Baghdad’s legitimacy as the central authority was further demised on Saturday as the Sadr-led protesters stormed the parliament, forcing the Kurdish MPs escape Baghdad to safety in Kurdistan.
A couple of hours later, Prime Minster Haider al-Abadi stated, “security situation in Baghdad is under control”, as the entire world was watching his country’s democratically elected assembly get vandalized by storming demonstrators.
When the prime minister neglects the precarious situation and completely ignores the elephant in the room, which is obvious to the world, it makes one wonder about his worldview perspective.
This incident deteriorated the political situation tremendously. Last week the security situation also turned worse. The allies on the ground against the Sunni Islamic State clashed in deadly fighting, as Kurdish Peshmerga forces collided with Hashdil al-Shabi, the Shia militias, in the disputed town of Khurmato.
The spiral of security threats in the chronic ethno-sectarian conflict could potentially escalate violence between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.
Separating these geographically and culturally distinct societies through an international intervention could potentially transform them into peaceful neighboring states; given that the UN-Security Council devices and enforces a sovereignty based resolution.
The conflict between Kurds and Shiites has been forthcoming since the US liberation of Iraq in 2003; ever since, they have become the main rivals in Baghdad, following eight decades of Sunni domination.
The Sunnis became politically and socio-economically alienated because of the De-Ba´athification decree authorized by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). This decision annihilated the entire Sunni political establishment and turned thousands of highly skilled military personal into the insurgency that was growing by the influx of foreign Jihadists.
The post-Saddam era led to a permanent security dilemma that introverted the relations among Kurds, Sunni and Shiites in the absence of a neutral central authority that could protect their group’s interest. The outcome of this political uncertainty deepened the conflict dynamics paving the way for endless ethno-sectarian violence.
After the fall of Mosul in 2014, CNN´s Amanpour interviewed Kurdistan Region President Masoud Barzani, in which he stated, “The time is here for the Kurdistan people to determine their future and the decision of the people is what we are going to uphold.” The problem is the opposition from the regional states and the major powers that are skeptical about the self-determination of the Kurdish nation.
Doug Sanders shared this view in his opinion piece from The Globe and Mail, asking, “Do we really want to birth an independent Kurdistan?” Besides signifying the focal point of this imperialistic perception. Sanders assert that, “Ethnic independence movements are meant to be the problem, not the solution.” He concludes that a Kurdish state carved out of Iraq would be in frequent conflicts with its neighbors.
The paradox of this discourse is its shortsighted reflection on the main cause of the conflict, which is the colonial order institutionalized by the Sykes-Picot agreement.
In his book, International Colony Kurdistan, the Turkish sociologist Ismail Besikci argued that the status of Kurdistan was more degrading than a standard colony. He stressed that, “Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, in addition to being collaborators with outside powers, are also occupation forces which have partitioned and annexed Kurdistan.”
Therefore, the longer Iraq´s colonial order exists, the longer it’s ethno-sectarian conflict will exist. Many attempts to improve the conflict have been tried, and all of them have caused either internal or external wars. Why? Because all of them have focused on keeping this artificial state united.
Based on the main cause argument. Adjusting the colonial borders can reduce this violence. The UN Security Council has legal authority to impose an agreement on the principle of self-determination according to its charter.
Under the Sunni rule, Baghdad’s antagonistic intentions toward Kurds produced atrocious genocidal campaigns. Further, the Shiite dominated government has not implemented the 2005 federal constitutional agreements to settle Kurdistan’s territorial disputes, oil management, fair budget allocations and maintenance of impartial security institutions.
These unresolved problems provide Kurdistan with a just case to separate from Iraq.
The colonial order of the Middle East is rooted in war anyhow. It does not make any difference if the Kurdish self-determination bid results in war.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Kurdistan24.
Editing by Delovan Barwari