Written evidence from Peter W. Galbraith (KUR0017)

The Reality of an Independent Kurdistan

An independent Kurdistan has emerged on the territory of the former Iraq. The issue is not whether Iraq should be put back together—because it cannot—but how the international community adjusts to the new reality.

For many years, Kurdistan has had the attributes of an independent state: it has its own parliament, president and military.  Kurdistan controls its own borders, manages its own natural resources, and makes its own laws. Three things had kept Kurdistan from formal independence: a dispute with Baghdad over what territory constitutes Kurdistan, the need for budgetary support from Baghdad, and international opposition. Kurdistan now controls the disputed territories, has developed an oil industry that gives it economic independence, and has the support of Turkey, the country that counts more than any other.

While some have accused Kurdistan is taking advantage of Iraq’s weakness to seize territory and move for independence, this is unfair. Baghdad refused to implement Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution that called for a referendum to resolve the status of Kirkuk and other disputed territories by the end of 2007. Kurdistan only took over these areas after the Iraqi Army and state abandoned them. If Kirkuk were not in Kurdish hands today, ISIS would control the city and one of Iraq’s largest oil fields.

President Barzani has asked the Kurdistan parliament to establish a Kurdistan Election Commission and to pick a date for a referendum on independence.  I have never met a Kurd who told me he or she preferred being part of Iraq to having an independent Kurdistan.  I estimate that at least 95% of Kurdistan’s voters will choose independence. Under these circumstances, Kurdistan has every reason to want the most transparent possible vote and I hope Britain will send a robust observer mission.

Given the scale of the US and British effort in the country, developments in Iraq are a disappointment. But, they are not reversible. Sunni Iraqis will not be reconciled to a government in Baghdad led by Shiite religious parties and Kurds do not want to stay in a country that didn’t keep its constitutional bargain and which, in any event, they never wanted to join. Western policy should focus not on the impossible task of putting Iraq back together but on saving that which can be saved. Kurdistan is democratic, peaceful, increasingly prosperous and very pro-western. It is the one success story to emerge from eleven years of coalition effort in Iraq. It is worth saving.

When Kurdistan declares itself independent, I hope Great Britain will be among the first to recognize the new country. This parliament passed a law permitting Scotland to decide whether it wants to remain part of the United Kingdom or become independent. The people of Kurdistan surely deserve the same respect for their decision as you accord to people of your own country.  

We have a tendency to see the break up of states as destabilizing but it is often far more destabilizing to hold states together against the will a large segment of their population. One reason Iraq has been such a violent place through so much of its history is that successive regimes have had to use force to keep the Shiite majority down and the Kurds in.

Let us recognize that Iraq has broken up and focus on what is achievable. Short of large-scale western military intervention, Baghdad will not regain control of the Sunni lands. But, we can prevent the spread of war and extremism to Kurdistan.

July 2014