Tag Archives: IS

With the “wolf at the door”, what does it mean for Kurdish independence?

Leave a reply

Fast approaching 100 years since the Middle Eastern landscape was carved leaving the Kurds as the largest nation without a state, the Kurdish dreams for an independent homeland never wavered.

However, with ubiquitous disputes over oil revenues, disputed territories and share of the national budget already leaving Erbil-Baghdad relations at a new low, the onslaught of the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq transformed the dynamics with the Kurds sharing a 1000km border with a new reality.

The Kurds have picked up the mantle in the fight against IS but for them IS was a product of marginalisation policies of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that fuelled another Sunni revolt and years of Western dithering in Syria that helped create the IS phenomenon.

With thousands of Yezidis, Christians and other minorities brutally killed and thousands more taking shelter in Kurdistan, and the Peshmerga taking the brunt of the battle against determined IS forces, the United States and other Western powers finally agreed to arm the Kurdish forces and provide support with air strikes and humanitarian relief.

However, with the US and European powers tip-toeing the diplomatic line, their support has been on the basis of preserving Iraq’s unity and installing a new inclusive government. Do the Kurds forfeit any plans to exercise self-determination and place their faith in Baghdad once more? More importantly will the growing Western motion to arm and bolster the Kurds, lead to an eventual support for an independent state?

Whilst a highly sensitive issue, for many MPs and analysts, the question of self-determination is ultimately one that only the Kurdish people can decide. Rory Stewart, Conservative Member of Parliament for Penrith and The Border, told Rudaw “this is a highly sensitive issue. In the end this must be a question for the Kurdish and Iraqi people. And conducted as sensitively as possible, in a situation of extreme instability. The key question remains the long-term stability and welfare of the people of Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq.”

Stewart, who recently spent time last week on the ground with Kurdish fighters and refugees, highlighted the apparent gulf between  what is needed to support the Kurdish army and to defend Kurdish refugee camps and what is currently been provided. He urged “There is a lot we can still do to provide further military equipment and training, as well as ensure essential supplies are reaching refugee camps to support those fleeing from IS.”

UK Labour MP, Mike Gapes, while pushing for support of Kurds “materially, militarily and politically”, stated “It would be better for the terms and timing and degree of separation to be negotiated and agreed but ultimately the Kurds have the right to self-determination.  The UK and US should respect the will of the people expressed in a democratic referendum.”

Angus McKee, UK Consul General to the Kurdistan Region, explained that the matter of any referendum is up to the Kurdish and Iraqi people to decide, not the UK.

Former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown, strongly hit out at the UK hesitation to arm and support the Kurds and urged on a more integrated strategy for containing a wider war that would involve Britain and the US acting as the “handmaidens to Kurdish independence”. Ashdown warned that the borders of the Middle East will be inevitably redrawn and “Sykes-Picot will be out the window and we will see a shape of the Middle East which is much more arbitrated by religious belief than by old imperial preferences.”

Ashdown added, “Support the Kurds by all means we can. They can provide rescue and refuge for the Yezidis. They are secular. They act as a northern bulwark against the advance of Isis.”

The Right Reverend David S. Walker, the Bishop of Manchester, commended the Kurdish role in the fight against IS and in humanitarian operations. Whilst noting the present national boundaries are largely the product not of individual peoples but of former imperial powers in former centuries, he told Rudaw, “I would feel that it is within my remit to say that I would hope and expect that the key issues around self-determination include, alongside economic and political viability, the extent to which there is confidence that a people would govern themselves in ways that protect and respect the rights of minorities – exactly the thing that IS is adamantly opposed to.”

 

Other analysts have warned of the dangers of any separation, Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group, stated “the Kurds are now in a situation where self-determination becomes less a function of their own course of action than Iraq’s general breakdown. This may reduce the price to pay for secession, ultimately. But that price remains steep given the remarkable benefits the Kurds currently derive from their relations with Baghdad, Ankara and Teheran. Actual partition likely would negatively affect all three.”

But for Steven Cook, an analyst at the US think tank the Council on Foreign Relations, recent shifts in the Middle Eastern political landscape mean that Iraq’s Kurds will gain independence “sooner rather than later”.

Even as some major powers have slowly warmed to the idea if not inevitability of Kurdish independence, they have treaded carefully around the diplomatic line. As talk of Kurdish independence accelerated, Philip Hammond, UK Defence Secretary, towed the same line as the US, affirming that the government’s position was to keep Iraq as a unified state.

Germany was quick to support the Kurds in the recent crisis but Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned “An independent Kurdish state would further destabilize the region and trigger new tensions, maybe with the neighboring Iraqi state as well.”

US President Barack Obama somewhat reluctantly agreed to military intervention in Iraq but no doubt placed such support on preserving Iraq’s unity, seeing the ouster of Maliki and creating a unified and inclusive government. “The wolf is at the door…in order for them to be credible with the Iraqi people, they’re going to have to put behind them some of the old practices and actually create a credible, united government,” Obama said.

The Kurds are often warned that due to geopolitics considerations, their time has now come. Now Kurds wonder if in the volatile and explosive Middle Eastern plains, whether such a “good” time ever exists.

Even Turkey, who for years staunchly opposed any notion of Kurdish nationalism let alone independence, has slowly removed resistance to Kurdish aspirations.  A Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman recently declared there was no “unease” about the weapons’ deliveries to Kurds or that it may boost their bid for independence.

In either case, under Western pressure, the Kurds may well have to shelve their plans for any independence referendum for now but either way the Kurdish position will never return to the pre-IS days.

The Kurdish demand for joining new Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s government will have grown stronger to include right to sell oil, purchase arms, measures to prevent any centralisation of power as was the case under Maliki and referendums on disputed territories that Kurds now control.

Kurdistan Head of the Department of Foreign Relations, Falah Mustafa Bakir, previously warned “there is a new reality and that requires a new policy and a new approach.”

The greater question for the Kurds remains not on their end of the bargain in keeping Iraq stable and united, but whether Baghdad will truly forfeit ministries such as interior and defense that the Sunnis crave. There is little the Kurds can do but to shut the door on Baghdad if the current Sunni insurgency cannot be quelled lest another deadly insurgency should rise in the future.

Iran has pledged support for al-Abadi and backed the unity of Iraq and the stabilizing of security, but it remains to be seen whether they will exert pressure on Baghdad to cede power to Sunnis.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe
Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

After Iraq, West is obliged to support Syrian Kurds at the hands of IS

Leave a reply

The rapid and barbaric advance of the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq gripped the world’s attention, leading to eventual Western intervention and arming of the Kurdish Peshmerga forces. However, the IS problem has long festered untouched in Syria.

The Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) forces have been locked in bloody battles with IS militants since 2013 with little support. The fierce battle for Kobane in the Kurdish region of Syria has been raging for several months, but armed with heavy weaponry taking from their spoils in Iraq and regrouping for a major new assault, Syria is on the cusp of yet another humanitarian crisis at the hands of IS.

While the Syrian Kurdish battle against IS has received far less attention and backing than the Kurdish forces repelling IS forces in Iraq, the struggle against IS in that part of the world is just as important and strategic as the ones in Iraq. The Syrian Kurdish struggle against IS not a separate equation but in all reality one and the same.

Thousands of desperate Syrian Kurds fled dozens of villages around Kobane as Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, showing initial hesitance, finally authorized the opening of the border as grateful civilians flooded into the Turkish town of Dikmetas.

“IS fighters have seized at least 21 villages around Kobane,” confirmed Rami Abdel Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, with reports that IS had already cut off water and electricity supplies to the city.

Under a new strategy to combat IS, US President Barack Obama finally agreed to hit IS strongholds in Syria and as such there is no better place to start than preventing a humanitarian catastrophe in Kobane.

The same YPG forces helped in the fight back against IS forces in Iraq and in turn they must now be helped by Western and Iraqi Kurdish forces.

With common affiliations to the PKK blighting perception, YPG has been viewed with much suspicion and mistrust, particularly by Turkey who has failed to recognize the bigger picture at times. Reservations from nationalists will lead to a much deeper problem for Turkey with a potent IS across its long porous borders.

Recently, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed that Turkey was considering plans for a buffer zone on its border with Iraq and Syria. Although this is a much welcome move, such a buffer zone was needed a long-time ago.

The West saw that Peshmerga forces in Iraq were its natural partners and hand in the push back of IS and provided the lightly armed Peshmerga in comparison with IS much needed weaponry.

Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani urged Western support against IS in Kobane amidst “barbaric and terrorist acts”. Barzani  stated, “I call on the international community to use every means as soon as possible to protect Kobane,” while adding that “IS terrorists … must be hit and destroyed wherever they are.”

In Syria, the same situation as Iraq must somehow be replicated as US tries to bolster moderate Syrian opposition forces. Much in the same way as the Iraqi Kurdish forces have been so vital in pushing back IS, the Syrian Kurdish forces ultimately hold significant sway to any defeat of IS.

US State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said the U.S. was “deeply concerned” about the IS gains and advance around Kobane.

The US needs partners it can trust and Syrian Kurds are willing allies. This has proved a difficult reality with deep reservations from Turkey and ties to the PKK, but the situation on the ground needs decisive action and decision making and further US and Western dithering will not only see further atrocities at the hands of IS but the US plan again to defeat IS greatly weakened.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Obama’s IS strategy and new “inclusive” government in Baghdad highlight make or break time for Iraq

Leave a reply

Just six months ago US President Barack Obama deemed groups such as the Islamic State (IS) as minor players. Obama’s recent speech outlining his strategy to defeat IS, including extending air strikes to Syria, underscored the gravity of the situation just a year after Obama hurried away from launching air-strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people.

Obama’s revised approach is testament to the growing power and influence of IS in Syria and particularly Iraq and the foreign policy failings on Syria where a devastating civil war shows no sign of ending.

Such was the danger that just weeks ago, well-armed IS militants were advancing to doorsteps of the Kurdish capital of Erbil. US air strikes helped push back IS forces with the US and Europeans powers providing much needed arms and supplies to Kurdish Peshmerga forces.

No doubt the timing of events over the past few weeks has been interlinked with the changing strategy of the US. Obama has always emphasised the importance of Iraqi unity and an inclusive government that can truly entice the disenfranchised Sunni community into the political fold and into an alliance against IS. A key precondition for the launching of air strikes and with it the resumption of military activities in Iraq, years after Obama cleaned his hand of George W. Bush’s legacy, was the end of Nouri al-Maliki’s quest to seek another term.

Just days later Maliki backed down and Haider al-Abadi was announced as the new Prime Minister. As for the Kurds, US and European support of Kurdish forces was on a clear basis – the reluctant Kurds must participate in the new Baghdad government, help in the greater fight against IS outside of Kurdish borders and preserve the unity of Iraq.

Furthermore, Iraqis were under pressure to cobble together a new inclusive government before Obama’s crucial strategy was announced this week.

Obama may have been reluctant to launch an inevitable war on IS, but aside from public shows of unity, Iraqi politicians will have been just as reluctant in forming a new inclusive government.

It was reminiscent of the days of the past, where US pressure often was a key factor for Iraqi political breakthroughs and agreements at various junctures of the Iraqi transition post Saddam Hussein. However, whilst agreements and coalitions were ultimately made, often it lacked real basis or buy-in from all sides.

Although US air power will be a significant hand, the US strategy relies heavily on Iraqi forces on the ground driving out IS militants. Whether Peshmerga forces, Shiite militias and Sunni tribal forces can be united to oust IS remains to be seen. A great deal depends on whose turf they are fighting for.

Such is the disparate and fragmented nature of Iraq, that it is doubtful whether the aforementioned forces will truly fight anywhere other than where their zones of interest lie on the ground.

The Kurds may have joined the new government, but the centralist and marginalisation policies of al-Maliki still ring in their ears. The Kurds participated in Baghdad with much scepticism that al-Abadi will succumb to their key demands or follow a different course to the policies of Maliki on oil exports, national budget, disputed territories and status of Peshmerga forces.

The Kurds negotiations with al-Abadi have already hit an impasse on Baghdad’s outstanding payment of the Kurdish share of the national budget and the status of Kurdish oil exports.

After giving successive Baghdad governments many ultimatums and agreeing various pre-government accords over the years, many of the key promises and agreements were never fulfilled. For example, there is still no official Hydrocarbon Law and seven years after the original deadline for implementation of article 140 has passed, it still remains to be resolved.

In this light, the Kurds have been somewhat predictably sceptical on further agreements or promises from Baghdad, giving al-Abadi 3 months to meet their demands and 12 months to settle issue of disputed territories.

Al-Abadi’s proposal includes a peaceful settlement to territorial disputes as well as the incorporation of the Peshmerga forces as a National Guard Force, including arms and training, a Kurdish demand that stretches to 2005.

The Kurds have received four Iraqi ministries including Deputy Prime Minister, but it is clear that Kurdish interests do not lie in titles in Baghdad, but in expanding Kurdish autonomy, self-sufficiency and security capabilities i.e. all the factors that hinge on Baghdad fulfilling Kurdish demands.

Either way, the situation in Iraq has long changed, and the Kurds are not about to give-up control of disputed territories they have secured with much sacrifice or control of oil exports only to see their economic fortunes pinned on the good-will of Baghdad.

Aside from the Kurds, it remains to be seen whether the concessions to the Sunnis will be deemed enough. The buy-in of powerful Sunni tribes and armed Sunni groups are much more important than buy-in of Sunni politicians in Baghdad. Key Sunni demands remain decentralisation of power, an autonomous Sunni region and the incorporation of Sunni tribal militiamen into the Shiite dominated Iraqi security forces.

Above all, this latest attempt at forming an inclusive government and the breathing space that the US is willing to afford Iraqi forces in battle to eradicate IS, makes this make or break time for Iraq as a state.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc

Stuck between an uncompromising Baghdad, well-equipped IS enemy and lack of funding and oil exports, Kurds left to suffer Baghdad’s mess

Leave a reply

As the unfolding humanitarian crisis intensified in Kurdistan, the world can ill-afford to become bystanders once more to massacres against the Kurds or fail to match mere rhetoric with tangible support.

Under great pressure, US President Barack Obama, finally authorised air strikes against ISIS forces threatening the Kurdistan Regional capital of Erbil and the thousands of desperate Kurds from the Yezidi community stranded on Mount Sinjar.

Yet Obama’s reluctance to get involved was all clear to see. Obama hesitated to get involved in what he deemed would be taking sides in a sectarian war as the Islamic State (IS) first took Iraq by storm in June.

However, the IS phenomenon is anything but a local crisis, it’s now a major global concern. The US support of their Kurdish allies has been lukewarm as their obsession of keeping a united Iraq and fears of a Kurdish drive towards independence has led to disconnect with realities on the ground.

“When we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye,” Obama said. “We can act carefully and responsibly to prevent a potential act of genocide.”

Unfortunately, it is no longer about preventing genocide. With thousands of Yezidis and Christians brutally killed and thousands more Yezidis dead due to thirst and starvation on Mount Sinjar, genocide and massacre has already been committed. It is now only a question of preventing further genocide.

Kurdish suffer from oil exports, Baghdad and IS

The more that Washington treats Iraq as a whole piece, the more that the Kurds suffer. Obama added, “The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces,” making it clear that intervention would be limited.

Obama needs to distinguish between Kurdistan and the general term “Iraqi”. IS was not a problem created by the Kurds but due to years of marginalisation and centralist policies of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Even under the current IS whirlwind that has taken Sunni rebels to the doorsteps of Baghdad, Maliki was reluctant to reach out to Sunnis and stubbornly refused to relinquish yet another term as Prime Minister. Iraq is broken and the Kurds are facing the greatest blow-back for failings of the state or policies of Baghdad.

A great example is the controversy over Kurdish oil exports. In the hope of preventing the collapse of Iraq, the one-sided US policy that frequently favours Baghdad, continues this notion of Iraqis resolving their issues without assessing the situation on the ground.

The Kurds are owed billions of dollars of payments for their share of the national budget since January. Deputy Spokesperson for the US State Department, Marie Harf, recentlystated “There is no US ban on the transfer or sale of oil originated from any part of Iraq…Our policy on this issue has been clear, Iraq’s energy resources belong to all of the Iraqi people. These questions should be resolved in a manner consistent with the Iraqi constitution.”

The same Iraqi constitution that the US refers to is already clear, it doesn’t need negotiation but implementation.

Now Kurds are deprived of much need oil revenues with a tanker anchored off the shore of Texas, no budget payments and are then expected to fight Baghdad’s war with a lack of weapons or support. “Stronger Iraqi forces” should also translate to stronger Kurdish forces.

Obama stated that the US and its allies had failed to “appreciate” the weakness of the Iraqi security forces. The problem was never a lack of arms but a lack of will tied to growing sectarian splits in Iraq. Funnelling yet more US advanced weaponry is not a solution.

The phobia of keeping Iraq united and not bolstering the Kurds for fear of seeing them breaking away, will lead to more to more massacres under the hands of extremists.

Even as Kurdistan was under great threat, Baghdad was quick to undermine Kurdish leadership with Amer al-Khozai, adviser to Maliki, stating they were “pay(ing) the price for the negative positions it took against Baghdad”. Al-Kohzai urged Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani to “correct his mistakes against the federal government so as to face the terrorism threat that has started to threaten the region.”

Kurdistan has to contend with an uncompromising Baghdad, a determined and well-equipped enemy in IS and lack of international support.

International response

Following US commitment to limited air strikes, the response of EU powers was initially limited to support of humanitarian operations before sentiment within the EU rapidly turned in favouring of arming the Kurds.

France was one of the first EU powers that promised to support the Kurds. In discussions with Barzani, French President François Hollande “confirmed that France was available to support forces engaged in this battle,” before later confirming plans to supply arms to bolster Kurdish forces.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier admitted in a statement that “It is clear that (humanitarian aid) is not enough and we have to see what we can do beyond that.” Referring to “new horrors”, Steinmeier added “We condemn these despicable crimes, targeted at entire communities, in the strongest terms.”

Meanwhile, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, strongly condemning the “barbaric attacks”, backed US military action as he insisted on the need to help the Yezidis in their “hour of desperate need”. While the UK quickly ruled out military intervention, momentum in recent days has strongly turned to arming the Kurds.

There are growing calls from MPs to bring the matter to UK parliament. Prominent Labour MP, Mike Gapes, voiced criticism of UK government’s response and urged recall of parliament to debate the issue.

UK Labour MP, Tom Watson, stressed that the sovereign view of the parliament was need than unilateral decrees and warned that “We cannot abandon Iraq to the black flags of Isis any more than we could leave Europe to the Kaiser or to his black-shirted inheritors 22 years later.”

Lord Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, warned that history will be their judge and believes that UK has a “moral obligation” to join the air strikes on Iraq and even station troops to create a safe area. Dannatt urged “Parliament needs to be recalled and the West needs to face up to its responsibilities.”

Kurdish need arms not sympathy

The Kurds are more than capable of defending their territory, however, no sheer will or numbers will ever win a war. The Kurds need advanced firepower. The IS is anything but a militia. After taking huge amounts of advanced US sourced military gear from the Iraqi forces, they are now a formidable force.

Kurdistan Head of the KRG’s Department of Foreign Relations, Falah Mustafa Bakir, stated “Christians and the Yezidis must be protected. We do not wish to face this war alone. The international community must act and the US should take its responsibility. We need advanced weapons and ammunition to fight the terrorists.”

Sharing an immense border with IS, Kurdish forces are spread across a wide area. Jabar Yawa, chief of staff and spokesman for the Ministry of Peshmerga, stated “It is a vast area…We need a lot of troops to protect and cover almost 40 kilometres of land.”

In a response to Iraqi Yezidi MP, Vian Dakhil’s passionate cry for help, Obama declared “…today America is coming to help”. It is not just today but the needs of tomorrow that Kurdistan must be provided.

 

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc