The independence referendum of Northern Iraq

The timetable for the independence referendum that the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is preparing to hold on 25 September is proceeding, despite the great opposition it has provoked both in the regions where it will be held and in the Iraqi government and the countries of the region. In a region that has seen intense demographic movement because of the war of the last 15 years, it is impossible for any referendum to yield a sound and equitable result. The Turkmens, who fall within the scope of the referendum and who, even if all of them were to vote no, would end up inside this independent country according to the outcome, state that because of the demographic movement taking place in Kirkuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah too, the ethnic balance has been disrupted in just such a way that the outcome desired from this very referendum can be obtained. In this situation, hearts are not willing to accept that a de facto situation created by a referendum should redraw borders and imprison people within a new border.

As a matter of fact, ever since 2003, when the US entered Iraq, Iraq's human geography has in effect been divided. In this operation the US undertook in the name of liberating the country from Saddam, we have arrived at a point where a de facto situation has emerged in which it has become impossible for peoples to live together. The Baghdad government is not fulfilling its responsibilities toward the KRG, and this also the regional administration's Today, indeed, there is no workable formula or reasonable program at hand as to by what formula and on what basis of agreement the Kurdish regional government in Iraq could live together with the Baghdad government. It is possible to justify the referendum by citing today's situation, but the one who brought about this situation is America itself.

The real truth is that the US intervention itself has had the effect of destroying this ground for coexistence. Not only in Iraq; wherever its hand touches it has the same effect. Its presence in the region leads not to peace but to chaos, to a further surge of terror and to more instability.

Today in Syria, too, it is putting the same plan into effect rapidly, despite the persistent opposition and objections of all the other actors in the region. In plain view of everyone, it is fattening up an organization intertwined with terror and trying to set it upon this geography. It is rapidly preparing this force it has fattened up to establish its own regional administration through a de facto situation. The political tension, ethnic cleansing, massacres and regional instability this will cause will be beyond measure. The US also refuses to pay the human and social cost of this instability. It dumps the bill for this, too, on the countries and peoples of the region. Those who descend into the well by its rope are left at the bottom of the well without a rope or a ladder.

The KRG, and in fact all the countries of the region, need to know this. While Western countries constantly seek strength in greater union and integration, and make all their political investments in greater union, they try to present the further fragmentation of our world to us as a remedy, as a matter of stability. Of course there is no argument or thesis that would convince one of this. Rather, these theses are made to be accepted by creating de facto situations. In the end everyone is persuaded that societies that have truly been rendered unable to live together have no option but to separate.

Yet there is no reason why peoples who lived together in peace and stability for hundreds of years should not go on living in peace and tranquility from now on as well.

Foreign intervention forces this, granted. But do Iran and the Iraqi government not also have a share in bringing things to this point? Did Iran, which tried to keep Assad on his feet despite his crimes against all of humanity "as an axis of defense against Zionism," not open the doors to all foreign interventions wide for this cause? The problem was simply one that the Syrian people would decide for themselves. Yet Assad, whom they tried to keep on his feet, called for help in order to stay on his feet not only from Iran but also from the PYD and the PKK, from DEAŞ, and from Russia. Until now all of them, together with the magnificent dance of the US, have kept Assad on his feet, but what about from here on? From now on, which Syria will form what kind of defense line for Iran? What kind of Syria will it be left with?

Iran did the same in Iraq. Unfortunately, it could not put forward a conception of the political body embracing ethnic and sectarian diversity in a way that would secure Iraq's integrity, using its influence over the Baghdad government. Instead, through the sectarian policies it implemented, it brought Iraq to the brink of disintegration. It coveted the small sectarian gains that some people dangled before it in order to tear Iraq apart, and the present picture emerged. Elements that have not been won over do not want to remain together in a whole. This by no means justifies the KRG's wish for separation, but it must also be seen that it was these policies, applied by Iran in coordination with the Baghdad government, that provided it with the ground or pretext for this separation.

Today we should think that it is a gain to turn back from wherever in the loss one can. We must try to dissuade the KRG and the Sunni elements in Iraq from the idea of separation by offering them a solid alternative based on equal citizenship, in which they can live together, justly and in peace. Everyone needs to know that separation is a disaster for everyone.

One can begin by handing over Mosul and the other areas liberated from DEAŞ to their own inhabitants and by giving the feeling that a real liberation has been achieved there by the Baghdad government without any sectarian discrimination.

First of all, we must prevent the idea of separation from being felt as a deliverance. In separation there is no mercy, only disaster.