Connect with us

Middle East

After the Referendum: Secession or Confederation for Kurdistan

Published

on

The Iraqi parliament voted by majority to reject the Kurdish referendum on the independence that holds on September 25 and authorized the Prime Minister Haider Abadi to take measures that preserve the unity of the country. Off course, measures do not include military actions against and clash with the Peshmerga forces, simply because it will be against Iraqi constitution and bilateral conventions between the United States and Iraq.

The international community is also announced illegality and illegitimacy of the referendum and urged the Kurdish leaders to solve the problems and issues with the Iraqi government through dialogue. On the other hand, the foreign ministers of Iraq, Turkey and Iran agreed on the unconstitutionality of the referendum in Kurdistan, warning against taking countermeasures in coordination with each other, without specifying their nature, because it will cause conflicts in the region to be difficult to contain, and confirmed their strong commitment to preserving Iraq’s political unity and territorial integrity. Additionally, the United Nations Security Council announced its opposition to the referendum on independence by the Kurdistan region of Iraq, warned that such a unilateral move would destabilize and reiterated its adherence to Iraq’s sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity.

The Kurdish referendum throws up questions about the future of the Kurdistan region and its political ties with Baghdad. Thus, what will be the best future ties between Baghdad and Erbil? Is federation still workable? Or Confederation will be the best alternative?

Federalism, like the legal system, is based on clear constitutional rules that guarantee the coexistence of different nationalities, religions, sects, and groups within a single state run by constitutional institutions in the states of law. The Iraqi constitution recognizes the federal system to determine the form of the relationship between the Kurdistan region and Baghdad or between the regions that may be formed later, but the Kurdistan Regional Government accuses its federal counterpart of trying to monopolize power and not to give constitutional powers to the region and the Iraqi provinces, which led to disputes and conflicts between the two sides during the years following the adoption of the Constitution. The implementation of the federal option faces the challenge, the distribution, and sharing of resources and revenues as oil plays a very important role and will remain a central element in the division of sects and ethnics. The marginalization of the Sunnis by the Shiite-led government has contributed to raising insurgency and the takeover of many cities in Iraq, especially Mosul by the terrorists. Overlooking constitution in regarding Kurdish rights and demands has pushed the Kurdistan region to move unilaterally, and hold independence referendum to decide the fate of Kurds in Iraq.  

This referendum can restructure the relationship between the KRG and Baghdad, through adjusting a new form of political system “confederation” between the Kurdistan region and Iraq. If there have two/more confederation states, there will have three equal capitals that do not exceed one another, indicating that, this will put an end to years of conflict and violence. Confederations are often established by treaty between confederation members who enjoy equal status.

The Kurdistan Region may possibly consider put forward a confederation with Baghdad,‏ as it will be a smooth mechanism to separate the Kurds from, and this for many reasons, including:

Either as a transitional arrangement between the both sides. As a transitional measure, this would give Iraqis time to adjust to Iraqi Kurdistan’s eventual independence.

Because it deems independence to be impractical given the regional opposition.

Confederations would create breathing space as Iraqis gradually redefine their relations with one another, aggregating interests to achieve greater self-rule through the formation of states: one Kurdish, one Sunni, and one or more Shiite regions.

The Republic of Kurdistan is an autonomous and completed institutionally and capability, but it also suffers from the monopolistic despotism of the Barzani Party and the Talabani Party since 1991. Nevertheless, before this republic is recognized by Iraq and as part of it should solve all the issues that related to the resources and borders, particularly the disputed areas.

Disputed areas, especially Kirkuk, is completely different from the reality of the other three Kurdish provinces because Kirkuk is home to multiple communities in Iraq, several of whom were systematically expelled from the region under the Ba’ath regime, and cannot resolve the issue of subordination to Iraq or the region through proportional voting, because this solution undermine the rights of half the population of Kirkuk – or a little less – non-Kurds, and vital to be Kirkuk a special situation to be agreed upon between Iraq and the region. It has written about several alternatives, including Kirkuk as an independent province or the division of the province between its components in a municipality between a Kurdish municipality and a non-Kurdish municipality, or the option of joint sovereignty by Baghdad and Erbil. Though, after protecting the areas and taking part in September 25th referendum (which 92.73% of voters cast ‘yes’ ballots) on support for independence from Iraq, it is difficult to Kurdistan region move back to share sovereignty by the Iraqi government.

However, amending the Iraqi Constitution to ensure the establishment of a Confederal system as the best solution for Iraq, pointing out that it will end the problems between the sects and groups in Iraq, mainly in the disputed areas.

In post-2003 Iraqi political situation has not changed anything and remained problems and differences are stuck between Baghdad and Erbil. Thus, the confederation will solidify the principles of democracy and prevents the occurrence of conflicts and draw the boundaries between regions (North, Middle, and South) while maintaining the national identity and historical privacy of the segments and components in the community all, noting that it can encircle the problems that arise between governments. So that the application of the confederation in Iraq, “very important”, because it is a permanent union of sovereign states and joint action among governments within one union through international treaties, the adoption of a common constitution, dealing with the common currency, stabilizing borders and resolving disputes in accordance with the will of peoples, away from the hierarchy of power and dominance.

The confederation also does not give the possibility for divisions, indicating that it encourages the construction, development, and reform of the states (regions) and generate citizens of various components sense of belonging and stability.

Confederation is, however, difficult to achieve. Constitutional changes require a referendum and approval by the majority of voters. Any three governorates can defeat a referendum on a constitutional amendment with a two-thirds vote.

 To sum, the post-September 25th Kurdistan situation will never be the same as past. Obviously, the federation is not successful in Iraq; the Kurdish referendum brings a new debate about the future ties between Kurdistan region and Baghdad. Kurdish leaders have had absolute overwhelming yes support for independence for Iraq, but they will be agreed on remaining in a confederation union with the Iraqi government.  Predictably, this will be the start point of future dialog between the both sides.   

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Israeli contrasts: Likud’s favoured soccer teams veers left as Bibi turns further right

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

The contrast could not be starker. As Israel plays a dangerous game of US politics by restricting or banning visits by controversial Democratic members of Congress to seemingly please President Donald J. Trump’s prejudiced electoral instincts, the owner of a notorious Jerusalem soccer club draws a line in the sand in confronting his racist fan base.

The contrast takes on added significance as prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu woes Israel’s far-right in advance of elections on September 17 given that storied club Beitar Jerusalem has long been seen as a stronghold for his Likud party.

Mr. Netanyahu’s barring of Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar was as much a response to Mr. Trump’s tweeted suggestion that they should not be allowed to visit Israel as it was catering to his right-wing base that includes Beitar’s fans.

Beitar is the only Israeli squad to have never hired a Palestinian player. Its fans, famous for their racist slogans and bullying tactics, have made life impossible for the few Muslim players that the club contracted in its history.

Messrs. Netanyahu and Moshe Hogeg, the Beitar owner and tech entrepreneur who founded social mobile photo and video sharing website Mobli and crypto transactions platform Sirin Labs, are both treading on slippery ground.

Mr. Netanyahu, who initially raised out of respect for the US Congress no objection to the planned visit by Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Omar, has ensured that Israel for the first time in decades can no longer be sure of bi-partisan support in the Congress and beyond and is likely to become a partisan issue in the run-up to next year’s US presidential election.

His pandering to Mr. Trump sparked rare criticism from the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), Israel’s most powerful and influential lobby in the United States even though AIPAC agrees that Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Ilham support the Boycott, Diversification and Sanctions (BDS) movement that targets Israel.

“We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib’s support for the anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib’s calls for a one-state solution. We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel first hand,” AIPAC tweeted.

A breakdown of bi-partisan support for Israel may not be what Mr. Netanyahu wants, but it may be, in a twist of irony, what Israel needs. It would spark a debate in the United States with a potential fallout in Israel about whether Mr. Netanyahu’s annexationist policy and hard-line approach towards Palestinian aspirations serves Israel’s longer-term best interests.

Israel’s toughening stand was evident on Tuesday when police broke up an annual soccer tournament among Palestinian families in East Jerusalem on assertions that it was sponsored by the Palestinian Authority, which is barred from organizing events in the city. The tournament’s organizer denied any association with the Authority.

In a dismissive statement, Israeli public security minister Gilad Erdan’s office scoffed: “We’re talking about scofflaws who lie and blame the agency that enforces the law when they know full well that the Palestinian Authority is involved in the event that Minister Erdan ordered halted.”

The incident was emblematic of an environment that prompted columnist and scholar Peter Beinart, writing in The Forward, a more than 100-year old, left-wing Jewish weekly, to argue that “the United States has a national interest in ensuring that Israel does not make permanent its brutal occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip.

By taking on La Familia, a militant Beitar Jerusalem fan group that has driven the club’s discriminatory policy, Mr. Hogeg is going not only against Mr. Netanyahu’s policies that emphasize Israeli Jewish nationalism at the expense of the rights of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship as well as those subject to occupation.

He is also challenging a global trend spearheaded by civilizational leaders like Indian prime minister Narendra Modi who, two weeks after depriving Kashmiri Muslims of their autonomy, is planning to build detention camps for millions of predominantly Muslim Indians suspected of being foreign migrants, Victor Orban who envisions a Muslim-free Hungary, and Xi Jinping who has launched in China’s troubled, north-western province of Xinjiang the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history

The degree of polarization and alienation that civilizational policies like those of Messrs Netanyahu, Modi, Xi and Orban is highlighted by the fact that Mr. Hogeg’s battle with his fans is over a name.

Ali Mohammed is Beitar Jerusalem’s latest acquisition. The only Muslim thing about him is his name. Mr. Mohammed is a Nigerian Christian.

That wasn’t good enough for the fans who demand that he change his name. During Mr. Mohammed’s first training session fans chanted “Mohamed is dead” and “Ali is dead.”

Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Hogeg seems unwilling to back down. He has threatened to sue the fans for tarnishing Beitar’s already battered reputation and demand up to US$500,000 in damages. Lawyers for Mr. Hogeg have written to fans demanding an apology.

“They are very good fans; they are very loyal. They love the club and what it represents … but they’re racist and that’s a big problem,” Mr. Hogeg said.

Convinced that the militants are a minority that imposes its will on the majority of Beitar fans, Mr. Hogeg takes the high road at a time that the likes of him threaten to become an endangered species.

“I was surprised to find that Mohamed is not Muslim, but I don’t care. Why should it matter? He’s a very good player. As long as the player that comes respects the city, respects what he represents, respects Israel, can help the team and wants to play then the door will be open. If those radical fans will fight against it, they will lose. They will simply lose,” Mr. Hogeg said.

Continue Reading

Middle East

“Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen.”

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

On August 17th, an anonymous German intelligence analyst who has perhaps the world’s best track-record of publicly identifying and announcing historical turning-points, and who is therefore also a great investigative journalist regarding international relations (especially military matters, which are his specialty) headlined at his “Moon of Alabama” blog, “Long Range Attack On Saudi Oil Field Ends War On Yemen”, and he opened:

Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen. It has no defenses against new weapons the Houthis in Yemen acquired. These weapons threaten the Saudis economic lifelines. This today was the decisive attack:

Drones launched by Yemen’s Houthi rebels attacked a massive oil and gas field deep inside Saudi Arabia’s sprawling desert on Saturday, causing what the kingdom described as a “limited fire” in the second such recent attack on its crucial energy industry.  …

The Saudi acknowledgement of the attack came hours after Yahia Sarie, a military spokesman for the Houthis, issued a video statement claiming the rebels launched 10 bomb-laden drones targeting the field in their “biggest-ever” operation. He threatened more attacks would be coming. 

New drones and missiles displayed in July 2019 by Yemen’s Houthi-allied armed forces

Today’s attack is a check-mate move against the Saudis. Shaybah is some 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) from Houthi-controlled territory. There are many more important economic targets within that range.  …

The attack conclusively demonstrates that the most important assets of the Saudis are now under threat. This economic threat comes on top of a seven percent budget deficit the IMF predicts for Saudi Arabia. Further Saudi bombing against the Houthi will now have very significant additional cost that might even endanger the viability of the Saudi state. The Houthi have clown prince Mohammad bin Salman by the balls and can squeeze those at will.

He went on to say that the drones aren’t from Iran but are copies from Iran’s, “assembled in Yemen with the help of Hizbullah experts from Lebanon.”

He has been predicting for a long time that this war couldn’t be won by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud (MbS). In the present report, he says:

The war on Yemen that MbS started in March 2015 long proved to be unwinnable. Now it is definitely lost. Neither the U.S. nor the Europeans will come to the Saudis help. There are no technological means to reasonably protect against such attacks. Poor Yemen defeated rich Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi side will have to agree to political peace negotiations. The Yemeni demand for reparation payments will be eye watering. But the Saudis will have no alternative but to cough up whatever the Houthi demand.

The UAE was smart to pull out of Yemen during the last months.

If he is correct (and I have never yet found a prediction from him turn out to have been wrong), then this will be an enormous blow to the foreign markets for U.S.-made weapons, since the Sauds are the world’s largest foreign purchasers of those, and have spent profusely on them — and also on U.S. personnel to train their soldiers how to use them. So (and this is my prediction, not his), August 19th might be a good time to sell short U.S. armament-makers such as Lockheed Martin.

However: his prediction that “the Saudis will have no alternative but to cough up whatever the Houthi demand” seems to me to be the first one from him that could turn out to have been wrong. If the Sauds have perpetrated, say, $200 billion of physical damage to Yemen, but refuse to pay more than $100 billion in reparations, and the Housis then hit and take out a major Saudi oil well, isn’t it possible that the Sauds would stand firm? But if they do, then mightn’t it be wrong to say, at the present time, that: “Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen.”? He has gone out on limbs before, and I can’t yet think of any that broke under him. Maybe this one will be the first? I wouldn’t bet on that. But this one seems to me to be a particularly long limb. We’ll see!

Continue Reading

Middle East

The message behind the release of Iranian oil tanker

Mohammad Ghaderi

Published

on

The Gibraltar court ordered the Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 to be released. The tanker was seized by the British Royal Marines about a month ago. 

This verdict was the ending of an elaborate game designed by John Bolton National Security Advisor of the United States and Mike Pompeo, carried out by the Britain government. 

With seizing the tanker, Bolton was trying to put psychological and political pressures on Iran and force other countries to form a consensus against Iran, but he couldn’t fulfill any of these goals. 

Iran’s firm, logical and wise answer to the seizure of Grace 1 (like making solid legal arguments) and the seriousness of our country’s armed forces in giving a proper response to Britain’s contemptuous act, made the White House lose the lead on reaching its ends. 

Washington imagined that the seizure of Grace 1 will become Trump’s winning card against Iran, but the release of the tanker (despite disagreement of the U.S.) became another failure for the White House in dealing with Iran.  

Obviously, London was also a total loser in this game. It is worth noting that U.S. was so persistent about keeping the oil tanker in custody that John Bolton traveled to London and insisted on British officials to continue the seizure of the ship. Their failure, however, clearly shows that the White House and its traditional ally, Britain, have lost a big part of their power in their relations with Iran. 

Clearly, the illegal seizure of the Iranian oil tanker by Britain proceeded by the seizure of a British tanker by Iran and the following interactions between the two countries is not the whole story and there is more to it that will be revealed in coming days. 

What we know for sure is that London has to pay for its recent anti-Iran plot in order to satisfy Washington; the smallest of these consequences was that Britain lost some of its legal credibility in international arena as it illegally captured an Iranian oil tanker. 

The order of the Gibraltarian court revealed that London had no legal right to seize the Iranian oil tanker and nobody can defend this unlawful action. Surely, Iran will take all necessary legal actions to further pursue the matter.  

In this situation, the Islamic Republic of Iran is firm on its position that it doesn’t have to follow the sanctions imposed by the European Union on other countries (including Syria). 

No entity can undermine this argument as it is based on legal terms; therefore, Iran will keep supporting Syrian nation and government to fight terrorism. This is the strategic policy of the Islamic Republic and will not be changed under the pressure or influence of any other third country. 

Finally, it should be noted that the release of Grace 1 oil tanker was not only a legal and political failure for Washington and London and their allies but it was also a strategic failure. Undoubtedly, the vast consequences of this failure will be revealed in near future. 

From our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Latest

Environment31 mins ago

Microplastic pollution is everywhere, but not necessarily a risk to human health

Tiny plastic particles known as microplastics are “everywhere – including in our drinking-water”, but they are not necessarily a risk...

Americas3 hours ago

The Russiagate hoax is now fully exposed

The last leg of the Russiagate hoax to become exposed was on August 16th, when Gareth Porter bannered at The...

Energy News5 hours ago

Brazilian stakeholders of UNIDO-GEF project trained on biogas

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications (MCTIC), and the International Center...

Intelligence7 hours ago

Transnational Crimes in the Maritime Realm

Maritime trafficking routes closely follow the commercial shipping lanes. The modalities, technologies and strategies put into place by criminals are...

Newsdesk9 hours ago

The workplace equality challenge

This year’s G7 French presidency has chosen the theme for the Biarritz Summit well. ‘Combating inequality’ is indeed one of...

South Asia12 hours ago

Modi-fying Kashmir and Historical Facts

The Modi government on 5th august 2019 revoked two key constitutional provisions — Article 370 and Article 35A — which...

Intelligence14 hours ago

Fighting Corporate Espionage by a Counterintelligence Agent

Corporate executives must bear the responsibility of today’s evolving corporate world entering into a global community where not only are...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy