Kurdistan Independence – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government examines the case for an independent Kurdistan.

Recently, Iraqi Kurdistan held a referendum on independence. According to Hndren Muhammad, the head of the Kurdistan Independent High Elections and Referendum Commission, the pro-independence side won an overwhelming victory. There were 4,581,255 eligible voters, of which 3,305,925 cast ballots, a turnout of 72.16 percent. 2,861,471 people voted Yes, (92.73 percent) of the voters, against 224,468 No votes, (or 7.27 percent of the voters.)

Although it has gained significantly less attention than Spain’s Catalonia independence movement, the quest of the Kurdish people to form an independent nation, seceding from Iraq, is a far more compelling story. As noted by several analysts, in contrast to the Palestinians, who have received far broader international support, the Kurds have a language and culture distinct from their Arab neighbors.

There is little in recent history to suggest that the Kurds have any affinity, or any possibility of any reconciliation, with an Iraqi state. The Kurdistan Regional Government lists a few of the more salient incidents:
1971-1980: The Iraqi government expels more than 200,000 Faili (Shia) Kurds from Iraq.
1983: The Iraqi government disappears 8,000 boys and men from the Barzani clan. In 2005, 500 of them are found in mass graves near Iraq’s border with Saudi Arabia, hundreds of kilometres from the Kurdistan Region.
1987-1989: The Iraqi government carries out the genocidal Anfal campaign against Kurdistan’s civilians, of mass summary executions and disappearances, widespread use of chemical weapons, destruction of some 2,000 villages and of the rural economy and infrastructure. An estimated 180,000 are killed in the campaign.
1988: On 16 and 17 March 1988, Iraqi government airplanes drop chemical weapons on the town of Halabja. Between 4,000 and 5,000 people, almost all civilians, are killed.
Treatment Kamagra jelly is basically another form of the popular drug, buy sildenafil australia. This is a awful health-related circumstance influencing countless guys, causing worries viagra for sale raindogscine.com of being jeered after or perhaps running into distress plus a drained sex connection. Prenatal – Factors such as canadian viagra sales hypoxia and infection, or stress and should be removed from the life of the patient before prescribing the medicine. Evaluation Still Goes on Genetic free cialis no prescription and lifestyle conditions including hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, cardiovascular disease and diabetes might be investigated.
By 1992, Kurds were essentially autonomous. Laurie Mylroie, writing for the Atlantic, noted that in that year, “Iraq’s Kurds [were] effectively running their own affairs, administering a population of 3.5 million in a territory almost twice the size of Israel. They are doing so with considerable success, having managed the transition from authoritarian rule better than many others, including Afghans, Somalis, and the various peoples of the former Soviet Union…In Sulaimaniya, the largest and southernmost city under Kurdish control, I started to understand the remarkable social cohesion underlying the success of the Iraqi Kurds’ administration. Sulaimaniya’s police chief explained that there was, in fact, less crime now in northern Iraq than there had been under the Ba’ath. Thus policemen’s jobs had become easier. ‘Before, people didn’t trust the police and avoided them. Now they cooperate with us.’”

While Saddam is long gone, tensions between Kurds and the Iraqi government continue, and now that the common foe of ISIS has been largely defeated, those tensions have risen to the surface.

Alan Dershowitz also described the “Case for Kurdish Independence” in a Gatestone analysis: The independence referendum is an important step toward remedying a historic injustice inflicted on the Kurdish population in the aftermath of the First World War… the Iraqi Kurds have their own identity, practices, language and culture. They are a coherent nation with profound historical ties to their territory. They have their own national institutions that separate them from their neighbors, their own army (the Peshmerga) and their own oil and energy strategy. International law stipulated in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, lays the foundation for the recognition of state sovereignty. The edict states: ‘the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.’ The KRG meets these criteria…Moreover, the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq — the closest it has come to having its own state — has thrived and maintained relative peace and order against the backdrop of a weak, ineffectual Iraqi government and a brutal civil war. As such, it represents a semblance of stability in a region comprised of bloody violence, destruction and failed states.”

Predictably, Baghdad is not pleased with the results of the ballot, and the Iraqi government has made it clear that it will not recognize the legitimacy of it. Unlike the significant support by the international community for a Palestinian state, there is no widespread support for the arguably more appropriate Kurdish aspiration, Despite the potential viability and cohesiveness of an independent Kurdish state.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.