My father originally came to the United Kingdom, and later, the United States, as a refugee of Saddam Hussein’s campaign against the Kurds. Several days ago, he took us to the house of one of the only other Kurdish families in the state. The dinner was sprawled out on a colorful Persian rug that covered nearly half of the otherwise off-white, bare room. Rice was piled in a heaping mountain in the center, encircled by various bean sauces and kabobs.
My father began to chat with the father of the other family. And although my knowledge of the Kurdish language is essentially limited to platitudes and the words of disappointment my father occasionally lobs at me, I began to pick up on a consistent theme running through the conversation. Over the unintelligible din of foreign words, I consistently picked out the words “Kurdî” and “Kurdîstan”. (One of the things Kurds talk about more than anything else is the Kurds themselves.) I kept hearing the word “serxwebûn” being said back and forth, and only later did I realize it meant “independence”.
The Kurds are fiercely proud of their own heritage. However, their patriotism is unique in the world. Nearly everywhere else, nationalism leads to some kind of violence. But, with a few exceptions, the vast majority of the Iraqi Kurdish people are almost aggressively peaceful. Unlike the Kurds in Turkey, who had been marginalized until very recently, or the Kurds in Syria who have dealt with a brutal dictator, or the Iranian Kurds who are still not allowed self-rule, the Iraqi Kurds have had no reason to fight for years. Their autonomy is so strong they are nearly independent in all but name. They realized that the best way to achieve stability and peace was just to play the game to earn an autonomous region within the existing system.
In an interview with Taban Shoresh, a survivor of Saddam’s genocidal Anfal Campaign and now an advocate for other Kurdish victims, she quickly responds to my question on whether or not the Kurdish people would be willing to fight for independence: “We’ve had enough struggle and violence over the years.” The Iraqi Kurds have incorporated this peacefulness into their national character. They see themselves as somehow being above the everyday violence that plagues their Arab neighbors to the South. With the recent blitzkrieg of ISIS across the areas just south of Kurdish lands, complicated questions are bubbling to the surface. On one hand, there has never been a more opportune time for them to achieve independence. On the other, they may risk the stability, security, freedom, and prosperity that have made them the envy of the Middle Eastern world.
A Rapidly Changing Situation for the Kurds
The Peshmerga, the army of the Kurdistan Regional Government, has been deployed to confront the ISIS threat. The Kurdish fighters, who so far are faring far better than their Iraqi Security Forces counterparts against ISIS, have taken up defensive positions in cities in the wake of ISF desertions. Kirkuk, a diverse and resource-rich city of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, has long been desired as the capital of the Kurdish region. (Kurds have always considered it theirs.) When the ISF abandoned the city in the face of the ISIS onslaught, the Peshmerga moved into the Iraqi soldiers’ posts, putting Kirkuk under de facto Kurdish control.
Moreover, the Kurds should be able to defend their territory against ISIS. David Pollock, the Kaufman Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former advisor to the State Department for Middle Eastern issues, stresses the Peshmerga’s prowess in an interview with the HPR. When asked if the Kurds would be able to hold off ISIS, he confidently replies, “ISIS won’t try. They know the Peshmerga would be capable of holding them off.” Although he doesn’t rule out the potential for a few “probing skirmishes”, he reiterates that if ISIS “fought with the Pesh they’d be sorry”. Furthermore, although the Kurds may want to expand their territory and strategically deploy their army in hopes of attaining an independent Kurdistan, they are also reluctant to allow the deterioration of a status quo that has been so favorable to them. Dr. Pollock points out that the Iraqi Kurdish leadership is “pragmatic”, and they now have all the bargaining power. Instead of declaring independence, they may instead choose to simply “adjust the power balance in the context of a unified Iraq”.
Despite setbacks and the psychological barrier Iraqi Kurds face in declaring independence, that is the direction the region is inexorably headed towards. A few days ago, the Erdogan government of Turkey said, “The Kurds of Iraq can decide for themselves the name and type of entity they are living in.” This comes after months of the Turks engaging directly with Erbil, the Kurdish capital, to purchase oil. This is especially remarkable, as Turkey is a historical enemy of the Kurds. Dr. Pollock notes that the friendly Turkish-Kurdish relations “would have been science fiction not long ago”. And earlier this week, the Israelis began to purchase oil directly from the Kurds. Hot on the heels of that deal, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated that “the creation of an independent Kurdish state is a foregone conclusion”. At the same time, Israeli President Shimon Peres lauded the Kurdish autonomous region for its commitment to democracy as others in Israel hinted that the Jewish state would quickly recognize an independent Kurdistan. Other nations in the region are beginning to believe that Iraq is untenable in the long run and are looking for stable partners.
The Consequences of Independence
Although the Kurds wish they could ignore ISIS by simply declaring independence, the reality is not that simple. Redrawing a theoretical line on a map won’t be a deterrent to brutal extremists who have already declared an Islamist caliphate. Shoresh is plainly in favor of independence, calling the lack of Kurdish statehood a “historical injustice”. In her eyes, Kurdistan would be a viable state, but even she recognizes that independence would be no panacea for the instability caused by ISIS. For one, she says, “The Kurds have everything in place to be a state but Sunnis and Shias do not.” The Kurds can attempt to wall themselves off in a fortress, but they cannot avoid the fact that what happens in Arab Iraq plays an intimate role in their daily lives because of sheer geographic proximity. Shoresh points out that even though the Kurds have largely been safe throughout the ISIS onslaught, they have still faced psychological terror, fuel shortages, price hikes, and unpaid salaries. Although a partition of Iraq is one of many possible solutions to the crisis, it will be meaningless without an international commitment to all parts of Iraq.
The United States remains steadfastly dedicated to a unified Iraq, with Secretary of State Kerry urging a unity government. Zagros Kamal, a Kurdish journalist and current media advisor to the Kurdish Parliament, expresses his frustration over U.S. policy in an interview with the HPR. Because the United States established a no-fly zone over Kurdistan in the ’90s and overthrew the loathed Saddam, he says, “the Kurds have always viewed the United States and its allies as liberators, not occupiers.” He also boasts of the almost nonexistent U.S. casualties in the Kurdish region, claiming that American soldiers visiting Kurdistan “would put their weapons and uniforms in the closet and stroll in the cities of Kurdistan freely.” The loyalty the Kurds feel to the United States also contributes to a sense of betrayal during the current crisis. In their eyes, they have played all their cards right with the United States. Why is it that in the defining moment of their history, the United States has seemed to turn its back on them?
Of course, the United States must consider other issues as well. It reflects poorly on America if the Baghdad government crafted in 2003 by Americans comes crashing down. There are also broader foreign policy issues that could be raised by the dissolution of Iraq. Dr. Pollock explains that Iran is concerned that an independent Kurdistan could lead to unrest among its own “oppressed Kurdish population”. The Iranians could present problems to everyone involved, as they “have the leverage to give a bad time to the Kurds … , [and] the United States doesn’t want a new arena of confrontation with Iranians.” Still, the feelings of abandonment are very real among Kurds.
The Kurds add an important dimension in the fight against ISIS, one that must be considered as the United States is crafting policy to deal with the crisis. On one hand, Kurdish nationalism is ubiquitous. Kamal echoes the sentiments of most Iraqi Kurds when he asserts, “As a Kurdish nation we want an independent Kurdistan.” It is telling that he already refers to “a Kurdish nation”. An independent Kurdistan would present challenges for the United States in terms of logistically partitioning the country and making sure that the remaining Arab portion would be powerful enough to be viable. Additionally, the United States must realize that the Kurds are a key component in the fight against ISIS. They have proven themselves capable in battle, and Kamal shows the sentiments of his government and people when he says, “The Kurds will fight to the last drop of blood to stop ISIS.” The United States must engage with the Kurds, either within the current Iraqi state or as a separate nation, in order to have success in dealing with ISIS.
TIME magazine’s cover for June is an image of Iraq in flames with the question, “The End of Iraq?” With so many rapid developments and international media attention focused on the issue, there is a sense of excitement in the air within the Kurdish community now that their longtime goals are finally coming into view. In fact, the Iraqi Kurds are already independent at heart. My relatives on Facebook are currently engaged in long discussions over whether the new nation will be called “The Kurdish Republic”, “Kurdistan”, or as my cousin said, tongue-in-cheek, “Kuraq”.
Image sources: Flickr / Chris De Bruyn
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.