([27]). For example, the Yugoslavian regime launched a campaign of intermarriage between different nationalities with the aim of integrating and uniting “Yugoslav nationalities. As a result of these marriages, there were about 1.2 million Yugoslavs*”([28]).

Tito’s pragmatism has enabled him to tighten his grip on the Yugoslav state, helped him with the federal system and self-management system as an economic system, as well as Yugoslavia’s remarkable status as a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement. This is in addition to Tito’s ingenuity in the collection of diverse and conflicting nationalities of Yugoslavia on one ideology, a combination of socialist and federal principles and the centrality of self-management([29]).

However, the beginning of the Ninth decade of the twentieth century is a major turning point in the history of Yugoslavia. The death of Tito (1980) witnessed the social disintegration, the spread of economic malpractices, political divisions, the spread of violence and terrorism, and the efforts made to create a single Yugoslav nationality had been lost, and that the stability of the country was not because of the fusion of these nationalities in the crucible of the Yugoslav nationalism, but stability prevailed because of the suppression of the Yugoslav authorities of these nationalities, so, directly after the death of Tito , ethnic conflicts re-head again and more sharply.

Less than a year after his death, in 1981, unrest broke out in the Muslim-majority province of Kosovo, where Muslims account for 92% of the total population in the region. Kosovar people called for their right to establish their independent republic within the Yugoslav federation, like smaller republics such as Montenegro, which has a population of 1.5 million, while Kosovo has a population of 2 million.

Historically, the Albanians ruled for five consecutive centuries over the territory of Kosovo, but after the weakness of the Ottoman Empire, Serbia agreed with the Slavic peoples of the region in 1844 to establish a state of the Slavic peoples led by Serbia. The European countries agreed to this at the Berlin Conference. In 1912, The Ottoman part of Albania was divided between Greece, France, and Italy. The northern part of Albania was given to some Serbian tribes. This northern part was known as Kosovo. Shortly after the three countries withdrew from Albania, Serbia refused to abandon the territory. After the establishment of the Yugoslav Republic in 1918, the province of Kosovo was annexed to it. During the Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia, Tito promised the Albanians independence if they stood by the Yugoslav resistance and they did. However, as a result of the Serbian pressure on him, he was unable to fulfill his promise with the Albanians, but the Albanians were subjected to violent pressure by the Serbs, who worked, by all means, to keep the region lagging behind despite the natural wealth that it feeds.

The Serbs faced the demands of Kosovo with extreme brutality, and violently suppressed the demonstrations in Kosovo and imposed a state of emergency. In 1989, the unrest moved to Vojvodina with conditions similar to Kosovo, as it is also an autonomous Serbian province like Kosovo. The Serbs made constitutional amendments to abolish the autonomy of the two provinces and carried out large-scale resettlement campaigns for the Serbs in the province of Kosovo, where 50,000 Serbs and Montenegrins were settled in Kosovo. The Serbian authorities also abolished the Kosovo Assembly in May 1990 and the Albanians were excluded from public service, and the only Albanian newspaper was suspended ([30]).

In the meantime, Slovenia was working hard to gain independence. On September 27, 1989, Slovenia’s parliament approved Slovenia’s right to secede through a referendum which the Serbs rejected. Until the end of 1991, a referendum was held not only in Slovenia but also in Croatia and Macedonia. All these republics supported the principle of secession from the Yugoslav Union through the referendum ([31]).

The Yugoslav civil war has taken on an international dimension so that it is no longer possible to understand what is going on in Yugoslavia without understanding the motives and interests of world powers in the region, especially the neighboring countries of Yugoslavia. As for the independence of Macedonia, Greece was opposed to the idea because there are Slavic groups that share the ethnic origin with the Slavic Macedonians covering large parts of Greece, making Greece fear that Macedonia poses a threat to Greek territorial integrity. Bulgaria has begun to recognize Macedonia, but not on the basis that the Macedonians are an independent nation, but as part of the Bulgarian nation. Albania was looking for the independence of the province of Kosovo as part of Albania was annexed to Serbia in the wake of the Balkan war (1912-1913) ([32]).

The Austrians have also paid considerable attention to the future of Slovenia and Croatia, considering that its citizens are descendants of ethnic origin Slovenian and because Austria as a closed and no sea coast was largely dependent on the Adriatic on the Croatian coast ports, prompting it to recognize Croatia, and Austria’s historical ties with both Croatia and Slovenia, in addition to the presence of a large number of Croatian immigrants in Germany (about half a million people), generating a positive attitude to the independence of Croatia ([33]), so the German Chancellor- at that time- Helmut Kohl has announced his support for the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, and in response to that, United states  announced economic boycott of all Yugoslavia, while the United Nations procrastinated to send peacekeeping forces in Yugoslavia. The French position was opposed to Germany’s position, because of the strong relations between the Serbs and the French. However, the German position had a strong influence on the European Community on the subject. The Maastricht Summit discussed the issue of the ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia and stressed that the recognition should be considered, only, Within a comprehensive plan for the final solution, and that all parties must refrain from any action that may contribute to the aggravation of the crisis([34]).

However, the Germans continued their efforts and pressure on the members of the European Community and urged them to discuss the recognition of the Yugoslav republics seeking secession. This resulted in the Declaration of the seventeenth of December 1991, which set certain conditions that these republics must meet before the European Community’s recognition of independence, These included the commitment to support democracy and human rights, protect minorities and abide by arms control laws.([35]),Croatia, Macedonia ,Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted a request for recognition to the European Community, which decided to recognize Croatia and Slovenia, and to consider the request of Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina after submitting further documents on the compliance with the conditions Recognition mentioned.

Bosnia and Herzegovina continued its efforts to achieve independence and organized a plebiscite to confirm its independence. As a result, 99.43% of those who participated in the referendum wanted independence from Yugoslavia. Bosnian President Ali Izetbegovic declared Bosnia and Herzegovina independence in March 1992([36]).

After the referendum, the conflict emerged between the three main communities: Bosnian Muslims (42%), Serbs (32%) and Croats (18%) on the status of the groups within Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the relationship between them. Three main parties competed in the 1992 elections, As follows:

The Democratic Action Party, which represents Bosnian Muslims, won 37 percent of the seats. The Serbian Democratic Party led by Radovan Karadz, 31 percent, and the Croatian Party, 17 percent, formed a coalition government of Muslims, Croats, and Serbs led by Izetbegovic ([37]).

These three groups discussed the situation in Bosnia and stressed the recognition of the outcome of the referendum on the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Begovic choosing between political fragmentation and geographical fragmentation. He chooses the second option, which means that Bosnia maintains its external borders, and to be divided into three provinces. The conflict, however, revolves around the very foundations of division, with Serbs claiming two-thirds of the territory of Yugoslavia and one- third of Sarajevo. They also disagreed on the situation of the federal army, where Croats and Bosnians demanded his expulsion as an occupying power, while the Serbs refused to withdraw the army, which had already refused to withdraw, and enabled the Serbs to help the army occupies the territory of Bosnian Muslims where they seized 70% of the territory of the Republic and all this was done at the expense of the Bosnians where the Croats were not affected much of that.

Ethnicity, eventually, led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the independence of its republics one by one, and the new Yugoslavia reduced to only two republics (Montenegro) and Serbia (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia).

In early May 2006, a referendum was held in Montenegro. The outcome of the referendum confirmed the desire of Montenegrin citizens to secede from Serbia. The United States of America, the European Union, and many other countries recognized the independence of Montenegro. Serbia agreed and declared itself the heir to the former Yugoslavia. Thus, the Yugoslav federation, built by Tito, was disintegrated because of the ethnic and cultural conflicts caused by Serb fanaticism and their attempt to dominate other groups in the country.

3- The Kurdish Problem:

There is a great difference on the ethnic origin of the Kurds, and there are four views in this regard as follows:

1 / they are of Aryan origin.

2 / they are Medes and they are a group of Iranian tribes.

3 / they are the indigenous peoples of the Asia Minor Mountains.

4 / they are Indo-European peoples.

But the Kurds are an ethnic group divided between five countries: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Armenia ([38]). If there is a dispute over the ethnic origin of the Kurds, the dispute is also about the borders of the Kurdistan region, and about the number of Kurds, but it is agreed that their number is not less than 20 million, and that the largest Kurdish groups number is the Kurdish group in Turkey (12 million) Iraq (4 million), Iran (2 million), and the rest are divided between Syria, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, and have a symbolic presence in Egypt and Jordan([39]).

The Kurdish problem is a source of concern for Turkey, Iraq and Iran because of a large number of Kurds in these countries, so the researcher will focus on this problem in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, and the impact of it in political stability in these countries.

  • The Kurdish Movement in Turkey:

Although the number of Kurds in Turkey is up to 12 million, they claim that they are deprived of their political rights ([40]).

Historically, the problem of this part of Kurdistan dates back to the beginning of the sixteenth century. In 1514, the Battle of Jaldiran broke out between Shiite Iran and Ottoman- Turkey. Following this battle, the territory inhabited by Kurds. was divided between the two countries. The victorious Ottoman Turkey won the largest part of it.This division was finally approved by an agreement signed in 1639 between the Iranian Shah and the Ottoman Sultan. The territory was also divided under the 1916 Treaty of Sais-Picot between Britain, France, and Russia ([41]).

By the end of the First World War, the Kurds found an opportunity to gain independence under the 14 Wilson Principles of 1918. The Sever Treaty was concerned with the Kurdish problem, with the adoption of a draft autonomy for the Kurds within six months. However, the Kurds did not achieve this and their hopes were rejected by the arrival of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to power in Turkey. Ataturk rejected the Treaty of Sever and called for its abolition. Indeed, the Allies agreed to cancel this treaty and replace it with the Treaty of Lausanne, which kept all of Turkey except the Arab territories. There was no reference to Kurdish rights in self-rule in the Lausanne Treaty which meant keeping Kurdistan divided among five countries: Turkey, Iran, the Soviet Union (independent states), Iraq and Syria (mandated territories under the League of Nations).

The struggle of the Kurds in Turkey began in the late 18th century when Abdurrahman Bashan Baban launched an uprising aimed at secession from 1788 to 1812. In the period from 1812 to 1935, there were more than fifteen revolutions and armed uprising by the Kurds against the Turkish authorities (1830-1897), the revolution of Sheikh Obeid Allah al-Nahari (1878-1881), the revolution of Sheikh Saeed al-Birani (1923-1925), the Darsim revolution led by Sayed Reza (1936) 1938)([42]).

Contemporary Kurdish Movement in Turkey:

The four decades of (1940-1980) witnessed a lull in the Turkish situation with regard to the Kurdish issue. During this period, the Turkish government was able to fully control the situation. However, by the 1980s, the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), the most powerful Kurdish organization, had come into being. The first building of this party began in the 1970s by the Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan. Ocalan fled in the early 1980s to Lebanon and started preparing the military militias and sending them with the help of Syria to Turkish Kurdistan.

The PKK used methods of violence and terrorism to achieve its goals of secession from Turkey and the establishment of an independent state. During 1991-1994, the PKK carried out thousands of military operations against the Turkish army and installations. PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan was arrested, He was sentenced to death and not executed.

However, we should not conclude our conversation about the Kurdish problem in Turkey before we refer to the international implications of the Kurdish problem, and the impact of this dilemma in the relationship of the parties related to the subject of the Kurds. In this context, it is necessary to point to the deterioration in Turkish-Syrian relations because of the Kurdish dilemma, because Turkey accuses Syria of helping the Kurds in their struggle against the Turkish government. Indeed, Syria has used the Kurdish card in its pressure on the Turkish government to force it to make some concessions regarding the dispute over the sharing of the Euphrates, especially since the Turks built many dams on the Euphrates despite Syria’s opposition to it.

In 2002, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in Turkey. Due to political balances, the party and its government were unable to reveal any new policy regarding dealing with the Kurdish problem. But in 2005, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (then Prime Minister), during his visit to (Diyarbakir), where the Kurdish majority said that “the response to the ongoing grievances against the Kurds for a long time is not repression, but more democracy.”([43])

In its quest to join the European Union and to implement the Copenhagen criteria for accession to the Union, which emphasizes respect for human rights and minorities, Erdogan’s government began to seek to solve the Kurdish problem. In 2009, it launched an initiative that included a number of points, Imposed in the Kurdish areas, allowing the Kurds to use their language in education, proposing a number of development projects in Kurdish areas.

In fact, it contributed to other factors in the formulation of this initiative, including 🙁[44])

  1. It has become part of the Turkish government’s policy of settling problems with neighbors (Zero Problem with Neighbors), which was formulated by Dawoodoglu.
  2. The government seeks to attract Kurdish voters.

3 – Due to the imbalance of power in the border with Iraq and the PKK in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and the US withdrawal from Iraq, which required a new strategy to deal with the situation in southeastern Turkey, which has become a concern for the Turkish government because of developments in Iraq.

  1. Turkey’s economic recovery under the AKP government encouraged a peaceful approach to the Turkish file, reducing military expenditures for development.

However, the majority of the Kurds did not interact with the initiative, which they considered below the level of the Kurdish aspirations, and it did not address the basic issues and did not respond to the main demands of the Kurds, but some questioned the intentions of the government accusing them of seeking political gains from these initiatives. Therefore, the fighting between the two sides continued, and the initiative did not stop the fighting between the two sides.

But foreign and internal developments have forced the Turkish government to open a new dialogue with the Kurds. The outbreak of armed conflict in Syria led to the withdrawal of the Syrian army from predominantly Kurdish areas in the north and north-east. The Kurdish Joint Commission , Which raised the situation of Turkish concerns that feared a Syrian Kurdish entity near the Turkish border inhabited by Kurds from Turkey so as not to provide this situation incubator of the PKK used in its conflict with the Turkish government.

These developments on the Syrian level imposed on Turkey to intervene in Syria to protect its interests decided to stand by the Syrian opposition and cut off diplomatic relations with the Assad regime and supported the Kurdish leader in Iraq Massoud Barzani against Iraqi Prime Minister (Nuri al-Maliki).

At the domestic level, the AKP’s desire to change Turkey’s system of government from a parliamentary system to a presidential system sought to attract the Kurdish Party for Peace and Democracy in order to secure the necessary approval in Parliament to bring about such change.

Negotiations between the Justice Party and the Peace and Development Party led to Kurdish deputies in the Turkish parliament visiting Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan in his prison. The government also released a number of Kurdish leaders who were in prison. The parliament also passed a law allowing Kurds to use their mother tongue in education. Ocalan called for a cease-fire, and the party’s military leadership immediately responded to Ocalan’s directives. After a visit by other Kurdish deputies to Abdullah Ocalan, Ocalan put forward a road map that includes: An immediate cease-fire, the withdrawal of PKK fighters out of the Turkish border and disarmament, and, on Ocalan’s directives, released government officials held by the party.

But all were surprised by the PKK’s attack on a Kurdish military barracks, followed by the assassination of three Kurdish women leaders of the party at the Kurdish Institute in Paris. This behavior was interpreted as referring to a crisis within the party and to deep differences in the course of negotiations with the government, and some have pointed out that this shows that Ocalan – despite his strength and symbol – is no longer able to grasp all the threads, and may be due to the length of his absence from the corridors of the party as a result of his prolonged imprisonment.

The government, after these incidents, resorted to heavy and violent air strikes on Kurdish rebel groups. The government says it killed 3,100 Kurdish militants in 2015. Kurdish militants also killed dozens of police and soldiers in southeastern Turkey.

These developments and armed confrontations led to the call of the “Democratic People’s Party”, a union of several Kurdish organizations, to “autonomy for the Kurds.” This is an invitation that the government completely rejects, stressing that this will not happen.

The fighting between the two sides continues till this moment. It is reported that the cost of armed confrontation between the two sides was high. More than 45,000 people are estimated to have died in this conflict. The Turkish state has spent about 300 – 450 billion US dollars.

2 – Kurdish Movement in Iran:

The number of Kurds in Iran is about five million people, and since the beginning of the twentieth century, the Kurds staged several revolutions and uprisings aimed at determining their fate like Ismail Agasimko movement (1920-1925), the movement of Judge Mohammed (1945 1946) and other movements. The Kurds gained the trust of the former Shah of Iran (Muhammad Reza Pahlavi) who supported them but abandoned them after signing an agreement with Iraq concerning participation in the Shatt al-Arab corridor. Since then, the Shah has begun arresting their leaders.

When the Iranian revolution led by Imam Khomeini in 1979, the Kurds placed great hopes on the new Islamic revolution and fully prepared themselves for self-rule. However, Imam Khomeini rejected any talk about autonomy, which was working to unify Muslims irrespective of their races and cultures.  The relations between the two sides was deteriorated, and there were violent confrontations between the Kurds and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Finally, the Iranian government, using force and thought together, succeeded in defeating the Kurds. The religious leaders had a major influence in dividing the Kurds. They relied on the idea of ​​Islamic solidarity, which forced the Kurds to support the Iranian government as an Islamic government, Kurds divided between supporters of the Iranian Republic, and supporters of the Kurdish movement of independence, thus weakening the Kurdish ethnic movement, and dispersing its efforts.

  1. The Kurdish Movement in Iraq:

The number of Kurds in Iraq is about 4 million people, and despite the ethnic pluralism that characterizes Iraq (Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Persians), the Kurdish problem is the most common problems facing Iraq. Iraqi Kurds revolted several times during the twentieth century in order to achieve independence, of these revolutions: Sheikh Mohammed Barzanji (revolution of 1919), the revolution of Mustafa Barzani (1943 1845), When Abdul Karim Qasim came to power through a military coup overthrew the kingdom in Iraq, the aspirations of the Kurds turned from seeking to improve the economic and social conditions of their regions to national aspirations aimed at achieving a kind of autonomy.

The reason for this is that Abdul Karim Qassem announced his desire to adopt a pluralistic democratic system that allows all parties to operate without restrictions. Qassem also allowed the issuance of newspapers and party magazines. The Kurds invested these conditions to assert their status as an independent nationalist. The constitution Issued by Abdul Karim Qasim stated that Iraq is composed of two nationalities: Arabs and Kurds.

This period witnessed a rapprochement between the Kurds and the Iraqi regime headed by Abdul Karim Qasim. This rapprochement reached the point of Barzani’s return to Iraq to participate in the battle for national building. However, by 1961, relations between the two sides deteriorated seriously, leading Barzani to flee Iraq, His supporters to resist the regime and the relationship between the two parties continued in this way until the overthrow of Abdul Karim Qasim in 1963. Despite the attempt of the new regime under the leadership of Abdul Salam Aref and Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr peaceful solution of the Kurdish problem, the two parties failed to reach a solution, which led to clashes between the parties and finally reached an agreement with the Iraqi government in 1970.
The most important provisions of that agreement were:

 1 / Recognition of the Kurdish language as an official language in areas with a Kurdish majority.

 2 / the text of the Constitution that the Iraqi people consist of two main groups:  the Arab nation and the Kurdish nation within the unity of Iraq.

 3 / The Kurdish people participate in the legislative power as a proportion of the total population of Iraq.

4 / one of the Vice-Presidents of the Republic should be a Kurdish.

 5 / compensate the Kurds for their backwardness in the fields of culture and education.

  1. The right of the Kurdish people to establish their youth, women’s and student organizations ([45]).

In March 1974, the Iraqi government announced a project of self-government based on making Arbil, the capital of the Kurdish region and not Kirkuk as Kurds are demanding, and select the area of ​​Iraq self-rule which considered by the Kurds as representing only half of the southern Kurdistan, so the area was rejected by the Kurds which Renewed conflict between the two sides. Iran  supported the Kurds which enabled them to achieve a great deal of success, but the situation has completely changed in 1975, when Iraq was signed with Iran Algiers Convention on 6 March 1975, which Iraq’s concession under which Iran in the Shatt al-Arab versus stop Iran for support of the Kurds in Iraq, so the Algiers Convention has a significant impact on the decline of the Kurds activities, and they withdrew to Iran, and ended this page of the history of the Kurdish struggle against Iraq to establish an independent state.

In the years following 1975, the Iraqi government strengthened its position and tightened its grip on the Kurds. It carried out measures aimed at changing the population structure, displacing 50,000 Kurds from the north and settling the Arabs in Kurdistan.

However, despite these harsh measures against them, the Kurds remained in their position to separate from Iraq and establish their independent state. It was founded in the first of June 1975 (the National Union of Kurdistan) under the leadership of the Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish Democratic Party led by Massoud Barzani, and the Party of the Islamic Movement led by Sheikh Osman Abdel Aziz.

During the Iran-Iraq war, the Kurds took advantage of the situation, benefiting from the large Iranian support to confront the Iraqi authorities. They achieved great success. After the cease-fire between Iran and Iraq in 1988, the Iraqi authority tightened its grip on the Kurds.

During the Second Gulf War, the Kurds found their chance to realize their ambitions to establish an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq. However, the position of the international coalition on the issue of Kurds summarizes the following:

  • Rejecting the establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq so as not to spill over into the Western-allied Turkey in the region. This would also embarrass Britain, which suffers from the problem of Northern Ireland, where Britain’s support for the independence of the Kurds will lead to indirect pressure on its position on the Irish issue.
  • The use of the Kurds as a pressure on Iraq to carry out the fulfillment of the obligations imposed by the UN Security Council ([46]).

This position embarrassed the coalition forces that abandoned the Kurds after inciting them to the revolution. As a remedy for this critical situation, the coalition forces worked to gather Kurdish refugees in open camps in northern Iraq. Britain proposed a separate and secure area for the Kurds, which was rejected by Iraq as it is similar to the establishment of an independent national homeland for the Kurds. Finally, Britain worked to amend its proposal and proposed a safe area in northern Iraq under the protection of the United Nations to secure the return of Kurdish refugees. European countries and the United States amended the proposal and sent European and US forces to northern Iraq to aid the Kurds([47]).

The Kurdish alliance with the United States during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, after the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein and the Kurds in the Kurdish areas, and penetrated the disputed areas, and were able to penetrate the institutions of Iraq .so after the fall of Saddam Hussein system in 2003, the Kurds no longer feel as marginalized as they were in the past. Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani became the president of Iraq and things turned upside down. Sunni Arabs became marginalized after they had long controlled the situation in Iraq, to the extent that it came to the extent of questioning the Arabism of Iraq in the constitution they proposed, which worked to isolate Iraq from its Arab environment.

These are just examples of ethnic conflicts in the world, and in fact, no country is free of such a conflict regardless of its progress or backwardness.

Thirdly: Evaluation the Methods of Settling Ethnic Disputes:

The researcher seeks to explore methods of settling ethnic conflicts in general, and then tries to devise the method used in each case of conflict mentioned in the study in order to evaluate these methods and their success in dealing with the problems raised, by dealing with the phenomenon of ethnic and cultural diversity in these Countries.

According to politics and sociology scientists, there are three main modes of settling disputes and ethnic conflicts, with several other methods. These three main methods are:

1- The method of assimilation

  1. Method of exclusion

3 – Method of functional integration

The method of assimilation refers to the situation in which the ruling group refuses to recognize the specificity of the group or other groups that are less influential in society, and are working to abolish the specificity of this group and to turn a blind eye to its demands and rights. The culture of the ruling majority, and the use of coercive force, in order to “achieve national integration” in a multi-ethnic, multicultural society by creating a monolithic society in which all ethnic and cultural groups are dissolved within the national community ([48]).However, this method has led – contrary to its desired results – to the desire of the ruling groups to achieve national integration and national unity. Their practices led to the demand of these minorities to separate from the state after they felt the contempt and marginalization of the ruling national authorities.

The method of exclusion, although acknowledging the difference of culture and culture of the other, does not provide a vision of coexistence between the different ethnic or cultural groups, because it does not believe in the possibility of coexistence between these groups, so it resorts to exclude the distinguished group by its physical attributes, or culture from the state As a single option to prevent conflicts and prevent civil wars, and therefore this approach considers giving the group distinct from the majority of the population of the state the right to secede in its territory to establish a separate political entity,  or join another ethnic or cultural similarity and geographical proximity allowed by The accession.

The second recognizes this peculiarity but does not see a way to coexist between the disparate groups in race and culture, and works to keep it away from the state to establish itself as a political entity of its own.

The third option is the option of functional integration, which means “the existence of an association between members of a group that is not necessarily based on a common culture or identity, but based primarily on an interest, and that members of the group are prepared to accept existing institutions as long as they function effectively. Politicians as good or corrupt based on their ability to perform these functions “([49]).

In view of the three models mentioned in the study, we observe that the British practices in the Kubek region and the policies adopted by them, which approved the application of English laws to the territory of the French language culture, and encouraged the British emigration to Canada with the aim of changing the demographic map which has already led to making French speakers a minority within Canada, And the deprivation of the Kubik people from public office, all these practices refer to a policy of (assimilation), which explains the violent reaction by the KUPK, which calls for the secession of the province, and takes a violent approach to achieve this goal, including political assassinations, the destruction of public installations in some cases, , As reflected in the position of the Kubik party, which rejects violence , but calls for the independence of the province.

Despite Canada’s efforts to address the problem, and the use of democratic methods, all this did not persuade the people of the Territory to continue to link with Canada. This was reflected in the 1994 referendum on the fate of the province, where 46.4 Quebec residents voted In favor of secession, due to previous absorptive practices in the region. However, the democratic system in Canada, as well as the military power of the Canadian state, can contribute to calming the situation in Quebec and not aggravating it, because the state – by virtue of its democratic system – simplifies the freedoms that enable different groups to express their privacy, At the same time, the state institution has the tools of physical violence through which it can confront practices aimed at threatening the security situation in the country.

Despite the great efforts made by Tito for the “fusion of nationalities” not only at the cultural level, but also at the social level by encouraging intermarriage between different nationalities in order to create a national (Yugoslav) , But the rapid disintegration of Yugoslavia after Tito’s death has confirmed that the policy of assimilation cannot create a voluntary unity between different groups, and unwilling to co-exist, but may succumb to the repression of authorities,  and this is contrary to the desired (voluntary unity).

Regarding the issue of the Kurds in Turkey, the PKK resorted to violence against the government. The Turkish government also resorted to force against the PKK, did not recognize their cultural identity, and allowed them to use their language only in 2009.

However, the more open the dialogue between them and the government, and whenever the government adopted more democratic means and showed a degree of understanding of the problem, even in terms of statements, the more calm the situation, and the Kurds meet the steps of the government steps similar or more, suggesting the possibility of finding solutions to this problem through recognition The uniqueness of the Kurds and their distinction from the other Kurdish groups and the subsequent procedures such as fair representation in the organs of power, and allow them to use their language in education to other measures.

The situation of the Kurds in Iraq, where most political systems used violence with the Kurds, also emphasizes that coercive assimilation methods do not lead to a result and that democracy can be an antidote to such conflicts because democracy allows different groups to express their interests within the political system. This democracy in Iraq brought the Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani to the presidency of the Republic of Iraq, and the mechanisms of democratic governance enable different groups to express their interests and enter into compromises, alliances, and settlements with other groups within the state.


 Ethnic pluralism is a general phenomenon that includes all parts of the world without exception, regardless of the degree of progress or backwardness of the state. As it prevailed in most of the backward regions of the African continent, it is found in the most developed regions of Europe and North America.

Models of multi-ethnicity in the world to demonstrate the whole phenomenon, such as the province of Quebec in Canada and the injustice felt by this group economically and culturally. It also sheds light on the former Yugoslavia, the ethnic groups that ripple, Tito’s strategies, his policy of maintaining a united Yugoslavia, the bloody ethnic conflict that erupted after Tito’s death, which led to the disintegration of the Yugoslav federal state, and the independence of all its republics. The study also discussed the situation of the Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Iraq and their continuous struggle to achieve their ambition of establishing an independent Kurdish state.

[1] Stefan Wolff , Ethnic Conflict: A Global Perspective , Oxford University Press , 2007 , p 10-13 .

[2] Abdul Salam Ibrahim Baghdadi, National Unity and the Problem of Minorities in Africa, Series of Doctoral Dissertations No. 23, Center for Arab Unity Studies, Beirut, Second Edition, 2000, pp 15-16.

[3] Alfred Nahima (ed.), Peace Issues in Africa, translated by Mustapha Magdi Al-Jamal, Dar Al-Ameen for Publishing and Distribution, Cairo, 2005, pp. 6-7

[4] Peter Wallenstein, Introduction to Understanding the Settlement of Conflicts: War, Peace and the World Order, translated by Saad Al Saad and Mohammed Dabour, The Scientific Center for Political Studies, Amman, 2005, p. 35.

[5] Ahmed Fouad Raslan, The Theory of International Conflict: A Study in the Development of Contemporary International Family, The Egyptian General Book Organization, Cairo, 1986, p.18.

[6] For more details see: S.A. Giannakos, Ethnic Conflict: Religion, Identity, and Politics , Ohio University Press , Ohio, 2002.

[7] (H.S. Morris, ” Ethnic Groups” in the International Encyclopedia of the social Sciences , edited by David .. Sills (1968) Crowell Collier and Macmillan Inc.… Volume (11) P.8.

[8] Tatu Vanhanen , Ethnic Conflicts: Their Biological Roots in Ethnic Nepotism , Ulster Institute for Social Research , 2012 , 26-27.

[9] Ahmed Wahban, Ethnic Conflicts and the Stability of the Contemporary World: A Study of Minorities, Groups and Ethnic Movements, New University Publishing House, Alexandria, 1999, p.55.

[10]  Mahjoub Basha, Ethnic Diversity and Foreign Policy in Sudan, Center for Strategic Studies, Khartoum, 1998, p. 11 -13.

[11] Abdul Salam Ibrahim Baghdadi, op. Cit., P. 100- 101.

[12]For more information about the issue see:  Arnold Rose, The Roots of Prejudice, UNESCO, 1958.

[13] Encarta Encyclopedia 2000. Microsoft Corporation.

[14] Mona Mohamed Taha Ayoub, “The Problems of Multiculturalism and its Impact on the Building of the Modern State”, Journal of Strategic Studies, No. 13, March, 1998, p.

[15] Ahmed Wahban, op. Cit., P. 112 112.

[16]    Ibid., P. 113-  114.

[17]   Encarta Encyclopedia 2000. op. cit

[18]   Ahmed Wahban, op. Cit., P. 115 -116.

[19] Garth Stevenson, Parallel Paths: The Development of Nationalism in Ireland and Quebec ,  Mcgill-Queens University Press , Ontario, 2006 ,pp 3- 16.

[20] Fatma Zahra Osman, “Origins of the Question of Nationalities in Yugoslavia”, Journal of International Politics, No. 106, October 1991, p. 54.

[21]  Slavs are the most important Indo-European groups in most of Eastern and Central Europe and their main concentrations in Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Slovakia and Bulgaria. They are known by the Arabs as “Al-Sakalba”.

[22]  Ibid., P.54-55.

[23] Ibid., P.56-58.

[24] Mona Mohamed Taha Ayoub, op. Cit, p. 127.

[25] Fatima al-Zahra ‘Othman, op. Cit., P. 58.

[26]  Fatima al-Zahra, op. Cit., P. 58.

[27] Mona Mohamed Taha Ayoub, , op. Cit., p. 127.

* Yugoslavs are the people who came to life as a result of the intermarriage of people of different nationalities.

[28] Abdullah Ismaïch, The Conflict in Yugoslavia and the Future of Muslims, Institute of Political Studies, Islamabad, 1992, p. 34.

[29] Fatima al-Zahra, op. Cit., P. 58.

[30] Abdullah Esmatish, op. Cit., P. 77 -78.

[31]Ibid., P. 72- 75.

[32] Ibid., P. 120-122.

[33] Ibid., P. 123-125.

[34] Fatima al-Zahra ‘Othman, op. Cit., P. 58.

[35] Ibid., P. 59.

[36] Abdullah Ishmaatis, op. Cit., P. 127.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Institute for security & Development policy, Turkey’s Kurdish Conflict: 2015-Present,, December 2016, p 1.

[39] Ahmed Naji Qamha, “The Kurds of Iraq: Reality and the Future”, Journal of International Politics, No. 126, October 1996, p. 143.

[40] Ted Robert Jarr, Minorities at Risk, Madbouli Library, Cairo, 1995, p. 259.

[41] Ahmed Wahban, op. Cit., P. 192.

[42] Ibid., P. 165 – 170.

[43] Johann Nekatin, Identity, Narration, and Tenders: Assessment of Kurdish Initiatives in Turkey, Sta for Studies and Research, No. 3, 2013, p. 29.

[44] Muammar Faisal Khuli, The Kurdish Question in Turkey: From Denial to Recognition, Center for Links to Strategic and Political Studies in: Http://

[45] See Atef Abdul Hakim Idris, “The Kurdish Problem and Turkish Aspirations,” Journal of Strategic Studies, No. 13, March 1998, p. 103, and compare with Muhammad Wahban, op. Cit., P. 187.

[46] Atef Abdel-Hakam, op. Cit., P. 104.

[47] Ibid., P. 105.

[48] On the rationale for the establishment of a one-party system, see Peter Boutros-Ghali and Mahmoud Khairy Issa, The Introduction to Political Science, The Anglo-Egyptian Library, Cairo, 10th Edition, 1998, p. 316, Dar al-Nahda al-Arabiya, Cairo, 1992, p. 168.

[49] Ibrahim Ahmed Nasreddine, National Integration in Africa and the Sudanese Option, Journal of the Future Arab, Issue (63), May 1984, p . 38.