Kurdistan is independent, so why to hold the referendum?

Written by Nasser Kandil,

It is enough to observe the life of the Iraqi Kurdistan region to discover that the independence in which the Kurdistan region lives is the ceiling of what is meant by the word independence as a subject of the referendum, and the rest of the vocabularies of the independence which mean the disengagement with the central government in Iraq are like what is related to the separation of Britain from the European Union, but this cannot be resolved without consent. Surely Britain has not appealed to its people about the independence but about the disengagement with the European Union, and the getting out of the federal formula. The leaders of Kurdistan has to be honest and clear regarding what it meant by the referendum, it has to put in front of its people the balance of gains and losses, not to hold the referendum but only after getting the consensus, in order to be authorized later with the negotiation about disengagement. Knowing that the consensus must include surely an acceptable solution for the disputed areas not to resort to bullying as what is happening now.

Kurdistan is independent, it is a clear fact. It has its parliament, government, army, diplomacy, and security. It controls over the oil resources in the areas of its dominance without giving the central government any of them, it confiscates the customs revenues on the borders of Iraq which are under its control. The Iraqi army does not enter its areas, and if there is a need to fight ISIS it has to have a permission that is limited in time and place. So about which independence they are holding the referendum? The relationship of Kurdistan with Iraq is as the relationship of any European country with the European Union. So are France and Spain asking for the independence? The comparison with the examples of Catalonia with Spain, and Scotland with Britain is a falsification of history, geography, law, and politics.

Even the federal formula is a full lie, Kurdistan gains the advantages of the federal formula and the independence together, it grants the Iraqi government the opportunity to claim of a united Iraq in exchange of giving up realistically the rights of the federal country, as abandoning the deployment of the army on the borders, and the abandonment of taking the oil revenues or a percentage of them, as well as giving up all the powers of the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi government in favor of the regional government and the regional parliament of legislation and the paratactic of the government in all its dimensions and revenues. Baghdad is the partner of losses, while Erbil is the partner of gains.

The question about the reason of the referendum is necessary, the answer is the trick which Masoud Al-Barazani wants to apply through a fait accompli that resolves the fate of the disputed areas especially Kirkuk, in order to include it to the referendum since it is the source of wealth, this is a good opportunity during the peak of the Iraqi preoccupation with the war on ISIS, making use of the dominance of Peshmerga on it, and ignoring the two hundred billion dollars which are the  surplus revenues of the sale of oil for more than ten years  which were griped by Al-Barazani, they have not been entered neither in the budget of Iraq nor in the budget of the Kurdistan region. Al –Barazani during this critical time has granted the Americans and the Israelis a political platform to blackmail the forces of the region, and to draw new maps. Therefore by the strength of this blackmail the security of Israel will be at the top of the agenda after the pressing paper of ISIS has lost its effectiveness. So the deal will be tripartite; the money will be for Al-Barazani, the negotiating blackmail will be for the American and the preoccupation will be for the Israeli, while the attrition will be on the axis of resistance, and the disaster will be on the people of Kurdistan.

The forces of the resistance have not got alerted, although they insist of talking rationally with the Kurds of the region as a part of its components due to the keenness on not granting the Americans or the Israelis the opportunities of tampering with the structure of the people of the region, but the alert was always through playing with this paper.  This explains that the dealing with the Turks alternated between intension and flexibility. Turkey is facing an existential threat through the establishment of a Kurdish state, and it will be the title of the confrontation with the Kurdish secession, it will resort to the NATO to seek for a position regarding a threat that affects one of the members of the NATO, moreover, it will take the procedures which will lead to an economic siege that will end the rise of Erbil and its prosperity. The oil will be stopped, there will be scarce of money, the airspaces will be closed against the aircraft as the borders, and the trade will be stopped, and if there is a confrontation it will be Turkish-Kurdish one. The American will discover that while he had wanted to solve the dilemma, he made a bigger one between two allies. Where the active forces of the resistance will not be distracted away from the Israeli challenge, but what will be discovered by the leaders of Kurdistan after their failed gamble that the return to the federal formula may not be available after the failure, and if it remains available then its application will be strict, taking into consideration the oil money which was looted.

In Syria there will not be any negligence with any attempt of secession. This will be proven by the next few days by fire, and the Americans will read that in facts and will stand stunned unable to do anything.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,