No shared Erbil-Baghdad commitment to 'a strong Iraq': Peter Galbraith
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region — "Non-implementation" of parts of Iraq's constitution is a symptom of a fundamental disconnect between the Kurdistan Region and the rest of Iraq, American author, political analyst and former diplomat Peter Galbraith told Rudaw.
Speaking to Dilbixwin Dara on August 12, Galbraith – an informal advisor to the Kurdistan Regional Government supporting the Kurdistan delegation in the drafting of Iraq's 2005 constitution – said that both Erbil and Baghdad had interests other than "a shared commitment to a country" at heart.
"When the constitution was being drawn up, the Kurds were not interested in building up a unitary Iraq or a strong Iraq, their sole interest has been in serving the de facto independence of the Kurdistan Region. And Iraq was not really interested in building a state, it was interested in the interests of the Sunni and the Shiites," Galbraith said.
"If you don't have a shared identity, if you don't have a shared commitment to a country, then whatever you write in the constitution probably isn't going to make a huge difference...fundamentally, the authorities in Baghdad are not committed to the constitution."
Kurds have "never been thought of as being full citizens of Iraq", he said, influencing the current budget dispute being exacerbated by the global collapse in the price of oil, Iraq and the Kurdistan Region's main source of income.
"With the low price of oil, Iraq has very limited revenues. But the reality is that when it distributes those limited revenues, the Kurds are not a priority...If this was a country where Kurdistan was an equal part, then you would expect that as the budget was cut, it would be cut proportionately, and Kurdistan would still be receiving its 17 percent share – but that is not the case."
The US has been tight-lipped on Erbil-Baghdad budget disputes because of its internal nature; "one shouldn't expect that an outside power, even United States to come in and solve these countries' problems."
"The referendum in 2017 was a binding decision by the people of Kurdistan for an independent state...It is impossible over the long term to keep people in a geographically defined area like Kurdistan in a country they don't want to be part of."
"I think that it is inevitable for Kurdistan that sooner or later it will become independent...nobody can be deceived about what the people of Kurdistan want, and that is independence."
A Kurdistan independent from Iraq would be of benefit and interest for multiple parties, he said.
"An independent Kurdistan, which is clearly in the interests of the people of Kurdistan, is also in the interests of the United States...I think after independence, both Iraq and Kurdistan will be better off."
Independence is a far less likely option for Rojava, Galbraith said.
"The PYD, the ruling political party there, they do not aspire for independence...as a practical matter, given the geography of the area, independence is not an option for the Kurds in Syria - they're not in a continuous area, it's also ethnically mixed. I think the right solution would be one that involves a significant level of self-government, continuing elements of their political experiment, including gender equality."
On the 25-year deal signed between the Kurdish administration in northeast Syria and US oil company Delta Crescent Energy LLC, he said that though it "is not a decision of the US government," the company would have needed Washington's permission for it to be carried out.
The deal is not a measure of any lasting commitment to the people of Rojava by the Trump administration, Galbraith said, describing the current US president as more interested in oil than he is in people."
He expressed far more optimism on what US-Rojava relations could look like under the tenure of Trump's opposition in the 2020 presidential race, Senator Joe Biden.
"The next administration will be more committed to the people of Rojava...future president Biden knows the Kurds, likes the Kurds, appreciates their importance. I do see there will be a stronger US interest in preserving the many elements of what was accomplished in northeast Syria."
Speaking to Dilbixwin Dara on August 12, Galbraith – an informal advisor to the Kurdistan Regional Government supporting the Kurdistan delegation in the drafting of Iraq's 2005 constitution – said that both Erbil and Baghdad had interests other than "a shared commitment to a country" at heart.
"When the constitution was being drawn up, the Kurds were not interested in building up a unitary Iraq or a strong Iraq, their sole interest has been in serving the de facto independence of the Kurdistan Region. And Iraq was not really interested in building a state, it was interested in the interests of the Sunni and the Shiites," Galbraith said.
"If you don't have a shared identity, if you don't have a shared commitment to a country, then whatever you write in the constitution probably isn't going to make a huge difference...fundamentally, the authorities in Baghdad are not committed to the constitution."
Kurds have "never been thought of as being full citizens of Iraq", he said, influencing the current budget dispute being exacerbated by the global collapse in the price of oil, Iraq and the Kurdistan Region's main source of income.
"With the low price of oil, Iraq has very limited revenues. But the reality is that when it distributes those limited revenues, the Kurds are not a priority...If this was a country where Kurdistan was an equal part, then you would expect that as the budget was cut, it would be cut proportionately, and Kurdistan would still be receiving its 17 percent share – but that is not the case."
The US has been tight-lipped on Erbil-Baghdad budget disputes because of its internal nature; "one shouldn't expect that an outside power, even United States to come in and solve these countries' problems."
"The referendum in 2017 was a binding decision by the people of Kurdistan for an independent state...It is impossible over the long term to keep people in a geographically defined area like Kurdistan in a country they don't want to be part of."
"I think that it is inevitable for Kurdistan that sooner or later it will become independent...nobody can be deceived about what the people of Kurdistan want, and that is independence."
A Kurdistan independent from Iraq would be of benefit and interest for multiple parties, he said.
"An independent Kurdistan, which is clearly in the interests of the people of Kurdistan, is also in the interests of the United States...I think after independence, both Iraq and Kurdistan will be better off."
Independence is a far less likely option for Rojava, Galbraith said.
"The PYD, the ruling political party there, they do not aspire for independence...as a practical matter, given the geography of the area, independence is not an option for the Kurds in Syria - they're not in a continuous area, it's also ethnically mixed. I think the right solution would be one that involves a significant level of self-government, continuing elements of their political experiment, including gender equality."
On the 25-year deal signed between the Kurdish administration in northeast Syria and US oil company Delta Crescent Energy LLC, he said that though it "is not a decision of the US government," the company would have needed Washington's permission for it to be carried out.
The deal is not a measure of any lasting commitment to the people of Rojava by the Trump administration, Galbraith said, describing the current US president as more interested in oil than he is in people."
He expressed far more optimism on what US-Rojava relations could look like under the tenure of Trump's opposition in the 2020 presidential race, Senator Joe Biden.
"The next administration will be more committed to the people of Rojava...future president Biden knows the Kurds, likes the Kurds, appreciates their importance. I do see there will be a stronger US interest in preserving the many elements of what was accomplished in northeast Syria."