Question: Why does Barzani insist on holding the referendum for the secession of the Kurdistan region, despite international and regional disapproval? Is the referendum under current circumstances against the interests of the Kurds themselves? Is it expected that the referendum will take place? If it occurs and receives majority approval, is it possible for a Kurdish state to emerge in the region? May Allah reward you with goodness.
Answer: There is a saying that if a ruler makes a decision against the interests of his country, it means the ruler is an agent, and that this decision was dictated to him by another state for its own interest... This saying applies to a large extent to the Kurds in the Kurdistan region, as explained below:
1- Any conscious politician realizes the extreme difficulty of the Kurds having a state; in fact, seeking to establish a state for the Kurds under current international circumstances harms the Kurdistan region—not just politically and morally, but also materially. The issue is not the establishment of a Kurdish state in Iraq; if that were the case, it might have been feasible. The system established by the Americans after the occupation of Iraq, known as the Bremer Constitution, turned Iraq into a federation of regions with a fragile link to the center, to the point that the Kurdistan Regional Government’s authority in terms of governance and conduct in the region became stronger than the central government in Baghdad! The colonialist kaffir states hold in their minds the seeds of dividing and dismantling any occupied Muslim country; they are merely waiting for the right opportunity due to their hatred for Islam and Muslims. We mentioned in a previous Q&A dated 12/08/2014: ("Since its occupation of Iraq in 2003, America has continued to prepare Iraq for disintegration. The constitution drafted by Bremer was based on sectarian and denominational lines with quotas... detailing them for the President, the Speaker of Parliament, and the Prime Minister. Because the Prime Minister holds executive power and Bremer made it a sectarian position, it was prone to provocation and agitation for other components... The written constitution itself calls for federal rule by regions, with strong regional powers. Therefore, America has succeeded in creating the conditions to dismantle Iraq into regions...") End quote. The region is, practically speaking, a state lacking only formal trappings like embassies and UN membership. In practice, the Kurdistan region is a state within a state, effectively separated from the central state; Iraq as a unified state has been sidelined! Therefore, the Kurdistan region does not need a state within Iraq, as it is practically a state. As we said, the issue is not the establishment of a Kurdish state within the borders of the Kurdish region in Iraq unrelated to other Kurdish areas outside Iraq; rather, any Kurdish state that arises will automatically attract violent and stormy Kurdish movements in the region. A Kurdish state would not stop at the Kurdistan region... Thus, its emergence would be a painful blow, especially to America and its agents in Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Hence, any politician realizes that the establishment of a Kurdish state—whether in Turkey, Iraq, or Syria—is currently not permitted by international or regional circumstances. I doubt that Kurdish politicians, including Barzani, do not realize this. Instead, as mentioned earlier, the idea of establishing a Kurdish state under current circumstances could lead to a shuffling of cards and movements spiraling out of control in the region, especially the Kurdish area, causing them material harm. Consequently, Barzani's decision is against the interest of his country in current circumstances... This is the first part of the saying.
2- As for which state is behind Barzani's decision and why it serves that state's interest, the evidence is clear. It is not difficult to point to that state. Barzani could not announce a referendum to establish a state separate from Iraq amidst American opposition and opposition from regional countries loyal to America, nor could he withstand this international and regional opposition unless another major power supported and encouraged him. The Kurdistan region is too weak to stand against those countries, especially America, which controls all of Iraq. It is not difficult, as mentioned, to realize that the major power behind him, prompting such decisions, is Britain. The Barzani family has been linked to Britain since the late Ottoman era. Barzani inherited this connection from his father, Mustafa Mulla Barzani, and before him his uncle Ahmed Barzani, and before them Abdul Salam Barzani, who led a Kurdish armed rebellion against the Ottoman State from 1909 to 1914 with overt British support. The family has deep-rooted ties with Britain. If we trace the positions on the referendum, we find that Britain's position supported the referendum decision, even if expressed through Britain's customary style of malice and deception:
For example, Barzani met with the British Ambassador to Iraq, Frank Baker, on 24/08/2017, to show British support. The Kurdish Rudaw page reported on 24/08/2017 regarding these meetings: "In Barzani's meeting with the British Ambassador to Iraq, the guest expressed his country's understanding of the rights of the people of Kurdistan and informed the President of the Kurdistan region of the British position on the referendum." In diplomatic language, "understanding" means support, and informing him of the British position without mentioning opposition also means support. This indicates that the British position is positive toward Barzani's decision, even supporting it and asking him to continue despite American and regional opposition.
Another example: ("The Head of Foreign Relations in the Kurdistan Region, Falah Mustafa, told Kurdistan24 that 'Britain is not against holding the referendum and does not oppose Kurdish aspirations.' Mustafa's remarks came after a meeting between the British Minister of State for the Middle East and North Africa, Alistair Burt, and Kurdish officials in Erbil. Burt arrived in Erbil on Sunday to discuss several files... the Kurds intend to hold a referendum on the independence of the Kurdistan region from Iraq on September 25th as an initial step toward establishing an independent state...") (Kurdistan24 Erbil, 05/09/2017).
Thus, Britain is the state standing behind the referendum decision issued by Barzani.
3- As for Britain's interest behind this decision, it follows a chain of events since Trump's election and British Prime Minister May's haste to visit Trump on 26/01/2017 to congratulate him... At that time, Trump praised May and May did the same, but each had a different purpose! Trump wanted Britain to exert maximum effort in dismantling the European Union, detaching itself from Europe without delay, while also creating an atmosphere for dismantling the EU, especially in France and the Netherlands which were approaching elections. May, however, wanted trade agreements from Trump to use as leverage against EU countries to gain privileges during Brexit. During the visit, both focused on their own goals; May tried, as is typical of the British, to hide her commercial goals with indirect methods, but Trump’s lack of diplomacy and blunt statements prevented her from hiding her intentions.
Thus, when pro-EU candidates won in France and the Netherlands, and given Germany's strong support for the EU, Trump realized Britain was more concerned with trade deals with America than with dismantling the EU. This led to Trump’s irritation, resulting in hitting Britain in its vital spot, "Qatar," through that blockade and boycott! We previously clarified this in a Q&A issued on 23/07/2017: ("As for Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May's early visit to Washington on 26/01/2017 was a scramble to sign a trade agreement to serve as a model for other EU countries to encourage their exit. Thus, Britain re-attached itself to America and was very optimistic about the Trump administration. However, after American hopes of dismantling the EU faded—evident in the victory of pro-Europeans in the Dutch and French elections—Trump's positive view of Britain declined. He wanted it to lead the dismantling of Europe. When 'London's Brexit' was not repeated in Paris and Amsterdam, America returned to encroaching on Britain's international interests, shocking London. America pushed its agent Sisi to further support Haftar regardless of British interests in Libya, and America pushed its agents almost shockingly to pressure Qatar, which represents Britain's spearhead in the Arab and Islamic region...") End quote. All of this made Trump lose his temper, leading him to visit Saudi Arabia, hold that summit, and then hit Britain in its vital spot through the blockade and boycott of Qatar.
4- Consequently, Britain had to do something to disturb American interests in the region. It resorted to the decision for Barzani to call for a referendum to create a nuisance for America and its agents. Naturally, Britain cannot do more than create a disturbance; it lacks the power to openly confront America but can cause annoyance, especially by choosing an appropriate timing and impactful action like the Kurdistan referendum. Britain was keen for Barzani to go all the way because the current situation is heated for America and its agents (Turkey, Iran, and Syria) due to ongoing armed conflicts. Therefore, Barzani remained insistent on the referendum. Britain marketed the referendum as a means to achieve an independent state for the Kurds, but in its usual deception, it cares nothing for Kurdish interests, only its own. Britain's history with the Kurds is full of such instances!
We said in a Q&A dated 01/04/2009: ("...Britain promised Mahmoud Al-Hafid in 1919 that he could attack the Ottoman protectorate in Sulaymaniyah in exchange for a Kurdish state. They attacked and killed their Ottoman brothers and expelled the survivors. Then Britain broke its promise, even exiling Mahmoud Al-Hafid to its colony, India. Similarly, Britain insisted in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 with the Ottoman State on including a clause regarding the establishment of a Kurdish state to annoy Caliph Muhammad Wahid-uddin, whose delegation was negotiating. When Britain later succeeded in installing Mustafa Kemal as President of the Republic and the Khilafah ended, and the treaty was made with Mustafa Kemal's republic in Lausanne in 1924, Britain refused to include the clause for a Kurdish state because it had achieved its goal—the fall of the Khilafah. It no longer needed to exploit such a matter. Britain used to stir Kurdish nationalist sentiments and all nationalist sentiments in the region, exploiting and inciting those it stirred to disobey and rebel against the Islamic State to achieve its purposes, then discarding those who collaborated or enslaving them as 'rulers' and 'leaders'...") This is Britain's way of deception and misguidance.
5- Thus, Barzani remained insistent on the referendum on 25/09/2017 to have a state! He ignored international and regional positions rejecting it, even from some Kurds themselves. He stated: ("The Kurdistan region renewed its refusal on Wednesday to postpone or cancel the secession referendum scheduled for September 25th, despite international and regional efforts to dissuade Erbil and the central government's rejection. The High Council for the Referendum discussed the results of the recent Kurdish delegation's visit to Baghdad and Barzani's talks with Mattis in Erbil. Barzani's advisor said: 'President Masoud Barzani confirms the referendum will not be delayed even for a minute and will take place on its scheduled date, September 25th'") (Thursday, 2 Dhu al-Hijjah 1438 AH - 24 August 2017 - Dubai - Al-Arabiya.net). This is despite the international and regional opposition being very clear:
a- America rejected the referendum from the day Barzani announced it on 07/06/2017. The US Presidential Envoy for the International Coalition, Brett McGurk, responded: "Holding the referendum at the present time will lead to instability... we do not believe the referendum should be held in September because holding it according to this rapid schedule, especially in disputed areas, will lead to significant instability" (AFP 08/06/2017).
Recently, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in a phone call with Barzani on 11/08/2017, expressed "Washington's desire to postpone the referendum and confirmed support for dialogue with Baghdad." America sent its Secretary of Defense James Mattis to Baghdad on 22/08/2017 to meet Prime Minister Abadi, then to Erbil to meet Barzani, and to Ankara on 23/08/2017 to mobilize Erdogan's Turkey, its active arm in the region.
b- Regional countries loyal to America also rejected it. Cabinet spokesperson Saad al-Hadithi said: "Any step taken by any party in Iraq must be based on the constitution... No single party can determine Iraq's fate in isolation from others." (Al-Hurra 09/06/2017).
Turkey announced its opposition to the referendum and the declaration of Kurdish independence from the first day. The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement describing the decision as a "grave mistake that threatens the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq" (Al-Hurra 09/06/2017). Erdogan declared after meeting Mattis: "The referendum decision is a wrong decision" (Al-Jazeera 24/08/2017).
Iran also declared on Saturday, 11 June 2017, shortly after the announcement, that it strongly opposes the planned referendum, stressing that Tehran has a "clear position on the territorial integrity of Iraq." Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bahram Qassemi said: "Unilateral decisions far from national and legal frameworks will lead to more problems and worsen the security situation in Iraq" (15/06/2017, afkarhura.com). The website Afkar Hura published on 07/09/2017 a statement by the Iranian Parliament Speaker's advisor, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian: "Holding the referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan will create a new crisis."
Furthermore, America has followers inside Kurdistan, including the Gorran (Change) Movement and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (Talabani's party). Gorran opposed Barzani's announcement; Hoshyar Abdullah, a member of the movement in the Kurdish parliament, said: "The Change Movement still holds that the timing is wrong and this entire agenda is a personal and partisan one for Masoud Barzani," stressing that "the Kurdistan Democratic Party is a pawn, not a player." (Elaf 05/08/2017). Iraqi President Fuad Masum, from the PUK, also rejected the referendum. The KDP described Masum's statement as "dangerous and a bad message to the world that obstructs and diminishes the referendum results." (Previous source).
Despite this international and regional opposition, Barzani insists on the referendum, stating he will not delay it even for a minute, all due to British prompting as explained.
6- Now that we have reviewed the events of the referendum and the various influencing factors... we can answer what is expected regarding the referendum... The likely outcome based on what we have explained is as follows:
a- In all cases, it is not expected that a Kurdish state will be established in the legal sense. America's project for Iraq is a "federation of regions" with a weak link between them and the center—practical division in governance while officially remaining one federal state called Iraq. This has been the US project since the 2003 occupation, which carried the seeds of dismantling Iraq but not as official states yet. Bremer drafted the federal constitution so that Iraq would cease to be a strong centralized state and be replaced by a fragile federal one where regional authority is stronger than the center! Iraq is thus prepared, whenever America sees fit, to be turned into official states. For now, the US project is the loose federation. We stated on 12/08/2014: ("America... is continuing to prepare Iraq for disintegration... the constitution was based on sectarian lines... America succeeded in preparing the conditions to dismantle Iraq into regions...") End quote. Therefore, current US policy wants a divided federal state in practice that remains one state in form. It is unlikely in the near term that Iraq will be legally divided into states.
b- Since the referendum announcement was by British order to alleviate Britain's predicament regarding Qatar, the referendum may be canceled if America helps remove or appropriately ease the boycott on Qatar to save face.
c- America can cancel the referendum if it wishes because it is the sole power controlling Iraq—either directly, by mobilizing loyal Kurdish movements, or by mobilizing Turkey and Iran against the region and Barzani, even using material pressure. Iranian Chief of Staff Mohammad Baqeri visited Turkey for the first time since the 1979 revolution on 15/08/2017 for three days. He was received by Erdogan for 50 minutes, indicating the importance of the matter. He was accompanied by top military commanders. Iranian spokesperson Qassemi described the visit as a "leap" and an "integrative step." It is not unlikely that this visit was to coordinate material actions in the region if necessary to cancel the referendum or negate its results. This is supported by the fact that the US Secretary of Defense visited Ankara on 23/08/2017, right after the Iranian visit.
d- If America fears heated disturbances resulting from point (c), it might not prevent the referendum but ensure it has no effective result or impact, and that no independence-related measures follow.
7- Finally, it is truly painful that the Islamic bond, through which Muslims—Arabs and non-Arabs—were once mighty, has been successfully sidelined by the colonialist kaffirs from the lives of Muslims. It has been replaced by rotten ties and tools of destruction that have scattered Muslims: wars among them are rampant, and brotherhood is absent!
Nationalism is a tool of destruction for the Ummah's structure. Just as it was a tool for destroying the Islamic State yesterday, the colonialist kaffir continues to use it to demolish what remains of the Ummah's entity... turning Muslim lands into an arena for conflict between major powers and a means to spill Muslim blood, with brothers striking each other's necks! Islam has forbidden all of this and emphasized the unity and brotherhood of Muslims. Allah (swt) says:
واعْتَصِمُوا بِحَبْلِ اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلَا تَفَرَّقُوا وَاذْكُرُوا نِعْمَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ كُنتُمْ أَعْدَاءً فَأَلَّفَ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُم بِنِعْمَتِهِ إِخْوَانًا وَكُنتُمْ عَلَىٰ شَفَا حُفْرَةٍ مِّنَ النَّارِ فَأَنقَذَكُم مِّنْهَا كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ
"And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you - when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided." (QS. Ali 'Imran [3]: 103)
And Allah (swt) says:
إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ
"The believers are but brothers." (QS. Al-Hujurat [49]: 10)
Likewise, Islam has forbidden all types of asabiyah (partisan/tribal fervor): nationalism, patriotism, tribalism, etc. On the authority of Amr bin Dinar, who said: I heard Jabir bin Abdullah saying: We were in an expedition, and a man from the Muhajirun struck a man from the Ansar. The Ansari said: "O Ansar!" and the Muhajiri said: "O Muhajirun!" Allah's Messenger ﷺ heard this and said: "What is this?" They said: A man from the Muhajirun struck a man from the Ansar, so the Ansari called the Ansar and the Muhajiri called the Muhajirun. The Prophet ﷺ said:
دَعُوهَا، فَإِنَّهَا مُنْتِنَةٌ
"Leave it, for it is rotten." (Narrated by Al-Bukhari)
And on the authority of Abu Mijlaz, from Jundub bin Abdullah al-Bajali, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
مَنْ قُتِلَ تَحْتَ رَايَةٍ عُمِّيَّةٍ، يَدْعُو عَصَبِيَّةً، أَوْ يَنْصُرُ عَصَبِيَّةً، فَقِتْلَةٌ جَاهِلِيَّةٌ
"He who is killed under a banner of ignorance, calling to tribalism or supporting tribalism, then he dies a death of jahiliyyah." (Narrated by Muslim)
Muslims lived for centuries mighty in their Deen and strong in their Lord, united by the brotherhood of Islam. Among the companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ were Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Salman the Persian, and Bilal the Abyssinian... they were servants of Allah, brothers, striving in the path of Allah. Umar the Arab entered Jerusalem as a conqueror, Salahuddin the Kurd liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and Abdul Hamid the Turk preserved Jerusalem from the filth of the Jews... This is how Muslims are honored, and this is how anyone who gives ear while he is a witness should be:
إِنَّ فِي هَٰذَا لَبَلَاغًا لِّقَوْمٍ عَابِدِينَ
"Indeed, in this [Quran] is notification for a worshipping people." (QS. Al-Anbiya [21]: 106)
18th Dhu al-Hijjah 1438 AH Corresponding to 09/09/2017 CE