UK misunderstandings about Iraqi constitution disadvantage Kurds
A short exchange in a Commons debate on British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson's report on the continuing battle against Daesh exposed deep differences between the UK government and many friends of Kurdistan.
Johnson reported that following the KRG's “unilateral referendum” on independence, “a decision we did not support... Iraqi forces have reasserted federal control over disputed territory, including the city of Kirkuk.”
He added that the British “are working alongside our allies to reduce tensions in northern Iraq (sic). Rather than reopening old conflicts, the priority must be to restore the stability, prosperity and national unity that is the right of every Iraqi,” and the Iraqi general election in May creates “an opportunity for parties to set out their respective visions of a country that overcomes sectarianism and serves every citizen, including Kurds.”
Johnson's rather bland blandishments elicited a subtle but profound defence of the Kurds by senior Conservative MP and former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Crispin Blunt, who was an observer on referendum day in Kurdistan and a guest with me and others of the Kirkuk governor for lunch just weeks before his offices were occupied by Shia militia and he was forced to flee for his life.
Blunt said: “In his oral statement, I thought I heard the Foreign Secretary refer to the coalition’s Kurdish partner forces, with regard to the fight in Raqqa, but the word ‘Kurdish’ does not appear in the written version of the statement that has just been handed out. He also talked about the consequences for Kurds in Iraq of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s referendum. As matters now unfold, with the effective end of Islamic State control of territory in both Syria and Iraq, will he bear in mind the fact that the Kurds have been let down by history over the course of the past century? They think they have friends in the United Kingdom and the United States. Will he try to ensure that, when it comes to the protection of Kurdish cultural interests and freedoms in all the countries of the region, it is not just the mountains that are their friends?”
Johnson praised Blunt's eloquence and asserted that “This country and this House are indeed great friends of Kurdistan. They well remember the role played by the Conservative Government in 1991 in that mountainous region with the setting up of safe havens for the Kurds, which were the origin of the Kurdish Regional Government of today.”
He referred to some Labour MPs as doughty campaigners who have also played a major role.
He added that “The Kurds can be in no doubt about our lasting friendship, but we did say to them that the referendum was not the right way forward. The best course now for our Kurdish friends is surely to take advantage of Mr. Abadi, who is their best possible hope, and to enter into a solid and substantial negotiation with him.”
These statements indicate that foreign ministries are still furious that the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) declined the alternative path belatedly outlined by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson two days before the referendum.
The complete absence of any criticism, however gentle or oblique, about how Iraqi forces, including Shia militia, took control of Kirkuk sustains the narrative this was a routine matter rather than a needless choice. The omission of any reference to allegations that Iraq broke the constitution in doing so and that continued KRG control of Kirkuk and the disputed territories was completely compliant with the Iraqi constitution will embolden Abadi.
These partial statements should galvanise those anxious to detail and amplify the descent into bullying by Baghdad: its apparent desire to rip up the rules on revenue-sharing to reduce the federal contribution to under 13% or much less in practice, the attempt to destroy the regional status of Kurdistan, torture, murder and theft in newly occupied disputed territories, and more that emerges almost every day.
Johnson's formula also puts the onus on Erbil to enter into negotiations with Baghdad and ignores the deafening silence so far on Erbil's attempts to begin a proper dialogue. It may be that Abadi represents a relatively better hope than Maliki and it is also true that official statements and public messaging are often more polite than private conversations.
Yet, in the same statement Johnson did not pull his punches about the malign role of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian regime in effectively kidnapping a British citizen for leverage. Yet there was not a peep about the involvement of Iranian involvement in action against Kurdistan to secure a military route to the Mediterranean.
The Commons exchanges also show the crucial need to put the Iraqi constitution on the table and apply it fully, fairly and with a recognition that suffocating Kurdistan will not achieve an Iraq that serves all citizens including Kurds. This means understanding what the Iraqi constitution stipulates as Kurdish rights and the position of the KRG.
Johnson has a better grasp of Kurdish politics and hopes than many. He may think he is working with what is at hand, but the main problem is that most politicians, some journalists who are late to the game, and therefore public opinion don't really understand the history that drove the Kurds to seek to break out of Iraq, however gradually. It illustrates the importance of the major Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry, which is asking for written evidence by 20 November and may issue a major report in the spring.
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
Johnson reported that following the KRG's “unilateral referendum” on independence, “a decision we did not support... Iraqi forces have reasserted federal control over disputed territory, including the city of Kirkuk.”
He added that the British “are working alongside our allies to reduce tensions in northern Iraq (sic). Rather than reopening old conflicts, the priority must be to restore the stability, prosperity and national unity that is the right of every Iraqi,” and the Iraqi general election in May creates “an opportunity for parties to set out their respective visions of a country that overcomes sectarianism and serves every citizen, including Kurds.”
Johnson's rather bland blandishments elicited a subtle but profound defence of the Kurds by senior Conservative MP and former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Crispin Blunt, who was an observer on referendum day in Kurdistan and a guest with me and others of the Kirkuk governor for lunch just weeks before his offices were occupied by Shia militia and he was forced to flee for his life.
Blunt said: “In his oral statement, I thought I heard the Foreign Secretary refer to the coalition’s Kurdish partner forces, with regard to the fight in Raqqa, but the word ‘Kurdish’ does not appear in the written version of the statement that has just been handed out. He also talked about the consequences for Kurds in Iraq of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s referendum. As matters now unfold, with the effective end of Islamic State control of territory in both Syria and Iraq, will he bear in mind the fact that the Kurds have been let down by history over the course of the past century? They think they have friends in the United Kingdom and the United States. Will he try to ensure that, when it comes to the protection of Kurdish cultural interests and freedoms in all the countries of the region, it is not just the mountains that are their friends?”
Johnson praised Blunt's eloquence and asserted that “This country and this House are indeed great friends of Kurdistan. They well remember the role played by the Conservative Government in 1991 in that mountainous region with the setting up of safe havens for the Kurds, which were the origin of the Kurdish Regional Government of today.”
He referred to some Labour MPs as doughty campaigners who have also played a major role.
He added that “The Kurds can be in no doubt about our lasting friendship, but we did say to them that the referendum was not the right way forward. The best course now for our Kurdish friends is surely to take advantage of Mr. Abadi, who is their best possible hope, and to enter into a solid and substantial negotiation with him.”
These statements indicate that foreign ministries are still furious that the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) declined the alternative path belatedly outlined by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson two days before the referendum.
The complete absence of any criticism, however gentle or oblique, about how Iraqi forces, including Shia militia, took control of Kirkuk sustains the narrative this was a routine matter rather than a needless choice. The omission of any reference to allegations that Iraq broke the constitution in doing so and that continued KRG control of Kirkuk and the disputed territories was completely compliant with the Iraqi constitution will embolden Abadi.
These partial statements should galvanise those anxious to detail and amplify the descent into bullying by Baghdad: its apparent desire to rip up the rules on revenue-sharing to reduce the federal contribution to under 13% or much less in practice, the attempt to destroy the regional status of Kurdistan, torture, murder and theft in newly occupied disputed territories, and more that emerges almost every day.
Johnson's formula also puts the onus on Erbil to enter into negotiations with Baghdad and ignores the deafening silence so far on Erbil's attempts to begin a proper dialogue. It may be that Abadi represents a relatively better hope than Maliki and it is also true that official statements and public messaging are often more polite than private conversations.
Yet, in the same statement Johnson did not pull his punches about the malign role of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian regime in effectively kidnapping a British citizen for leverage. Yet there was not a peep about the involvement of Iranian involvement in action against Kurdistan to secure a military route to the Mediterranean.
The Commons exchanges also show the crucial need to put the Iraqi constitution on the table and apply it fully, fairly and with a recognition that suffocating Kurdistan will not achieve an Iraq that serves all citizens including Kurds. This means understanding what the Iraqi constitution stipulates as Kurdish rights and the position of the KRG.
Johnson has a better grasp of Kurdish politics and hopes than many. He may think he is working with what is at hand, but the main problem is that most politicians, some journalists who are late to the game, and therefore public opinion don't really understand the history that drove the Kurds to seek to break out of Iraq, however gradually. It illustrates the importance of the major Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry, which is asking for written evidence by 20 November and may issue a major report in the spring.
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.