Prof. Dr. Khalid Oleiwi Jiad
Chairman of the center for Strategic Studies -Karbala University
June 2017
It seemed that the Kurdish leadership, under the presidency of Masoud Barzani, decided to run a non-binding referendum on the separation of the Kurdish region from the internationally recognized Iraqi state, as the first move towards independence and establishing their independent Kurdish state, in 25 September 2017.
This decision is made at a time where the Kurdish leadership suffering from wide wrangling on the legitimacy of its existence, constitutional presence and the real representation of the Kurdish people.
This move stirred a number of questions, such as “is this referendum the best of available political options?”, or “what will happen if this leadership treading the wrong path”?
Non-supportive regional and international environment
As soon as the timing of the referendum was announced, different irresponsive official stands were voiced. The Iraqi Federal Government and its prime minister Haidar al-Abadi rejected this declaration as “irrational step that will stir the suspicions of many and will lead to regression of all achievements and success made by the region”.
Iraqi Cabinet’s Spokesman Saad al-Hadithi stated that “any stand or step taken by any party in Iraq should be based on the constitution”.
“Any decision connected with the future of Iraq, which constitutional defined as democratic and federal state with full national sovereignty, should not be confined to one party, but it is an Iraqi decision, all Iraqis are concerned with …. No single party can decide the fate of Iraq”, al-Hadithi confirmed.
On the international level, the US Department of State announced on Thursday, 8 June 2017, that it “supports a federal, unified, stable and democratic Iraq, calling the Kurdish authorities to resort to dialogue with the federal government to solve different issues, because the priority is centered on combating terrorism and defeating Da’ish (ISIS) organization.
Similarly, The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel stated that “the re-delineation of the boundary of a state is not right, because it will lead to increasing the existing tough and troubled situation between Arbil and Baghdad”, pointing that “victory has not yet been achieved in the war against Da’ish organization, so, both sides can take the next steps that will be of most importance for the future challenges”.
These two rejectionist and warning stands of the move of the Kurdish leadership were voiced from two Kurdish allies in Washington and Berlin.
The most decisive stand was uttered by the Turkish foreign ministry, which regarded ” the preservation the geographic and political unity of Iraq as one of the basic principles of the Turkish policy”.
The same was done by the Iranian foreign ministry when its spokesman Bahram Qassimi rejected the referendum in the Kurdish region because “the Kurds are an important part of the country within the framework of national sovereignty and unity of Iraqi soil. The Kurds have their rights in the constitution, so they cannot create a state of enmity and reject the national sovereignty and the unity of the Iraqi soil”.
Qassimi stressed the real Iranian intentions to defend the unity and sovereignty of the Iraqi soil.
In general, the other regional and international stands will not be different from these stands: the US and German stands, on the one side, and the Iranian and Turkish stands, on the other, if not wavering among them, but will be combined with open or hidden rejection of the Kurdish move. Thus, the referendum choice will be provocative for regional and international milieus that will clearly deprive it from its impetus and legality.
Racial ambition
The political leaderships at the region are forgetting or neglecting many issues in their addresses, including:
– They were opposing the Baathist policies and Arab nationalist calls under the pretext: how can we live in a country that concentrates the rule of one nationality against other nationalities?
In other words, how the Kurds will feel their allegiance to an Iraqi state that its leaders consecrate the rule of the Arabs?
This argument is logical and right, because the country is a multi-ethnic, where all should be partners in its ruling without any differentiation among nationalities and religions, so the real sovereignty should be for the people with all its components.
However, this argument is disappearing when the Kurdish leadership is demanding the establishment of a state where the dominance will be for the Kurdish component.
– despotism and absence of democracy were the main reasons behind the troubles of the Kurds, as well as other Iraqi citizens, so supporting, enhancing and developing the democratic experiment in Iraq will achieve the goals of all people for a better life.
There is no need to talk about independence, when the Kurdish people have a hopes for democracy.
According to the analyses and statements made in the Kurdish region, the agony of the people there is not their presence in Iraqi, but the mentality of despotism, slavery and corruption within constitutional ranks.
– Any country establish on nationalistic basis will not bring relief or stability to its people, as proved by the experiences of other peoples and those of nearby countries, so the establishment of the Kurdish state will be a racist one where political tyranny will dominate under the pretext of national ambitions.
– Modern states, since Westphalia Conference of 1648 till today, are not, mostly, a peoples’ choice or a mood, but a historical development in the regional and international system. These countries acquire their legitimacy from their founding structural system. Iraq is among these countries, which is known with its clear boundaries, so the Kurdish leadership has no right to not recognize it under the pretext of historical national injustice.
If we return to historical files, we find all existing countries are claiming rights and boundaries that surpass their legal political entities.
Approve this argument means a clear call to demolish the international order as a whole and establish a replacement, so it is injustice to limit the demolition for certain some countries and deny others, whatever the reasons.
– If the Kurdish state is established, it will not be a stability and peace factor in the Middle East, because the Iraqi Kurds have no right to establish their state, if we agree to the Kurdish arguments, we will deny such a state for the Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria, or any other nationality.
If Baghdad government accepted, the neighboring countries will not accept a disturbing element for their security and stability, such as the Kurdish state.
They will move, with all potentials, to destroy the new state, thus it will undermine a full Kurdish dream for security and peace, which they have aspired all their lives, or leading them to off-roads that will destroy all their success.
The Kurdish leadership should realize that the Kurds in Iraq achieved great deal with their blood and patience during the past decades, but they need , today, to consolidate their successes and project their achievements through active partnership with other citizens to complete building real democracy in Iraq, as well as enduring all challenges and obstacles facing them.
Leaders driving nationals for ambiguous future
The strategic responsibility of any political leadership is to change dreams into facts, or finding dreams that could be achieved and avoiding hard and painful choices, as much as possible.
It is not easy for any leadership to restore the confidence of its subjects when their dreams are aborted, or leading them to off-roads that will destroy all their success.
The Kurdish leadership should realize that the Kurds in Iraq achieved great deal with their blood and patience during the past decades, but they need , today, to consolidate their successes and project their achievements through active partnership with other citizens to complete building the real democracy in Iraq, as well as enduring all challenges and obstacles facing them.
If the leadership announces, in the mid-road towards democracy, its non-readiness to complete its march under different pretext or justify its inability, failure or greed through claiming the separation, it is committing an unbearable political sin, because it will affect the Kurdish political consciousness.
In other words, the Kurds will not be able to adapt with their original existence in the present Iraqi state to demand the rights and freedoms demanded by the Iraqi people, or can guarantee that their independent state will provide them with the security, peace and dignity.
It is fear that the Kurdish leadership of Mr. Barzani is trying to implant in the hearts of his people: fear for the other partner in the country who should be eliminated, as well as other fear from abroad.
The Kurdish citizen should not live in such an ambiguous and insecure future, while the solution is not difficult, but it is clear: The Kurdish leadership should give its people the space to properly live in its internationally recognized country and achieve his dream through its presence, as well as solving all obstacles and challenges facing them.
Let us remember what the ancient strategist Sun Tzu wrote in his Art of War “the ruler should not put his troops in the field for a state of anger, or the leader wages a war for a wound in his pride”, because “when a complete state is destroyed, it cannot be rebuilt again… The dead cannot return to life”. (The Art of War, p. 159).
