Kurdistan's Geopolitical Implications

Over 90% of Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan voted "yes" in the independence referendum.

Now what?

Well, there are actually several things going on with the Kurds.

First, the Iraqi Kurds decided to form an independent state.

Syrian Kurds are building an autonomy, and Damascus appears open to that possibility.

Iranian Kurds are increasingly antagonizing the state.

Turkish Kurds are increasingly under pressure by Erdogan, with heads of pro-Kurdish party HDP in prison, many Kurdish politicians under detention or threat of arrests,  and frequent raids and attacks against young Kurds suspected of being connected to the PKK or simply accused of it without any evidence whatsoever.

The consequences of the independence referendum have been manifold. The United States notoriously and repeatedly had asked the Kurds to postpone it in order to avoid tensions; Israel openly supported the vote; Canada and France stated that they would be ok with the results either way; and Russia was a big financial backer.

Most of the Western world, however, spoke out against the independence referendum. As Seth Frantzman points out.,  perhaps supporting Middle Eastern monarchies, once created by colonialists, but refusing self-determination to an indigenous nation with its own culture and democratic structure, is a way for perpetuating colonialist legacy for many European states. Meanwhile, the neighbors of the aspiring states took the vote even worse. Iraq refused to recognize the vote, and is threatening to expropriate Kurdish oil fields by force and to shut down flights to and from Erbil. Turkey is threatening to sanction the region into starvation. Iran is looking to military intervention as an option. And Iraq sent a military delegation to Iran to coordinate a potential military response.

Much like in 1948, when another indigenous nation became independent and formed a state, only to be immediately attacked by its neighbors, all hell appears to be about to break loose.

Iran, Iraq, and Turkey see Kurds as a threat, and for a good reason. Not only does Kurdistan have a potential to become a bulwark against the regional aggression of both Iran and Turkey, but it may inspire the Kurdish populations of both countries to rebellion, and may set a bad example for other minorities in Iran. Moreover, a democratic and relatively liberal Kurdistan in an unstable, illiberal, and deeply undemocratic Middle East is a dangerous entity, similar to Israel. The usual suspects, in fact, have been accusing Kurds of conspiring with Israel.  And both Iran and Turkey threatened not only Kurds, but Israelis over the support for the referendum and the idea of a Kurdish state.

As for Arab States, they have long had issues with Kurds, emanating from competition over oil, territory, tribal differences (particularly in Syria), cultural issues, and even religious tensions. Shi'a Iraqis took issue with Sunni Kurds, and Kurdish practice of Sunni Islam appears to be more liberal in comparison to their Sunni Arab neighbors. Complicating the situation is the fact that many of the Syrian and Turkish Kurds are secular/socialist, some Iraqi Kurds have reconverted to Zoroastrianism, some are Christian, and then there are Yazidis, who are of Kurdish descent but consider themselves the carriers of the true Kurdish religion and see Islam among Kurds as a remnant of Arab Muslim colonialism in the region. Most Kurds of Jewish descent have moved to Israel, but some have been living secretly in the Kurdish area, and Jewish Kurds in Israel are overall open and supportive.

Strategically, up until recently, Kurds in Syria presented a problem for Arab States, both because they were in conflict with many of the Sunni tribes, and because they were seen as a bulwark against the spread of Wahhabism through various insurgent and terrorist groups, which were backed by Saudi Arabia and embraced by Turkey. Kurdish ambitions for autonomy in Syria became a serious thorn in Turkey's side, since Turkey perceived a potential for contiguous Kurdish territory as a potential to destabilize Eastern Kurdistan in Turkey, which could lead to a separate independence movement and requisition of Turkish territory. For that reason, Turkey was willing to embrace and support ISIS, so long as ISIS focused its efforts on destroying the Kurds and prevented them from consolidating territory. Of course, eventually, ISIS got out of hand and became uncontrollable even inside Turkey. But even still, Turkey was willing to sacrifice its own forces to invade Syria, anger Western allies, and weaken itself internally, just to attack Kurds rather focus all of its efforts on ISIS. We see this attitude continue to this day.

Arab Gulf States, however, may sooner or later be forced to shift their positions, as long as Sunni Syrians and Kurds come to some sort of agreement. Iran's rapid expansionism and the increasing and seemingly inevitable possibility of land corridor from Syria to Lebanon presents a much greater and immediate problem that Kurdish limited ambitions for autonomous federalism in Syria. Kurds do not threaten the existence of the monarchies, whereas Iran backed Shi'a minorities inside the predominantly Sunni Gulf States do. Kurds are not looking to destabilize other states, whereas Iran has exactly that goal in mind. Kurds are still stateless and therefore by definition weaker than Iran, now pumped with unfrozen money delivered in cash by the Obama administration, and through all the investment deals by large Western countries. Kurds have significant internal differences,  and through disunity failed to achieve the same level of cohesion and prosperity as they could have otherwise (and still may as a state), and certainly somewhat more fragile than the Islamic Republic even at its most divided. So Kurds are not an immediate threat, and furthermore, increasingly, just like Israel, Kurds are a potential ally, though admitting that may take the Gulf monarchies even longer than finally putting their decades-old enmity with the State of Israel on ice.  Kurds are opposed to Iran and likewise proved to be a cogent and effective force against ISIS. Moreover, while the Arab states, with shocking levels of social inequality, are increasingly falling behind economically, Kurds are investing not just in oil but in education, and are likely to lead in the regional development with help from Israel, and eventually, other Western investors.  They are a viable regional trading partner... or competitor, depending on how these monarchies choose to play it. So far, they have been quiet comparatively to Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.

However, right now they have an opportunity to make an important choice about their own future. Do they embrace progress, putting aside age-old tribal feuds, and invest into building up a relationship with a strong ally, who can help, at least temporarily, to fight back the increasingly aggressive and ever-nearing mutual enemy? Will they embrace modernity and progress, recognize Kurdistan's potential, and work together on joint ventures, on growing past oil, on modernizing and taking the region in a different direction? Or will they fall prey to internal divisions, corruption, clerical intransigence,  and petty rivalries, and fall behind the vanguard that is Kurdistan, perhaps forever? That remains to be seen, however, the positive influence of more liberal Arab states such as Morocco and Tunisia, and the seeming commitment to modernization that such younger regional leaders as KSA's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are promising in word as well as some action, are some of the signs that point to the fact that these Gulf States are at least considering a wiser, and more thoughtful approach to geopolitical strategy than the pessimists would have us believe. I hope they choose to embrace promise and vision instead of the past delusions and ghosts of outdated colonialism. These partnerships and their potential are worth the trouble.

As for Kurds? They are committed to fighting for their future, and just as Israel once with a little help from a few good friends, managed to break through all the obstacles and to come out stronger, smarter, and better in every way,  so will this nation that has been waiting its turn for far too long. And everyone else, sooner or later, will have no choice but to get used to it. The only question is, will they reap the rewards of early loyalty and friendship, or will they close the ranks of the belated  sour grapes consumers, grumbling over remaining scraps.

The State Department Violates Law, Breaks Promises to Yazidis, Christians; allows Iran to spread influence in Iraq

Take a moment to read this article outlining that the State Department has has no issue delivering significant financial aid to Rohingya Muslims fleeing Myanmar, but has been withholding promised aid to Yazidis, Christians, and other vulnerable minorities facing genocide in Iraq, or worse, delivering that aid through UN which is notoriously "religion-blind" and hasn't taken the targeted minority status into consideration.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/critics-state-department-delaying-aid-congress-provided-yazidis-christians-iraq/

***

The aid package came the day after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke with Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of Burma, and urged the Burmese government and military to "address deeply troubling allegations of human rights abuses and violations."

Tillerson's quick efforts to help the Rohingya demonstrated the State Department's ability to quickly direct humanitarian aid to a threatened minority group. However, critics say the swift action stands in sharp contrast to State's foot-dragging when it comes to directing funds to Yazidis, Christians, and other religious minorities facing genocide in Iraq.

***

President Trump promised to aid the victims of ISIS genocide, and Congress has placed a statutory obligation on the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to do so before the current fiscal year runs out in a few days, Rasche said.

***

The Yazidi population also has plummeted, although estimates of how far the population has fallen vary wildly, ranging from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands since ISIS launched its attack in the Sinjar region of Iraq in 2014.

Despite the congressional commitment, lawmakers and human rights activists say most of the U.S. taxpayer money going to help people in Iraq is channeled through the United Nations, which has a "religion-blind" policy of distributing most of the money to refugee camps that Yazidis and Christians avoid out of fear of further violence and persecution.

***

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill and human rights activists are tracking the list of U.N. development projects in Iraq closely and said there are only very minor projects in Christian towns and communities. Shea said she is aware of one that would repair a canopy on a municipal building but that she believes there are no major infrastructure or road projects that would help Christian communities return and provide interim jobs for those returning.

The Iranians, in contrast, just opened a new elementary school, mosque, and library in the Ninevah region, Shea said.

From this we learn several things:

1. The State Department is in danger of violating the law.

2. Humanitarian aid to Iraq, to which we have specific commitments, is going through the notoriously ineffectual United Nations, despite this administration's commitment to national sovereignty and avoiding "globalism".

3. Administration/State Department officials responsible for aid distribution, who commented for this article, refused to go on record with their names.

4. The administration is fully aware that Iran is using the Fertile Crescent as a land bridge for creating a Shi'A crescent, and is threatening ideological influence, as well as physical conflicts, by building humanitarian institutions with Islamist strings attached in the vicinity of the most vulnerable populations.

5. Rohingya is already receiving humanitarian aid from a number of Arab/Muslim states. Yazidis have nowhere to flee and are dependent on the scarce financial aid that's coming mostly from the West. Christians are not likely to receive humanitarian aid from anyone but Western countries.

How do we explain these seemingly mind-boggling issues that appear to contradict Secretary Tillerson's preexisting commitments, as well as challenge the expectations of Congress?

Tillerson himself has been widely criticized for alienation from his own agency, as well as being too slow with implementing policies, and yet, the State Department moved quickly to aid Rohingya. A variety of factors is likely at fault. Dependency on the UN is but one of them. However, lack of structure answerable to the administration - in other words, political appointees, loyal to the Trump administration's visions of foreign policy - may explain the stark contrast in priorities that appears to reflect the Obama' administration's priorities in immigration. Once again, the most vulnerable minorities are getting shafted in favor of a politically popular group that is making the headlines. That is a rather crude way of describing the way the State Department prioritizes humanitarian disasters, and yet the patterns speak for themselves.  The lack of names and faces on record in this article supports this hypothesis. Bureaucrats of course wish to avoid accountability, but career State Department officials have a particular reason to stay below the radar and avoid being identified as having come in under Obama or having particular ideological proclivities that play a role in the distribution of humanitarian aid.

What is particular disturbing is the fact that the same bureaucrats are willfully empowering UN bureaucrats with the taxpayers' money, shifting responsibility to a body that is highly ineffective and slow-moving at best, but more likely both incompetent and comprised of downright evil actors.

And what's completely unacceptable here is that US national security priorities are being deliberately ignored in favor of appeasement of particular interests and agendas, perhaps among Islamist lobbyists who have specifically brought up the Rohingya crisis through a wide variety of media, and concerns about Islamophobia through their front organizations, such as CAIR in recent meetings with the State Department. Yazidi organizations, such as Yazda, and Middle Eastern Christian organizations in the US, lack both the numbers and the power, to attract the same amount of attention from that agency. Humanitarian aid is being cynically used to assert and wield power by lobby groups, no matter what the Congress has decided our priorities should be. Worse still, is that the State Department is well aware that both the administration and Congress are on the same page with regards to countering the spread of malicious Iranian influence in all forms, including deceptive ideological education that it is seeking to import to vulnerable minority communities in Iraq. While the United States is once again appearing to betray its own promises, Iran shows up as a sort of white knight in shining armor, building schools, community centers, and luring the unsuspecting, the weak, and the needy under its fold.  Such measures go against our agreement with our allies, and certainly the spread of ayatollah-dominated influence endangers the process of rebuilding Iraq, and the communities that suffered from ISIS-inflicted genocide and war related trauma.

Now that the Iraqi Kurds have voted in favor of an independent state in a recent referendum, our obligation to the vulnerable communities in that region takes yet another dimension. That dimension includes ensuring that with the chaotic and challenging process that takes places in creating a new state, the rights of these minorities are protected, and they have the tools they need to address their special unique interests, as well as the institutions to protect their culture in the middle of the transition, when more powerful actors such as Iran will try to take advantage of the uncertainty to perhaps pressure the Kurds, and wield undue influence through its historically potent divide and conquer strategies. Instead of focusing on building a strong relationship with a potential new friendly state and keeping our promises to its various constituents, we are giving opportunity to countries like Russia, currently the KRG's biggest backer , and to Iran, that is likewise not above investing financially where it cannot yet fully take over militarily, to fill in the vacuum of our disappearing leadership.

The takeaways here are simple and straightforward: reassert our concerns for our own interests and national sovereignty by restructuring our humanitarian aid towards direct and immediate provisions, hold the State Department officials accountable for implementation of our promises and for keeping with the law on the issue, unmask those actors within this agency that are acting counter to the direct orders given and are thus preventing the administration from successfully executing its own foreign policy, and ensure that by placing our national interests, rather than interests of dubious Islamist lobbies first, we remain perceived as leaders, desirable allies, and reliable friends, with whom every group wants to work closely and do business.

Keeping our word is fundamentally doing the right thing and a welcome change from the last administration's feckless governing both at home and abroad. Let's make it happen, starting with doing what's right for the people who need our help the most.