The news that the Chilcot report will be released after the election has suffocated coverage of a magisterial report from the Foreign affairs committee about Iraqi Kurdistan. Once again, we generally see Iraq as a domestic issue at the expense of where Iraqis are now.
Debate about Iraq should also include this pioneering report. It makes clear that for the Kurds the war was one of liberation. It adds that Shias take a more ambivalent view, that may be more cynical as to the motives of the western powers, and that for many Sunnis the war was a disaster. But Iraq is clearly in transition from fascism to something else and that may include partition.
The report starts with the stark assessment that the future of Iraq as a nation state is in question as never before and that the clock is ticking on whether Iraq can be stitched back into a functioning whole. Some will see this as vindicating the case against the invasion. But without the invasion the last decade could have been dominated by continuing genocidal attacks on the Kurds and repression of the Shia rather than a long journey to democracy.
The foreign affairs committee provides a sober analysis of longstanding Iraqi divisions and potential futures, including partition. That it comes from a country that was a ‘midwife of Iraq’ adds weight. If such a report had been produced a year or a decade ago, there is a reasonable assumption that it would have either downplayed partition or strongly discouraged it.
However, the events of the decade and especially the past year have dramatically underlined the old faultlines of Iraq. Last year, Iraq was cut almost in half when the self-styled Islamic State captured Mosul. Islamic State only intended to liberate prisoners but went for broke when they found the Iraqi army melting away. That it folded without a fight and that many Sunnis felt safer with Islamic State than Baghdad speaks volumes about what the report describes as Nouri al-Maliki’s ‘sectarian autocracy.’ That Maliki continued to block budget payments to the Kurds even when Islamic State turned on Kurdistan illustrates the depth of the division and his responsibility for it.
Maliki has been replaced by Haider al-Abadi who has made a good start including a temporary deal with the Kurds on budget and oil issues. It may be that this provides a stable base for the report’s preference for a looser Iraqi federation to replace failed ‘strongman’ regimes in Baghdad.
The report says it is rational to fear the unpredictable consequences of partition and also rational for the Kurds to seek greater self-governance or even independence, given a long history of repression and also because Kurdistan is the best governed and least dysfunctional part of Iraq.
Indeed, the report lavishes praise on Kurdistan as pro-western, secular, moderate, pragmatic, democratic and a haven of tolerance. It does not avoid shortcomings, which include a tendency to dynastic political rule, regional and tribal voting rather than informed policy choice, new wealth accruing to a politically connected elite, patronage as an instrument of political power, public sector inefficiency, and insufficient media freedom. The members of parliament seem confident that such shortcomings, less than most comparable countries in the Middle East, are being tackled by a government that keenly seeks external advice to advance internal reform.
The report judges that Kurdish independence is possible in the medium-term, although powerful neighbours are opposed and much depends on achieving self-sufficiency in energy which has been put back by falling oil prices. But the report encourages fresh thinking if independence goes live. It urges the United Kingdom and its partners to stand ready to help ensure that any clear expression of Kurdish will for independence on reasonable terms is accepted and respected. The report adds that independence should be with the consent of the rest of Iraq. ‘Should’ is not ‘must’, but I think that independence requires at least Baghdad’s acquiescence to ensure good neighbourly relations and prevent the rise of Iraqi revanchism.
Defeating Islamic State is the priority. But the idea that Kurds are always stuck in an Iraq prison is now rightly a more open question than for decades. Either way, Britain should do much more to increase and improve its relations with the Kurds and Iraq. The report’s detailed appeal for Anglo-Kurdish partnership should be acted on with urgency. Bring on Chilcot by all means, but also focus on actually existing Iraq.
The full report is at www.parliament.uk/facom
———————————-
Gary Kent is director of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region and writes in a personal capacity. He tweets @garykent
———————————-