Paths to Peace

For Kurds who dream of an independent homeland, the only strategy is to "wait and see" and "be prepared."

The path towards a lasting peace for the Kurds of Iraq can best be summed up in the old Boy Scout motto of “Be Prepared.” The pan-Kurdish dream of a unified Kurdistan is not likely to happen any time soon. Indeed, on this International Day of Peace any discussion about a path towards Kurdish peace can only realistically be achieved within the existing international sovereign state system that has been imposed upon them. With about half of all Kurds living under Turkish sovereign authority and another six million or so Kurds living within borders of the fledging Iraqi state, it makes little sense to discuss a unified pan-Kurdish strategy for peace. As such, I wish to discuss here what avenue towards (dare I say) peace exists for Iraqi Kurds.

Since 2003 the two main Kurdish groups in Iraq have been careful to walk a fine line between support of the U.S.-led invasion, and a desire for Kurdish independence. Ironically under the final years of Saddam, Iraqi Kurds enjoyed a high degree of autonomy thanks to the UN protection zone in the North. This relative autonomy was of course paid for in blood several times over. Both major Kurdish political parties of the day (the PUK and the KDP) were in favour of the U.S.-led invasion since this would inevitably lead to the end of Saddam’s brutal regime. Most Kurds approached their support of the U.S. with caution, however, since it was only a few years earlier that Saddam had been an important ally of the U.S. against its bitter enemy in the region – Iran. It was during this period of U.S. support of Saddam that the grizzly gas attacks on Kurdish civilians happened in Halabja in 1988. Kurdish support of the U.S. mission in Iraq should be viewed as more an aspect of their pragmatic approach, rather than any long term trust or admiration of U.S. policy in the region.

Despite open warfare between the PUK and KDP in the early 1990s, Iraqi Kurdish leaders used their autonomy under the UN mandate to establish the workings of a quasi-state in the North. They developed a level of economic and political literacy that has helped create the relative stability in Northern Iraq since 2003.

Part of this is evidenced by the high-profile participation of Kurds in the creation and management of the new Iraqi state. However, even Iraqi President Jalal Talibani, himself a Kurd, has approached this engagement tentatively, taking a “wait and see” approach. For Talibani and others, participation in a federal Iraq is motivated mostly by a desire to ensure Kurdish freedom from the sorts of repression they faced under Saddam, the Turkish campaigns against their own Kurdish population, and similar policies of repression in Iran.

Currently, Iraqi Kurds face the highly uncertain future of the new Iraqi state – especially as the U.S. ends its combat mission and attempts to transfer security and administration to Iraqis. I doubt that many Kurds would be willing to remain within a federal Iraq if it degenerates into a snake pit of ethnic, religious, economic, and regional rivalries. The U.S. objective of “stable” state-building in Iraq, replete with a working federal democracy and free market economy, has in practice not happened. By far the most stable parts of Iraq are the Kurdish regions, and should Iraq fail, the Kurdish leadership will likely protect what it has established in the North in whatever way it can.

In a worst case scenario, even those Kurds who had put all faith in a federal Iraq will support Kurdish independence. This will of course not be easy. An independent Iraqi Kurdistan will face challenges, if not outright hostility from Turkey, Iran, and other groups in Iraq. It is also not an option that the international community is likely to embrace. Moreover, any claim of Kurdish independence comes with challenges over the definition of Kurdish territory and resources, especially around the city of Kirkuk. With all of this in the near future of Iraqi Kurds, the best option for a lasting peace remains a pragmatic strategy of “wait and see” and always “be prepared.”