Talk politics.

Iraqi Kurdistan in historic independence vote

Today, the people of Iraqi Kurdistan (and those territories currently contested between Baghdad and Erbil) will be voting on an independence referendum. The poll, initiated by the president of the Kurdish autonomy Masoud Barzani, is expected to win in a landslide.

Of course this doesn't mean there'll be a new country in Northern Iraq on the next day after the referendum. It's entirely possible that the referendum itself, whose legitimacy is being contested by the central authorities in Baghdad, could be a diplomatic game by Barzani, who is hoping to earn some points at the domestic political front. Like using the issue of Kurdish independence to marginalize his domestic opponents, and use the referendum to earn further concessions and benefits from the central Iraqi government.

It's become patently clear by now that the Kurdish people want their independence more badly than their leaders do. Still, there are at least five reasons why Europe and the EU should consider recognizing the result of the referendum.


First, this would give Europe the opportunity to at least partially restore its influence in the Middle Eastern processes. Since both the regional factors (Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria) and the global ones (Russia and the US) are hostile to this referendum, Europe's support could be a contrasting move, a favor that the Kurds wouldn't forget.

Moreover, such a restoration of the mechanisms and tools that the EU used to have in the Middle East, is more than necessary. The migrant and refugee influx could've been managed way better if Europe had influence on the countries where this influx is generated. When such mechanisms are absent, we get what we witnessed: the EU scrambling to cope with the consequences of the migration at EU territory, instead of influencing the reasons for this migration within the geopolitical neighborhood.

But there's no way you can win a match if you only have defense. You need to apply pressure in the opposition field as well. Besides, we already saw how Russia pulled the initiative for deciding the fate of Syria and Assad out from under Vienna's feet, and placed it in Astana and Cairo. Except, it's Europe that the migrants are flooding, not Russia. So this is Europe's business more than anyone else's.

Turkey is using the refugee camps to twist EU's arms and blackmail Europe for money. All the while, they're pouring generous funds into various proxy groups operating around Northern Syria (mainly against the Kurds).

In Yemen, the only things that flourish are the local Al Qaeda, cholera, and EU's financial aid.

In all three cases, Europe is mostly occupied with paying the bill, but never ordering the music. This cannot continue much longer. Europe has to show a spine and take its own fate into its own hands. Prudently, calmly, soberly.

The second reason that the EU should recognize the result of the independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan is the essence of the Kurdish society itself. The Kurds are mostly secular (not only the Iraqi ones, but also the Turkish, Iranian and Syrian Kurds). And Europe, itself secular, needs an identical ally in the Middle East that could help it press its own interests.

Given the multiple religious conflicts in the Middle East, establishing a secular and allied Tel Eviv - Erbil axis would ultimately be in Europe's and Western interest. This wouldn't necessarily be a democratic axis, but Europe does need to approach all the chaos in the Middle East pragmatically, even egoistically, not idealistically.

The US is against a further fracturing of Iraq, because they probably think this would also be written on their account, as has everything since they removed Saddam. In turn, the Russians are generally opposed to ethnic and religious Balkanization (despite their actions in Ukraine, by the way), mostly because of the significant Muslim regions along the Volga river and in North Caucasus.

The third reason is of course a sweet revenge of the (currently spineless) European elite for Erdogan's rhetorical adventures against the EU and some particular European countries. An independent Kurdish state in the Middle East would add salt to the wounds of Turkish foreign policy, because of the significant Kurdish minority within Turkey.

Ankara instinctively fears such a scenario, because the Turks believe it might cause a domino effect: a possible Kurdish state could become a center of processes that would additionally amplify the Kurds' aspirations for autonomy within Turkey.

WHat's more, we should note that in Iraqi Kurdistan, despite the tribal forces led by Barzani and Talabani, there's also also the PKK and its affiliated groups, and the Iranian Kurds (whose political and military leadership lives in exile in the Kurdish autonomy). So a possible independent state in North-East Iraq could be of greater significance than its mere territorial dimension.

Iraqi Kurdistan, by the way, has been divided into a Turkish and Iranian sphere of inluence ever since its inception. Turkey has influence in the border regions, south of Erbil. Iran, around Kirkuk. Politically, Turkey cooperates with Barzani, and Iran with Talabani (and the Goran movement). The Turkish and Iranian influence will remain for sure, but an independent Kuridstan would have the chance to render it ambivalent over time (and with the appropriate support), and shift the focus on the Kurdish communities in South-East Turkey and West Iran.

Of course, if Isreal isn't on board, there'd hardly be a country in the region that would support a possible EU recognition of Kurdistan, and it would lack a lot of legitimacy.

But at the end of the day, Europe (and the EU) should take a stand, recognize what its own interests are, and address all the sides on this issue:

...The US should be told that the Kurdish autonomy was practically achieved thanks to the US intervention in Iraq, and Saddam's removal. Independence is just the logical next step in any democratic society.

...Russia should be told that unlike the Russian minorities in Ukraine who want to join the Russian Federation, the Kurds are actually a majority in their regions, they've long been suppressed, persecuted and mass-killed by Saddam, and they've fought for independence for centuries.

...Iran should be hinted that if it weren't for Germany and France, the Iranian nuclear deal would be at the mercy of a Republican majority in the US Congress, and at the whim of an impulsive and unpredictable US president.

...Iraq should be told that the Shia-controlled post-Saddam central authority in Baghdad has failed to guarantee a proportionate political representation to all groups and fair treatment of the Sunni (including the Kurds).

As for Assad's Syria, Europe doesn't owe him any explanations, mostly because he has become but a mere puppet in the hands of Iran and Russia, so he isn't allowed an opinion of his own. Turkey isn't owed anything either, since Erdogan has already demonstrated he won't be respecting anything remotely related to the EU.

Of course, an independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan can't help but be a very delicate issue. In all fairness, there are a myriad of arguments against an independent Kurdish state. But still, a potential independence of the Kurds in Iraq is a convenient occasion for Europe to rehabilitate the mechanism for influence in the region, and suggest to the other factors in the region that Europe doesn't want to pay the bill without participating in shaping the processes there any more.