The independence referendum held in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq last year unsettled otherwise strong strategic, economic and political relations between Ankara and Irbil.

Since 2007, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has enjoyed a steady rise in cooperation with Turkey, not least as Turkey endorsed independent oil exports from the KRG through a new pipeline. This close alliance came as Iraq was blighted by sectarian chaos, instability and violence, and while the Arab Spring introduced new complex angles to the already volatile Middle Eastern plains, such as the birth of Daesh.

The rapid rise of the KRG on multiple fronts would not be possible without the support of Ankara. Turkey continues to act as a vital gateway for the Iraqi Kurds for economic prosperity and access to Europe. The strong mutually beneficial trade is rooted since the Kurds won autonomy in 1991 but has thrived since 2003, especially prior to the war on Daesh.

Today, for a stable and prosperous KRG, Turkey remains a key ally for the Iraqi Kurds economically, strategically and in terms of security. Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu recently emphasized that the KRG gate to the world, especially on crucial oil exports, is Turkey, which he deemed as giving the Kurdistan region “meaning.”

However, this view depicts only one part of story. Iraqi Kurds also remain an important ally to Turkey’s regional goals in a volatile region.

This includes ensuring security in Turkey but also stability in ongoing hot spots such as Syria and Iraq. As a largely secular and nonsectarian region, the KRG has acted as a critical bulwark in recent years against Shiite expansionism that resulted in a strong influence from Tehran in Baghdad along with the sectarian fires that have raged in Iraq since 2003 – all factors that endangered Turkey’s own regional goals.

As the sectarian power struggle continues to grip the Middle East, Iraqi Kurds will play a key role in the regional jockeying for influence.

The Kurds did not expect a smooth ride or lack of repercussions from the historic but contentious referendum and such the ensuing fallout was hardly a surprise. However, the time has come for Turkey and the KRG to look at the bigger picture and the reality that they are neighbors that share common objectives as well as sharing any blowbacks resulting from a volatile region.

The continued suffering of the Iraqi Kurdish population or a weak KRG does not benefit Turkey. It also threatens an expanded Iranian domain of influence in Iraq, while facilitating the long sought-after Iranian land bridge from Tehran to Beirut.

As such, Ankara is a decisive actor to finally bring Baghdad to the negotiating table and resolving all disputes in accordance with the Iraqi constitution.

The Kurdish leadership is prepared for dialogue and has already made concessions to lower tensions but months have passed since the referendum fallout and little progress has been made. The airports in the KRG continue to be closed and the military option appears somewhat closer to Baghdad than striking a comprehensive deal with the KRG at the negotiating table based on the Iraqi constitution.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi should accept Turkey’s offer to mediate border crossing and other disputes with the KRG. Baghdad’s continuous blockade of the region and withholding the share of the budgets makes national reconciliation and long-term stability in Iraq all the more difficult and adds to the view that Baghdad wants to collectively punish the Kurdish people.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said in his new year message, “Turkey will not be able to secure its future without resolving problems in its region. This leads us to pursue a more active, bold and if necessary, riskier foreign policy.” And, in this direction, the Turkish military is currently conducting the counterterrorism cross-border offensive, Operation Olive Branch, against the PKK-affiliated groups near its border in northern Syria.

As such, the Iraqi Kurds are important in ensuring President Erdoğan’s objectives. A weak KRG gives the PKK a strong foothold in the Kurdistan region as witnessed with increasing influence and autonomy in a number of Iraqi Kurdish regions close to the Syrian border.

The endorsement of “safe zones” along the KRG border with Turkey by the Kurdish leadership aimed at limiting the PKK’s movement across the border is testimony to the KRG’s importance in ensuring border security.

The Kurdistan region not only borders Turkey, but also borders Kurdish regions in Syria and Iran. This gives the KRG a prime hand in encouraging stability in these Kurdish areas. For example, any peace deal with the PKK, as elusive as it seems today, can be supported and boosted by the KRG leadership.

Turkey’s “zero problems” policy with its neighbors have quickly unraveled thanks to the fractious and unstable sociopolitical landscape of the Middle East. As permanent neighbors, and with mutual goals, a strong alliance between Ankara and Irbil remains vital to navigate the growing Middle Eastern storms.

First Published: Daily Sabah

turbulent Middle East already engulfed in crisis and conflict hardly needed more fuel on the fire. However, that is exactly what it got after U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and in turn his decree to relocate the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

The Israel-Palestinian conflict has dominated the Middle East agenda for decades with a peace deal proving as elusive as ever. The principle of a two-state solution has waned against a backdrop of obstacles and complications that make the prospect of a viable peace deal between Arabs and Israelis a distant reality.

As a spiritual center for Islam, Christianity and Judaism, any settlement of the status of Jerusalem was also going to be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Centuries of conflict have raged for the religious, cultural and economic riches of this ancient city.

The rival claims to Jerusalem were made more problematic by the Israeli capture of Jordanian-occupied east Jerusalem in 1967 in the Six-Day War. Since then, decades of wars, uprisings, failed international diplomacy and thousands of new Jewish settlements have only added to the complications of any peace deal.

The policy of foreign countries has been to keep their embassies in Tel Aviv until a final solution on the borders and Jerusalem is agreed. Trump’s declaration on Jerusalem broke the norm and triggered large scale protests and anger in the Arab and Muslim world.

Trump insisted that this decision does not determine the final agreement between Israel and Palestine, stressing, “We are not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.”

Ironically, serving as major symbolic support to Israeli claims, it makes negotiations far more complex. In turn, it places doubt on the role of the U.S. as an impartial peace broker.

Palestinian officials insisted that Trump’s decision would have no legal effect on the status of Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas went as far as saying that he no longer sees the United States as having a role in peace negotiations.

Two-state solution

U.S. policy has been generally on a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, but in spite of efforts and brokering from successive U.S. presidents, this has proved a tall order.

A more reconciliatory stance would have been for Trump to clearly mark the move as the recognition of west Jerusalem in support of the border of the demarcation line from 1967. The Czech Republic did just that shortly after Trump’s declaration, by recognizing west Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Czech foreign ministry statement went on to emphasize that “the Czech Republic together with other EU member states, following the EU Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions, considers Jerusalem to be future capital of both states, meaning the state of Israel and the future state of Palestine.”

East Jerusalem was always earmarked as the capital of a future Palestinian state, and the international community has never recognized Israel’s occupation of all of Jerusalem after 1967.

Any amicable and long-lasting peace deal should be based on international accords, anything less would merely trigger decades of more conflict that will serve neither the Israeli or Arab sides.

Due to the significance of Jerusalem to billions of the world’s population, any final solution must not come to the detriment of Muslims, Jews or Christians, including the millions of pilgrims each year. Jerusalem will always have a special place in the world, not just for Israel or Palestine.

The bold move by Trump has caused division with traditional U.S. allies. The recent U.N. Security Council resolution against Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem – affirming that any decisions on the status of Jerusalem were “null and void and must be rescinded” – was vetoed by the U.S. after the remaining 14 members voted in favor of the draft, including U.S. allies Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Ukraine.

Haley’s way of diplomacy

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley rebuked the U.N. and pointed to the resolution as “one more example of the U.N. doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Haley, warned ahead of a nonbinding U.N. General Assembly on Thursday, organized as a counter-measure to the U.S. veto of the Security Council resolution, that the U.S. would remember the names of those that vote against it.

Haley does have a point when highlighting the U.S. Congress declaration of 1995 that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel, which includes the relocation of U.S. embassies there. On that note, Trump can argue he is merely implementing a legal commitment. However, Washington must diligently assess why in 22 years, successive presidents have continually waived the implementation of this legislation.

The short-term gain for Trump in appeasing, his vital Jewish support base and fulfilling a key campaign pledge will erode with a ramp up of hostilities in the region and the U.S. losing further influence after it was overtaken in Syria by Russia and with Iran able to propel its regional policies unmolested.

Turkey has been particularly vociferous in rejecting Washington’s move, leading to a bitter exchange of words between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

President Erdoğan denounced the U.S. as a biased broker and indicated his desire to relocate the Turkish embassy to east Jerusalem in response.

In an emergency meeting in Istanbul one week after Trump’s announcement, leaders from the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) recognized east Jerusalem as the occupied capital of a Palestinian state, while calling on the international community to reciprocate.

The U.S.’s decision may lead the two sides to further entrench their positions rather than make concessions, for example, in the settlement building around east Jerusalem. Trump’s declaration increases international divisions, and toughens the Israeli stance and Palestinian disunity. It also promises to make any settlement much more tenuous.

First Published: Daily Sabah

After a century of statelessness, the historical Kurdistan independence referendum is just two months away. Yet, many sides warn Kurds they would be fueling instability or claim their time has not come.

Contrary to such threats, Kurdish independence would be a factor for stability in both Iraq and the greater Middle East for several reasons.

Firstly, the historical injustice against the Kurds by depriving them of their right to statehood and confining them to decades of repression as minority subjects is difficult to comprehend through the lens of a Turk, Arab, or Persian.

As long as the Kurds remain the largest nationality without a state, they will never settle.

Moreover, without correcting one of the great dilemmas of the Middle East, the region will always have a foundation for instability and restlessness, both now and in the future.

Clinging on to the myth that artificial borders of Iraq and the wider region are untouchable merely ignores the fact these arbitrary borders are the real source of contention and conflict in the Middle East today.

Iraq has struggled to build any sense of unity since its inception.

One of the pillars of instability in Iraq, after the great sectarian complexities, is a Kurdish population refusing to succumb to Arab rule or to become subordinates of Baghdad.

The Kurdish price for this defiance may be high, but the preservation of their identity was non-negotiable.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi recently stated, “We are now a united country.”

However, such statements from officials in Baghdad merely ignore the decades of repression against the Kurds and instability that resulted.

As long as Kurdistan is bound to the Iraqi borders, relations will always remain fractious, and scars of suffering under Arab rule will never heal.

In contrast, an independent Kurdish state can open a new chapter with Iraq.

According to the Kurdistan Region President Masoud Barzani, postponing independence would lead to greater instability.

“We have proved that we are factors of stability,” President Barzani said. “What we are doing through a referendum is to prevent that upcoming instability.”

“We want to cut any possibility of bloodshed in the future,” the President added.

Kurdistan has enjoyed stability and newfound prominence, especially since 2003, but whether you call it the “other Iraq” or whatever else, it is still a formal part of Iraq.

The sectarian violence ensures Kurdistan can never truly escape the shadows of the crumbling state of Iraq.

According to Abadi, “It is in national, economic, trade, and security interests if the Kurds are part of Iraq.”

However, the Iraqi tag will always cast a noose over Kurdish economy, tourism, and security.

If there was a uniting factor between Sunnis and Shias, it was the ethnic card against the Kurds.

Focusing on rifts with the Kurds and actions such as cutting Kurdistan’s share of the budget was often a tactic by Baghdad to deflect deep-rooted issues and corruption in the country.

Ironically, an independent Kurdistan may be a uniting factor for the rest of Iraq, by acting as a stable broker and forcing Iraqis to reconcile differences without the Kurdish question hanging over Baghdad.

President Barzani believes an independent Kurdistan could have a much stronger relationship with Baghdad.

“Kurdistan can be a factor for security and stability, and that is best done through an understanding with Iraq,” he stated.

Meanwhile, Mala Bakhtiyar, head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan’s (PUK) executive body, addressing a recent meeting with Iranian officials in Tehran, said: “We frankly told them that we, as Kurds, live in uncertainty due to the current situation in Iraq, the post-Da’esh [Islamic State] fight, and the disputed territories. We, therefore, decided to hold the referendum to guarantee a path for our future.”

Regarding the wider region, a secular, pro-western and democratic new state home to an array of religions and ethnicities is just what the volatile region needs.

Rather than fermenting instability in Turkey, a Kurdish state can act as a vital buffer against sectarian jostling gripping the rest of Iraq and the region, and can only strengthen the already strong economic and security ties with Ankara.

According to former Iraqi Foreign Minister and a member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) Hoshyar Zebari, “Kurdistan is the only place from which they can ensure energy supplies,” while it can act as “a buffer between them and the expansionism of Shia militants.”

The United States has pumped trillions of dollars into achieving stability in Iraq since 2003.

Even after the costly and intensive fight against the Islamic State (IS), there remain doubts Baghdad has truly learned lessons.

How can Kurdish secession cause instability when Iraq is deeply embroiled in a battle against IS and self-inflicted crises since 2003?

Does the continuous obsession with a united Iraq benefit US and EU interests, or does a plural Kurdish state that can act as a bulwark against extremism and serve Western ideals in the region?

Much like there will never be a good time to declare independence in a chaotic region, the Kurds cannot be accused of creating unrest and instability when Iraq and the wider region has known nothing less.