On Thursday, 22 January, the international conference “The Right to Self-Determination and the Independence of Nations: Kurdistan, Balochistan, Ahwaz” was held with the participation of political and parliamentary figures, experts in diplomacy and mediation, media activists, and representatives of movements and parties of these three nations. This conference was organized by the Public Movement “Free Nation” Ukraine, and the speakers were as follows:
Hosts of the program: Bogdan Vartsov and Dr. Abdulwahab Darvish
Speakers: Elkhan Nuriyev, political activist; Dr. Rollan Roberts, President of the “U.S. Center for Diplomacy” and a board member of Free Nation; Yuriy Kamelchuk, Member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a member of Ukraine’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE); Gary McGill, social media activist and influencer from the United Kingdom; Aref Kaabi, head of the Executive Office of the Ahwaz Government; Muhim Sarkhosh, Secretary-General of the Balochistan National Solidarity Part; Faiz M. Baluch, representative of the Free Balochistan Movement; Ashtyako Poorkarim, leader of the Kurdistan Independence Movement; Abdulla Baloch, leader of the Balochistan National Movement; Salah Sultanpanah, a member of the leadership of the Kurdistan Independence Party.
The speakers and organizers of the conference stated that the main objective of this conference is to move the discussion from describing the crisis and providing general analyses to the level of practical action and trackable policymaking—action that can create a common framework and an international network in the path of political, legal, media, and organizational support for the right to self-determination of nations under domination.
The international conference “The Right to Self-Determination and the Independence of Nations,” focused on Kurdistan, Balochistan, and Ahwaz, was organized by the Public Movement “Free Nation” Ukraine under the leadership of pavlo Chairman of the Public association “Free Nation” Pavlo Yantsen, and the management and facilitation of the session were carried out by Bogdan Vartsov as a representative of the “House of Freedom” and the international branch of Free Nation, and Board member of the Public association “Free Nation” Darvish Abdulwahab. At the beginning of the meeting, Bogdan welcomed the participants, described the right to self-determination as a “fundamental human right,” and emphasized that in the twenty-first century, one cannot accept the condition of nations that are deprived of their rights on the basis of ethnic, cultural, or national identity. In his view, this conference must reduce the gap between the struggles of oppressed nations and the global decision-making space; that is, it must move the voice of nations from the level of resistance and protest to the level of politics and diplomacy.
Bogdan also, referring to the conditions of war in Europe and the experience of Ukraine, emphasized the link between Europe’s security and developments in the Middle East, and spoke about the role of the Islamic Republic of Iran in destabilizing the region and supporting Russia’s war machine. From the perspective of the organizers, the issue is not merely a domestic crisis within the geography of Iran; rather, it is a phenomenon intertwined with regional networks, the export of crisis, and cross-border security consequences. Within this framework, one of the prominent messages of the opening was an emphasis on “unity and synergy” among nations under domination and the creation of political representative structures for dialogue with the world.
After the opening, Bogdan, with the same formal and concise hosting style, introduced the speakers and handed the podium to them step by step; a method that throughout the meeting helped create order, focus, and a media rhythm, and brought this conference closer from a purely speaking session to an event that is replayable and reportable for the media.
The first speaker was Elkhan Nuriyev, a political activist, who emphasized the necessity of accurately understanding the “real situation” in Iran; a situation which, according to him, is accompanied by severe censorship, a closed environment, and difficulty in accessing independent information. He said that the Iranian regime not only confines itself to internal repression, but also acts as an aggressive actor in the region and feeds on crises and wars. In his view, the first step for any effective international action is to strengthen channels of information and convey field realities to global public opinion; because in the absence of an accurate and documented narrative, international decision-makers either miscalculate or settle for superficial frameworks.
Next, Dr. Rollan Roberts, President of the “U.S. Center for Diplomacy” and a board member of Free Nation, delivered a speech centered on “freedom with responsibility.” With a conceptual yet practical approach, he emphasized that freedom is not merely a slogan or a moment of victory; rather, it is the beginning of a more difficult period: a period of institution-building, accountability, and governance. He warned that contemporary history has repeatedly shown that nations that pass through authoritarianism, if they do not have a plan for the day after, may enter new cycles of crisis, instability, or the reproduction of authoritarianism. From Roberts’ perspective, the true measure of freedom is not what people can do; rather, it is what governments do not allow to be said or criticized. In this speech, he highlighted institution-building, political ethics, self-governance, and “statesmanship” as decisive elements for a successful passage through the transition period.
After that, Yuriy Kamelchuk, Member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a member of Ukraine’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), spoke and tried to bring the discussion of the right to self-determination closer to the language of law and parliamentary and international mechanisms. The main محور of his remarks was the “necessity of precise, evidence-based documentation.” He emphasized that practical decisions at the international level—from official condemnations to targeted sanctions and legal follow-ups—become more feasible when cases are completed with data, documents, testimonies, and clear evidence. In his view, no society remains sustainable by relying on violence, discrimination, and silencing, and respect for cultural and linguistic diversity is not a threat, but the foundation of lasting peace. The presence of a Ukrainian MP and the reference to PACE’s capacity carried an important message for the organizers: this meeting seeks to move beyond sympathy and generalities and to employ the language of practical policy.
In the media and public opinion segment, Gary McGill, a social media activist and influencer from the United Kingdom, described Iran’s situation as concerning, focusing on the role of media and the sensitivity of Western public opinion, and said that what is happening is not compatible with fundamental freedoms and the social contract. He emphasized peaceful solutions, the preservation of human dignity, and the necessity of continuous media attention to the situation of oppressed nations. This part of the conference showed that the organizers consider the media field and social networks as part of the infrastructure of policymaking; meaning that if the correct narrative is not formed, policy will not reach a result either.
Next, the Ahwaz segment was followed with the speech of Aref Kaabi, head of the Executive Office of the Ahwaz Government. He emphasized the right of the Arab people of Ahwaz to preserve their identity and culture, achieve justice, and have equal access to the resources of their land, and said that without international support and attention, the path to achieving legitimate rights will come with heavy human costs. In this speech, concepts such as dignity, justice, identity, and resources were raised in the form of a specific political demand: the recognition of rights and the end of imposed structures.
The Balochistan segment, with several consecutive speakers, was one of the prominent axes of the conference. Muhim Sarkhosh, Secretary-General of the Balochistan National Solidarity Part, reviewing the political history of Balochistan, said that this land, due to historical divisions and the imposition of borders among several states, has become vulnerable, and in Iran, centralist policies—across different periods—have led to structural discrimination, chronic underdevelopment, and widespread poverty. He emphasized that the extraction of resources from peripheral regions and the unjust allocation of capital and public services are the roots of part of the crisis, and hope for reform within the existing structure has sharply diminished. In his view, the right to self-determination is not an emotional slogan, but a response to a historical deadlock.
After him, Faiz M. Baluch, representative of the Free Balochistan Movement, focused on the human and social aspect of repression: executions, security pressure, deprivation, and the continuation of violence-based policies. He said that despite these pressures, the will of the Baloch nation has not been broken and social resistance continues. His central message was built on the “solidarity of oppressed nations,” emphasizing the idea that victory, without networking and a unified voice among different movements, becomes difficult.
The main speech of the conference was delivered by Ashtyako Poorkarim, leader of the Kurdistan Independence Movement. He began with solidarity with the people of Ukraine and considered Ukraine’s experience evidence that lasting peace is not built on occupation. He said: Let me begin with clear and explicit solidarity with the people of Ukraine. Ukraine today stands on the front line of defending freedom, democracy, and national sovereignty in Europe. Ukraine’s experience reminds the world that lasting peace cannot be built on occupation; sustainable democracy cannot rest on force and domination; and real security is not the product of bargains with occupiers, but the result of ending occupation, respecting international law, and guaranteeing the right of nations to self-determination.
Poorkarim then emphasized the concept of “a single standard” and said that if occupation is condemned in Europe, it must be condemned everywhere in the world by the same standard; double standards both weaken justice and create new crises. He described Iran’s crisis not merely as the issue of changing a government, but as the issue of a centralist and security-oriented structure of domination that is reproduced through militarization, discrimination, denial of identities, and systematic economic deprivation. In his view, as long as this structure remains, real transition and lasting peace are not possible.
In a key part of his speech, Poorkarim described the “right to self-determination” as the boundary between legitimate sovereignty and illegitimate domination, and said this right is a legal and practical solution to end the cycle of violence. He then explicitly called on the international community for practical support and said that oppressed nations do not need symbolic sympathy, but rather transparent media, political, and financial backing; supportive defensive assistance within the framework of international law to protect civilians; and logistical support—including secure communications, documentation capacity, and relief capabilities. He emphasized that the purpose of these requests is not to escalate the crisis, but to stop the cycle of violence and replace repression with politics.
The leader of the Kurdistan Independence Movement continued: What is overlooked in many analyses today is precisely this key point: the crisis should not be reduced merely to “regime change.” The issue is not only the existence of an authoritarian government in Tehran. The issue is a centralist and security-oriented structure that for decades has been imposed on the historical lands of non-Persian nations—including Kurds, Baloch, and Ahwazi Arabs—and is reproduced through clear mechanisms; mechanisms such as the militarization of daily life, security control of civil and national demands, systematic economic deprivation, administrative and legal discrimination, and cultural and identity denial.
At the end, Ashtyako Poorkarim, as the leader of the Kurdistan Independence Movement, said: Today we do not ask the international community for pity or general promises; we ask for principles and specific actions. Let us make this conference the starting point of a credible path: a path that names occupation, ends denial, and paves the road to peace through the right to self-determination.
Then Abdulla Baloch, leader of the Balochistan National Movement, in remarks emphasizing a “distinct Baloch identity,” said that as long as the condition of domination and occupation does not end, free decision-making is not possible. He called for the issue of Balochistan to be seen at the international level and emphasized the necessity of recognizing the condition of structural repression and providing political and moral support for the legitimate struggle. This part, in a way, complemented Yuriy Kamelchuk’s legal approach: emphasizing that if the world seeks action, it must bring the issue closer to the language of law and political recognition.
In the Kurdistan axis, Salah Sultanpanah, a member of the leadership of the Kurdistan Independence Party, emphasized that Iran’s issue is not merely domestic; because repressive and centralist policies not only violate the rights of oppressed nations, but also export insecurity and expand the ground for regional crises. In his view, the sustainable solution is not the reproduction of old patterns with new names, but the end of imposed centralism and the recognition of nations’ sovereignty. Sultanpanah said: The Iranian regime interferes thousands of kilometers beyond its borders and spreads terror and terrorism, just as Iranian drones are now serving Russia to attack Ukraine; Iran is the common enemy of us Kurds and you Ukrainians.
In the overall conclusion of the conference, the set of speeches highlighted several shared messages: first, changing the framing of the issue from a “domestic crisis” and “regime change” to a “structure of domination and denial of nations’ rights.” Second, emphasizing a single legal and moral standard in condemning occupation, repression, and discrimination. Third, moving from slogan to mechanism: documentation, networking, follow-up in parliamentary and human rights institutions, and strengthening media tools to break censorship. Fourth, the link between regional security and Europe’s security; meaning that containing destabilizing networks and supporting nations’ rights is not only a moral duty, but also a security necessity.
The organizers stated that this conference must lead to trackable outcomes: the formation of a shared message, the preparation of policy packages for parliaments and international institutions, and the creation of a communication network among activists, jurists, media, and political representatives to ensure continued follow-up. According to them, the present meeting is the first step, and the main path will continue through practical mechanisms—including official communications, regular documentation, strengthening media coverage, and forming follow-up teams.
Ultimately, the conference ended by emphasizing this proposition: lasting peace is not built on occupied land, democracy is not built on denying nations’ rights, and stability without justice and without the right to self-determination is only a delay of the next crisis. The message of the conference was an invitation to a credible and executable path: a path that accurately names the issue, recognizes nations’ rights, and elevates international support from declarations of sympathy to practical, accountable action.
