Kurdistan-Iraq between hope and uncertainty By Dr. Janroj Yilmaz KELES

Abstract:As Turkey gears up for further assaults on Kurds Dr Janroj Yilmaz Keles reports on the implications of the recent Kurdish referendum.
This feature was published in the February  2018 issue of Chartist – for democratic socialism

Loading Preview  Iraq between hope and uncertainty. Chartist (09687866); Mar/Apr 2018, Issue 291, p18-19. Kurdistan-Iraq between hope and uncertainty

As Turkey gears up for further assaults on Kurds Dr Janroj Yilmaz Keles reports on the implications of the recent Kurdish referendum. On 25 September 2017, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) held an historic and long-expected referendum on Kurdistan’s independence. This was a consequence of

the ongoing unilateral policies of the Federal Government of Iraq which has intentionally not fulfilled its constitutional obligations toward the Kurds, including holding a referendum, mandated by Article 140 of the Constitution of Iraq and originally planned for 15 November 2007, on the future of the disputed Kurdish territories, and sharing oil and gas revenue with the KRG. Almost 93 per cent of those who took part in the referendum voted overwhelmingly to split from Iraq. The vote was held across the autonomous Kurdish region’s three provinces as well as in some disputed Kurdish territories controlled by Kurdish security forces since 2014. The referendum result was not only celebrated by the Kurds in Kurdistan-Iraq but by the 30-35 million Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria who have also faced decades of repression, racism, discrimination, genocide and colonialism. The Kurds were left without a state of their own when the British Empire and French colonial forces divided the Middle East a century ago.

They are described as the world’s largest ethnic group without their own nation state. The non- binding referendum shows clearly that nearly every Kurd in Iraq dreams of statehood, for which they have struggled almost a century. The referendum gave the KRG a mandate to negotiate secession from Iraq. Prior to the referendum, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, an ostensible western ally with

strong ties with Iran, declared the referendum “unconstitutional” and Turkey and Iran also strongly opposed the referendum. Both countries were worried that Kurdish aspirations in Iraq would inspire their own significant Kurdish populations to demand independence within their territories. The opposition of the US and UK governments to the referendum has encouraged the regional countries with significant Kurdish populations to crush the Kurds’ century-long yearning for self-rule and freedom

from occupation, genocide, displacement and foreign powers’ interferences. In coordination with Turkish President Erdoğan and the Iranian Government, the

Iraqi Prime Minister closed Kurdish airspace to the Iraqi Kurdish region and Iran shut its frontier with Kurdistan to impose a trade ban. Turkey opened its border for Iraqi forces to surround the Kurdistan Autonomous Region to force the KRG to nullify the result of the referendum and hand over border controls to the Iraqi Government. On 16 October, the Iraqi forces and Iranian- backed Shi’ite militias of Hashd al-Shaabi in coordination of head of Iran’s Quds Force, a unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,

Qassem Suleimani started to attack the Kurdish forces in Kirkuk province. The ethnically mixed oil-rich city Kirkuk is the centre of the conflict. More than 78% voted in favour of independence. The use of military force against the Kurds was a violation of the Iraqi

constitution (Article 9) which clearly indicates that “[t]his Iraqi armed forces… s

hall not be used as an instrument to oppress the Iraqi people”. Baghdad has taken further punitive measures such as reducing the Kurdistan Region’s budget by almost 5 percent (from 17% to 12.6%) in the proposed 2018 Iraqi state budget. Masoud Barzani, former President of the Kurdistan Region, openly criticized the US and UK allies fighting ISIS for assisting the Iraqi government in attacking the Kurdish forces and allowing the Iraqi Government to use US weapons which should have been used only for fighting

ISIS. British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson described the military attack of “Iraqi forces” as reasserting “federal control over disputed territory, including the city of Kirkuk”.

 So what are consequences of these new political tensions? Since its establishment in 1991, particularly after Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed in 2005,

the KRG had made significant economic and political advances until the attacks of ISIS. It created a de-facto Kurdish state where secular, democratic, gender-inclusive and humanitarian values have been implemented in some degree, providing a relative functioning public service (health, education, water, electricity) to 5 million people. With its military forces, the KRG has not only protected the people of Kurdistan in its internationally recognized Kurdistan Autonomous Region, but paid a high price to protect the population (Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens and Christian) in the disputed Kurdish territories abandoned by Iraqi forces when ISIS captured a significant proportion of Iraq. The KRG has used its economic opportunities, geopolitical location and military power to demonstrate friendly relations with the US and other western powers and good neighbourliness, mutual respect and cooperation with Turkey and Iran since its establishment. In doing this, the KRG hoped to buy security, peace and international recognition. As part of this policy, the KRG has allied with the US, the UK and Iraq in fighting ISIS, pushing out ISIS from the disputed territories of Kurdistan, taking control over the disputed territories, and helping Iraqi forces to take over Mosul from ISIS in 2017. It has also encouraged the decline of conflict  between the Turkish Government and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Today the KRG hosts 1.8 million refugees from Syria and internally displaced Arabs, Kurds, and Christian and Turkmen minorities since the Syrian conflict and the rise of ISIS. After the re-occupation of disputed Kurdish territories by Iraqi forces in November 2017, the killing of Kurdish residents and destruction of homes in Kirkuk Tuz Khurmatu by the Iranian backed Shiite militia alarmed has caused further displacement into the KRG controlled region. This is the second time Kurds have been massacred and displaced from Kirkuk. During Saddam

Hussein’s regime, the Kurds experienced atrocities including use of chemical weapons in Halapje in 1988, when over 5000 people lost their lives. Kurdistan Autonomous Region made a historical mistake in relying on its good relations with the US and the UK. The Kurdish  political establishment thought they could overcome their geopolitical captivity through  building good relations with their allies in London, Washington and Brussels but it appears the economic interests and national interests of the western powers are more important than having a stable, secure Kurdistan.

 The dysfuctionality of Trump’s foreign policy, lucrative oil deals

and ongoing political insecurity have led to the status quo being upheld in the region. Therefore the US and UK foreign offices emphasise the “restoration of stability” and the “national unity” of Iraq. The policy of Western powers of “a unified, stable, democratic and a federal Iraq” has not worked so far. The Iraqi government’s punitive measures in coordination with the regional countries, using the referendum as an excuse, are an attempt to eliminate the existence of the Kurdistan Region. But the dysfunctional state of Iraq under the influence of Iran and the ongoing sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni and ethnic conflict between the Kurds and Iraq as well as power struggle between corrupted political leaders and groups continue at various levels. In a Guardian interview, Barzani emphasised that “we are not a part of Iraq… We refuse to be subordinates.” Therefore unity in Iraq is no more than a fantasy.

A similar independence demand has already been voiced by the Sunni Arabs who have been heavily excluded from political and economic participation in Iraq. The KRG calls upon the international community to mediate between the KRG and the Iraqi Government. The existing tension between Baghdad and Erbil can be solved through the Iraqi constitution which clearly states that as part of a planned plebiscite, the Iraqi government must hold a referendum on the future of the disputed Kurdish territories in Northern Iraq so that  people can decide whether these territories should become part of the Kurdistan Autonomous Region or part of Iraq. The displacement of the Kurds and the Arabization policy employed by the Saddam Hussein regime during the 70s and 80s in disputed Kurdish territories has caused constant crisis in the region. Further displacement from the disputed Kurdish territories will only contribute to more political and military tension, and huge human tragedy including a refugee influx like in 1991 when Saddam Hussein attacked the Kurds and 2 million people escaped from their homeland to the neighbouring countries and to Europe. To prevent more human tragedy and new conflicts, the international community should exert diplomatic  pressure on al-Abadi to reverse his hugely detrimental and divisive policies. Moreover the competing regional powers including Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are using all available measures to win influence in the Middle East. With increasing influence of Iran over Iraq through Iraqi Shiite militia and in Syria, Iran becomes the winner of the regional actors.

The Kurdophobia of the Turkish government may lead to domestic and nationalist support for the increasingly authoritarian and corrupt Turkish government; Turkey has lost the opportunity to provide a reliable and sustainable peace and reconciliation with the Kurds in Turkey and missed the opportunity to build good political and economic relations with the KRG. The neo-Ottoman dream of the Turkish government has isolated Turkey in the region and elsewhere and also led to polarization and conflict in Turkey. However history has once again shown that Turkey, Iran and Iraq put aside their political differences to coordinate a collective punishment policy of the Kurds and their aspirations. The abandonment of the Kurds  by their western allies in Iraq and Syria has left the Kurds in a more precarious position than ever. For instance, there is not any international reaction to the Turkish military attacks on Kurdish populated city of Afrin in Kurdistan Region of Syria and killing many civilians. This is another clear sign of the isolation of the Kurds in the Middle East. On my recent visit to the Kurdistan region in 2017 , a Kurdish politician told me that “Kurdish  people can no longer live like this, suppressed in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria”. In this context, the Kurdish question is an international issue which needs an international response. The UN, EU, US and Arab League can play a crucial role in a peaceful solution to the decades-old  problem. The Kurdish political leaders should also reflect and learn lessons from their mistakes in terms of their inability to overcome internal divisions, lack of long-term political strategies and unwise use of existing resources. Beyond being a landlocked de-facto state, surrounded by hostile countries, these aspects have also dramatically contributed to the postponement of their aspirations for statehood and peace and prosperity for the Kurdish people in the Middle East.

 Research Interests: Middle East Studies, Kurdish Studies, Iraq, Turkish Foreign Policy, Art and Independent Cinema, and 2 moreKurdistan und US Foreign Policy

www.mesop.de