What can we learn from the outcome of Kurdistan Region’s independence from Iraq referendum? The results, which showed the vast majority favour independence from Baghdad was met with sanctions, border closures and a complete shut down of the region’s two airports in Sulaimani and Erbil city.
The international community maintains its traditional and historical perspective on maintaining the sovereignty of states, and aligning with Iraq, regardless of Kurdish ambitions. They will not align with secessionist autonomous governments, but favour unitarian governments. The prospect of border changes, and potential for an outbreak of violence, is one the international community, despite their extensive meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, evidently trying to avoid.
Like many others, I believed the Kurdish government had made extensive post-referendum plans, but they had completely ruled out a military intervention, and did not have international backing, as they had expected. The Kurdish officials used the logic that because Peshmerga forces fought against ISIS, that this would necessitate international backing if they were attacked or their security jeopardised, but clearly this did not happen. Should we interpret this as betrayal by Western countries? Perhaps, some do.
The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) had a series of international advisers who had close to zero influence on policy making and decision making process in their mother country, but have perpetuated this mythical characterisation of themselves and their abilities.
Kurdish leaders have yet to understand United States and regional leaders. This lack of understanding, coupled with miscommunication and murky means of communication has hindered the prospect of good relations materialising. This has become even worse with the pool of advisers, many of whom do not have the necessary regional knowledge to navigate the course of Kurdistan Region’s future.
The advisers of the KRG should be removed from their posts, they are part of the problem within the region. Not only are we in desperate need of new faces in politics, but for new advisers, locally tuned and internationally aware to emerge. European diplomats, while in power, contribute very little to the Kurdish cause, but once depart from their official positions, become pro-Kurdish in their sentiment. Their advice and poorly constructed perception of the reality in Kurdistan Region has played a detrimental role.
The Kurdish president surrounded himself by a majority of advisers who were men, and unable to provide post-referendum contingency plans. Unfortunately, some of these advisers became what we refer to as the ‘yes men,’ unable to provide constructive criticism or thoughtful course of action.
There’s a series of monumental issues facing the Kurdistan Region. Currently, Kurdish parties are divided, incoherent and are unable to come together, despite having shared goals of keeping Kurdistan Region’s autonomy, being able to pay the salaries of civil servants, improving healthcare, and public services. The political division has emboldened the Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi.
If the Kurdish leaders are able to make concessions, and form a united front, their position internationally would be much stronger, and Haider al-Abadi would not be able to continue his aggressive and militarised approach towards Kurds.
Turkey, Iran and Baghdad will remain the neighbours of Kurdistan Region, forever. We cannot change the geography of Kurdistan, nor can we change our neighbours. The only viable alternative is to learn to deal with them diplomatically in a way where mutual benefit materialises.
Ruwayda Mustafah is a PhD student at Kingston University, researching the legalities and prospect of Kurdish statehood, focusing on history, as well as contemporary international law aspects.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
