In recent months, Iraq has faced a number of issues, including the continued presence or the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq, disagreements between the Kurds and Baghdad, and Turkish military attacks in northern Iraq. The importance of these issues led KurdPress to discuss the issues with Dr. Adriano Dirri, a researcher of international law at the University od Rome in Italy. He has conducted numerous studies on the disputed areas of the world and the federal issue, which is also an issue of the Iraqi Kurds.

Dr. Dirri, PhD in State Theory and Comparative Political Institutions at the Department of Political Sciences, Sapienza, believes that holding the independent referendum by Iraqi Kurds was not a good step and has not helped solving the Kurdish problems. He advised Iraq's Kurds to be united to implement the country's constitution, which serves their interests, rather than trying to break away from the country.

What follows are his answers to KurdPress questions;

There will be another round of talks between the U.S and Baghdad to form their mutual interests in the near future. Do you think these talks could lead to the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Iraq and Kurdistan region?

The talks between Baghdad and the US are very important after months of suspicions and the primary goal is the reestablishment of better relationship between US and Iraq. The mutual interests are stability and economic growth for Iraq, but the latter can reach economic growth only with the foreign help, the US help. In this sense the incoming US Presidential elections shall not be forgotten. I do not think that these talks will lead to the departure of the remaining US soldiers. Iraq needs military, economic and administrative assistance as well as a military force capable to neutralize as fast as possible the threat of ISIS sleeper cells. Iraq cannot forget the logistic and military aid from the US and other countries in the defeat of ISIS. There will not be, in my opinion, any departure of US troops in Iraq, despite the vote of the Parliament. The assistance for the Iraqi army is still crucial and, despite claims against the US presence, everyone knows the relevance of the US on the ground.

Erbil and Baghdad have many differences over oil, disputed areas, budgets, and so on. Do you think Iraqi P.M. Mustafa Kadhimi is able to solve these problems?

The main bone of contention, both politically and constitutionally speaking is the “management” (considering the wording of the Iraqi Constitution) of oil and gas revenues. This is fully linked to the federal budget, which is mainly composed of the abovementioned revenues. Since the Iraqi economy is based on oil revenues, the current economic trend is not favorable for Iraq, due to the fact that Iraq is entirely dependent from the oil price and the volatility of the market, which is shaped by COVID consequences. Kadhimi is likely to be in a better position compared to its predecessor, but politics in the Middle East are unpredictable. Hence, months of tensions due to the protest of the Iraqi, the assassination of Soleimani and Al-Muhandis, and the economic crisis have led to rethink the whole approach towards the US and the Kurds. The first step would be the federal budget in the fall.

The previous years were constellated by huge tensions between the Kurds and Baghdad on this issue, and the military epilogue was the takeover of Kirkuk. The achievement on the disputed areas would be a major constitutional development in the whole Middle East. I would explain this point briefly: the Iraqi Constitution has several deferrals and the agreement on Kirkuk, disputed areas and oil revenues would be the major achievement for the following entrenchment of the Constitution (to sum up, given the need of the Kurdish agreement on it). As of today, these questions have been left entirely to politics and it seems that it is still hard in Iraq to build its political life on the Constitution. I would spend a word on the protests occurred in the whole Iraq before the COVID pandemic. I hope Kadhimi could grab the instances of the young people of Iraq, which want a future, a job and development. Kadhimi has a great opportunity to increase its own consensus, despite the pressure of foreign actors.

Turkey has a heavy presence in Iraq and its attacks against PKK has killed many civilians but neither the KRG nor Baghdad have not stood against the attacks, Why?

Turkey has undoubtedly a strong presence within the Iraqi Kurdistan, with several military bases and outposts. The northern part of Iraq, from a Turkish point of view, represents a key issue for national security. The same strategy is pursued in other Turkish border areas, in Syria and also in Libya. Both KRG and Baghdad are politically weak, unstable, and divided mainly on the issue above. These weaknesses made possible for Turkish army to set military bases in the North of KRG, without any substantial protests from Baghdad. During the fighting against ISIS, the prestige of KRG was higher than Iraq and Turkey, for diverse reasons. The need of Turkey was to weaken KRG and the Kurdish in general (blaming them as terrorists everywhere), even though the Kurds were at that time (and are) the only population which has fiercely fought Daesh in Syria and Iraq. Baghdad, on the other side, was in the poorest condition. Hence, for Baghdad, in my humble opinion, the weakening of Kurds in the North, is not a problem, if we think on the Kirkuk takeover and its consequences.

Many experts and Kurdish officials believe that ISIS attacks in Kirkuk are considerable because Kurdish and Iraqi forces have no cooperation and coordination in the disputed areas. How do you think about this claim?

This is true. Coordination and cooperation have been, as of today, absent. The reasons are the same of those have shaped the history and the current Constitution of Iraq. Peshmerga were enough organized to repel Daesh from the historical borders of the Iraqi Kurdistan, while Iraqi army was totally unable to understand the incoming disaster. The lack of coordination within the Iraqi army as well as cooperation between Peshmerga and Baghdad did the rest. Currently, that area is where ISIS cells are mostly operating, and that is not a surprise.

Do you believe that conducting referendum in 2017 was a good step by the Kurds? Why the West, especially the U.S, did not support it?

A referendum of that kind everywhere is debated, even more in a country where the law is not ruling properly. Moreover, constitutional dispositions are not clear, not implemented, and ambiguous (the examples are a lot…). Regarding the Kurdish referendum, I guess that was a not the best option, neither the solution of the problem of the Kurdish status. Politically, because for the first time KRG owned Kirkuk and disputed areas, even though not according the Constitution, because these areas were freed from ISIS or occupied for the retreat of the Iraqi army. Therefore, there was the possibility to talk with Baghdad from a stronger position than in the past, instead of sending people to the poll station for a referendum which would have set the basis for Baghdad’s reaction. Constitutionally, despite the art. 140 has never implemented and the “referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the will of their citizens” (quoting art. 140) never took place, the 2017 referendum was unlawful and not grounded on the Constitution, despite Baghdad did basically the same, regarding to the dead letter of Art. 140. Recently, the Federal Supreme Court has stated that Art. 140 is still valid and ready to be applied.

The West did not support it or, better to say, did not say anything except that at the moment, it would better to focalize every effort on the stabilization of Iraq, which makes sense on this point of view (still). The interest of the US and the West is for a stable Iraq also for the pipelines. Moreover, the West was facing the refugee’s crisis, which has destabilized the whole European Union as well as Member States. In addition, due to economic crisis which never stopped, the West was politically weak and divided.

What would be more useful for the Iraqi Kurds: federalism, confederalism, or independence?

For the Iraqi Kurds, it would be more useful to wait (again) better times, despite during the fighting against Daesh the Kurds were in the strongest position than in the past. Pushing for referendum or a different constitutional framework is not a viable option. In addition, talking about confederalism and federalism as two different options is not the key for the Kurds, and this is not the main question. The difference between a confederation and federacy is based on historical development of federal States (the US for example). Currently, the Kurds must be united (because they are not united within the KRG, which is basically divided between KDP and PUK) in the implementation of the Iraqi Constitution and in the development of good self-government as they did from the fall of the Saddam regime (even though the autonomy is rooted in the aftermath of the First Gulf War). Entrenching better government than Baghdad, pushing for the Constitution would be the best and reliable goal which can pave the way for a stronger autonomy. We do not have to forget that the path towards a real autonomy goes through the possibility and capability to raise taxes and have a fixed source (oil) of revenues, not depending entirely from politics. Federalism without a real fiscal federalism is only an empty box.

Reporter’s code: 40101