Iraq is in turmoil as it limbers up to parliamentary elections in April. Deep divisions have hardened between its majority Shia population and the Sunni minority, which feels marginalised. Al Qaeda is exploiting these splits, which have also been exacerbated by the slaughter in Syria.
The officially recognised autonomous region of Kurdistan is not entirely insulated from this. It has embraced a quarter of a million, mainly Kurdish, refugees from Syria, many of whom are in the large and growing Domiz refugee camp near the Syrian border.
While the refugees have been welcomed and many absorbed into a booming economy, this will become increasingly difficult for a region of about five million people. A new exodus of Sunnis has also started with fears of Al Qaeda piggybacking the flow from Fallujah.
This increases risks for Kurdistan, which has an enviable record on security with just one (unsuccessful) Al Qaeda attack since 2007. The attack, last September, was carried out by men who assembled in Syria before crossing into Mosul in Arab Iraq and then via Kurdish checkpoints, swamped during busy parliamentary elections, into Erbil.
But Kurdistan remains the safest and most prosperous part of Iraq. It’s had more time to overcome the genocidal legacy of Saddam and is more ethnically homogenous although its minorities are treated well and it is a haven for Christians.
Kurdish leaders have played a crucial role in stabilising Iraq but are viewed with hostility by some in Baghdad. The latest report from the all-party parliamentary group on its ninth delegation says that the cat and mouse game between Baghdad and the Kurds is as old as Iraq itself.
Yet Kurdistan could be the motor of change in the whole country and more widely. All this should be possible under the federal constitution agreed in 2005 but many provisions only work on paper. For instance, Kurdistan should receive 17 per cent of all Iraqi revenues but it is actually nearer 10 per cent. Iraq needs a reliable revenue sharing law to make federalism work for all.
The conflict with Baghdad currently centres on the Kurds’ decision to directly export, through a new pipeline, their massive supplies of oil and gas – only explored and exploited in recent years – to Turkey. The Kurdistan region could soon become a net contributor to Iraqi revenues. But some in Baghdad have gone ballistic and suggest that the Kurds have a cunning plan to turn economic independence into a unilateral declaration of independence.
My view, from talking to Kurdish leaders, is that they have no such plan but wish finally to obtain the benefits of their natural wealth. Baghdad’s fears could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some there may even welcome separation.
The energy revenues are badly needed. The Kurdistan Region is heaving under the impact of its massive economic growth. The number of cars, for instance, has increased fifteen-fold but the result is congestion that requires new roads, bridges and public transport. These demands can be met from the Iraqi budget and also from foreign investors. This applies across the board.
The Kurds look west to their biggest trading partner Turkey, Europe and Britain, which has a special place in their hearts because we liberated them in 1991 and in 2003. They appreciate the quality of our goods and services. Business people often ask why our companies aren’t there in greater numbers.
Today, we have secured a Commons debate on UK relations with the Kurdistan region. It is led by Conservative MP Jason McCartney who served as an RAF officer policing the no-fly zone in Kurdistan twenty years ago. Labour MPs Meg Munn and Ian Lucas will also contribute.
The debate is an opportunity to push the government which, like its Labour predecessor, has become less wary about Kurdistan, into actions that dramatically increase awareness about and connections with Kurdistan.
The group urges a foreign affairs select committee inquiry. William Hague should visit Kurdistan and its leaders be invited to London. The PM should appoint a UK trade envoy, convene a Downing Street seminar on the potential for British interests, and ensure that the visa regime doesn’t needlessly obstruct cultural and commercial connections.
Kurdistan has done much to overcome its tragic past. Official recognition of the genocide by the UK would powerfully assure them that such things are in the past. The Commons has endorsed this but the government prefers that this be settled legally. But they have acknowledged the enormity of the Kurdish experience and will formally mark the national day of remembrance each April.
The debate in the Commons is an opportunity to help put Kurdistan on the map for small and large British companies, health bodies, universities and think tanks – which could benefit from helping the Kurds build a decent, democratic and sustainable economy and society. Success for Kurdistan helps Iraq as a whole.
——————————————————–
Gary Kent is the director of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq and director of Labour Friends of Iraq. He writes in a personal capacity.
——————————————————–
Photo: William John Gauthier
It is always said that there are only two democracies in the Middle East – Israel and Kurdistan. It is to be hoped that the Syrian refugees have not been infiltrated by the kind of people that the BBC refers to as “militants” whom I call terrorists. The other point I wanted to make is that Kurdistan, unlike Israel, was promised its own state in the 1920s and was never ever given it. Traditional Kurdistan spans parts of Russia, Turkey, Syria and Iraq, which is why the Kurds are fighting for autonomy in Turkey.