Kurdistan Still Long Way From Independence Say US Experts
A range of experts from the United States cannot see Iraqi Kurdistan being independent in the near future, unlike the current developments in southern Sudan, with one of them claiming that the perennial issue of oil is the reason the US will continue to fight for the unity of Iraq. Recently the issue of an independent Kurdish state arose yet again, after southern Sudan took the historic step of holding a referendum to decide upon its independence from northern Sudan, with an overwhelming amount of the southern Sudanese voting for the region's secession. Robert Olson is a professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic History at the University of Kentucky in the US and is an expert on Kurdish nationalism. He says he does not believe that, in the near future, there will be an independent Kurdish state nor a repeat in Iraqi Kurdistan of what has happened in southern Sudan. "The leaders of the KRG [Kurdistan Regional Government] have made it clear that they are not seeking independence," he told Rudaw by email. "This was most emphatically stated at the KDP [Kurdistan Democratic Party] congress from December 11th to 17th in Erbil. It is true that President Massoud Barzani said that Kurds have the right to self-determination. But that is a long way from saying that the KRG is about to declare independence." He noted that, at the present time, there were too many obstacles getting in the way of the formation of a Kurdish state. "And, I might add, the obstacles before South Sudan are enormous," he said. "It is far too early to tell whether the new South Sudan state will be successful, durable and able to establish viable unity." Earlier this month, Time magazine published a report, "Top 10 Aspiring Nations," which listed 10 regions that were fighting for independence. Kurdistan was in fifth place. Another US expert, Ivan Eland, director of The Independent Institute's Center On Peace And Liberty, says the repeat of southern Sudan's feat would be very unlikely in Iraq, because of the geopolitics involving Western powers and the Middle East. "The British originally combined the disparate regions of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra into Iraq to control oil," said Eland. "The US has defended the unity of Iraq for the same reason. Conversely, Sudan's Islamist government, controlled from northern Sudan, has been unfriendly to the United States. Dividing Sudan will help the US get control of the 80 percent of Sudan's oil that is in the South, because it will be easier to get it from the Christian South rather than the Islamist North. So in Western eyes, the oil interest works against breaking up Iraq and toward breaking up Sudan." The southern Sudan region had been autonomous since 2005, with the autonomous status being a condition of the peace agreement between the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement and the government of Sudan, represented by the National Congress Party, which ended the second Sudanese civil war. The conflict had been Africa's longest running civil war. Thomas Ambrosio, associate professor of political science at North Dakota State University in the US, says the best strategy for the Kurdish leadership is for them to work with the Iraqi government, rather than fighting for independence. "The best strategy would be to work with the central authorities in Baghdad in an effort to achieve the best deal that the Kurds can get: a high level of autonomy, regional stability, and the resolution of key issues (Kirkuk and oil revenue sharing) in its favor," said Ambrosio.