MESOP MIDEAST WATCH : BAGDAD WILL KURDISTAN/IRAK VERNICHTEN – : The policies of Baghdad exhibit an anti-Kurdish rhetoric   

Washington Kurdish Institute July 18, 2023

On July 12, 2023, the Washington Kurdish Institute (WKI) hosted a panel on the subject: “does Iraq seek to dismantle the Kurdistan Region?” moderated by Dr. Shilan Fuad Hussain, a Marie Curie Postdoctoral Fellow at Middlesex University. The panel featured guests Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith and Mr. Vincent Campos.

Throughout a century of struggle, marked by genocide, massacres, and chemical weapons attacks, the Kurds in Iraq have achieved a semi-autonomous status within the “new Iraq” following the overthrow of the Ba’ath dictatorship in 2003. Despite possessing constitutional rights, the Kurdistan Region remains confronted with existential threats emanating from Baghdad. Baghdad employs various tactics, such as upholding outdated Iraqi laws that perpetuate Arabization policies, slashing the Kurdistan Region’s federal budget, and undermining the status of the Peshmerga forces as a federal force. Furthermore, since 2018, the Iraqi Supreme Court has been deployed multiple times against the Kurdistan Region, driven by Iranian pressure, exacerbating its vulnerability. On March 23, the International Court of Arbitration ruled in favor of Iraq in a case concerning Kurdistan’s independent oil exports. However, Baghdad has failed to resume oil exports through Turkey, resulting in billions of dollars in economic damages. Concurrently, it has enacted a three-year budget law that violates the constitution by dividing the Kurdistan Region.

Background and historical facts

“Geographically, this area in northern Iraq is perceived by most Kurds as one of the four parts of a Greater Kurdistan, and often referred to as Southern Kurdistan. I mention this fact, because although the political issues you will hear about today primarily deal with the Iraqi Government’s policies, in many ways, to understand any of the four parts of Kurdistan, you need to recognize the ways that their issues intersect with all four states controlling wider Kurdistan: Namely, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria.” said Dr. Hussain in her opening remarks.

She emphasized that lack of statehood results in exposure to attacks. “Because Kurds as a people lack of fully independent state of their own in north Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeast Turkey, and north Syria – this leaves them vulnerable and often times at the mercy of the dictates of the surrounding states, who despite their own rivalries, will usually come together and unite to keep the Kurds from gaining full independence or autonomy in any one of the regions.” added Dr. Hussain.

Control Over Oil Revenues and the Budget

Both Ambassador Galbraith and Mr. Vincent Campos started with the point that regional control over oil revenues, as was included in the design of the 2005 Constitution, is essential to preserving Kurdish autonomy.

Ambassador Galbraith explained that the Constitution imagined that, “as new oil fields came online, regions …would control the resources and keep the revenues. This would, over time, shift power from a centralized state of Iraq to a more decentralized one.”

Baghdad never implemented the Constitution

Amb. Galbraith continued that “when Kurdistan proceeded, its right to develop its own oil industry was challenged. Kurdistan from the start never insisted that the oil revenues from new fields would come to Kurdistan …instead, it went through the budget, meaning that the government in Baghdad, that is the Prime Minister and his cabinet, made recommendations. The Council of Representatives then had to vote on their share. That was never part of the constitutional arrangement. Since then, Kurdistan’s authority has been further eroded in an unconstitutional matter.”

Mr. Vincent Campos added on this, stating, “Article 112 [of the constitution] has traditionally been seen as an item that required or called for a strategic framework and a law. Whether this was interpreted incorrectly or not was seen by most parties as a requirement to establish an overall oil and gas law so that the Kurds knew what their responsibilities and their authorities were. At the same time, the relationship between Erbil and Baghdad with regard to oil and gas management could be delineated in that law. But, as we’ve seen, the law has never materialized. Now, the main elements of the law are encapsulated in the new budget, which is a disservice to the Kurdistan region.”

Military Incursion into Kurdistan

A major incursion into Kurdistan’s autonomy has been the encroachment of anti-Kurdish forces.

Mr. Campos explained that during the fight against ISIS, the Iraqi government institutionalized the Iran-affiliated Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). He expands that “their closer relationship with Iran has also created a continuous source of conflict, in particular, as we’ve seen over the last couple of years, where Iran has fired rockets into the Iraqi Kurdistan region with very little response from Baghdad.” Without the prospect of Iraq reigning the PMFs in, they pose an obstacle towards autonomy.

Ambassador Galbraith warned that Baghdad may be willing to take military action against Kurdistan in an extreme event. He explained that following the 2017 referendum, Baghdad invaded Kurdish territories to “expel, to the greatest degree possible, Kurdish authority within Kirkuk.”

However, in this event, the international community would play a role. Mr. Campos predicted that he, “would fully expect that if there was an incursion or a buildup towards moving on Kurdistan. The U.S. Government would have to speak up. [He] can’t say what they would do, but [he] hope[s] that would demonstrate a red-line that they could not sit there and watch from the sidelines.”

While both guests acknowledged the imminent threat to Kurdish autonomy, they both rejected the possibility that Turkey or Iran, both powers with influence in Iraq, would directly invade the Kurdistan Region.

Other Constitutional Powers

The panel noted a general lack of protection for the constitutional powers of the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Ambassador Galbraith criticized that “Kurdistan has not really asserted its constitutional rights,” pointing out the examples of the block grant, accepting Baghdad’s authority in areas where it the region should have control – such as education and personal status – and the failure to implement Article 140 of the constitution on Kirkuk and other disputed territories.

Mr. Vincent Campos added on this, noting that the Provincial Powers Law, which would “decentralize authorities in Iraq and allow the regions and provinces to become more autonomous,” was recently suspended. Iraq has only become more centralized, with the federal structures created in 2005 failing to come to fruition.

The Failure of the Federal Supreme Court

The protection of Constitutional rights, powers, and liberties in Iraq is prescribed to the Federal Supreme Court of Iraq. While, in theory, it should perform this function, the panelists explain the failure of the Iraqi parliament to establish the court and the de facto legal authority’s failure to protect Kurdistan’s autonomy.

According to Ambassador Galbraith, “Article 92 [of the Constitution] provided that the Supreme Court would be set up by a law passed by two-thirds of the Council of Representatives. Such a court was never established. There is no legitimate Federal Supreme Court in Iraq. The transitional court asserts that it is a Supreme Court, and it has attempted to invalidate Kurdistan’s control over its own oil revenue.”

Mr. Vincent Campos, on this subject, added that “strict adherence to the Constitution and strict adherence to the legal process will not stop Baghdad from their interpretation of how matters should be carried out in the country…Unfortunately, there’s very little that the Kurds can do, mainly because Baghdad isn’t interested in listening. So, we’re in a very difficult situation in Iraq right now. Eventually, the international community will need to speak up.”

How can the situation improve?

For Kurds to protect their autonomy in Iraq, Ambassador Galbraith raised the important point that they must unite towards their common interest. He advised that, “the inter-Kurdish tensions between the PUK and the KDP, are the worst they’ve been in many years. Obviously it hasn’t descended to the level that it was when the Civil War was fought in the 1990s. I think there are reasons for it. One is that with Jalal Taliban’s death, there have been leadership issues within the PUK, including the most recent struggle between the cousins. So, the party has not been able to engage in the way it should. I hope that the Kurds can work together.”

Mr. Campos agreed, urging the Kurds, “to take a hard stance with Baghdad and start fixing these issues. If they don’t, Baghdad is going to continue to run over the Kurds.” He continues that, “As we’ve seen in the budget, essentially all rights regarding oil and gas are now in the hands of the budget process, which has no validity whatsoever. However, that’s the direction they’re heading. That’s my main message: the Kurds really need to look out for themselves, get their house in order, and not let Baghdad continue to weaken them at every opportunity.”