Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On November 11, 2023, the Global Kurdish Initiative for Peace hosted a private roundtable discussion on the current state and future of the relationship between the KRG and the United States. The workshop brought together a diverse group of participants, including participants from the KRG, the U.S. government, think tanks, academic institutions, and businesses.ÌýÌýÌý

The discussion focused on the key challenges facing the partnership, its potential, trajectory, and ways to strengthen the relationship. The primary objective of the roundtable was to generate a broad spectrum of different perspectives regarding KRG-U.S. partnership, foster mutual understanding, identify shared interests, and find potential solutions to pressing issues affecting both sides.ÌýÌýÌý

For decades, Kurds in Iraq and Syria have been in the Middle East. While Kurds have benefited from American security protection to advance their political and economic rights, they have also been , safeguarding U.S. strategic interests, fighting terrorism, and serving as a prominent pillar of stability in the region. However, the American patronage has come at a cost, and shift of U.S. foreign policy has led to for Kurds. With rising pressure to remove U.S. forces from Iraq amid Washington's shifting strategic priorities towards Eastern Europe and Asia, there's a real concern that Kurds could once again become the unintended victims of American foreign policy.ÌýÌýÌý

To alleviate the risk of human suffering, it is imperative to thoroughly reevaluate the relationship between Kurds and the United States based on historical and political ties, strategic security concerns, and common values. While this workshop report proposes some practical recommendations such as concerted American diplomatic engagement with the KRG, stronger security and political relations to advance mutual strategic interests to address the immediate challenges, there is a need for a comprehensive analysis to assess the implications of U.S. forces’ withdrawal from Iraq and Syria on the Kurdish population. A strategic blueprint must be formulated to minimize human suffering and safeguard the hard-won legal, political, economic, and cultural rights of the Kurdish people.ÌýÌý

IntroductionÌýÌý

The relationship between the Kurds and the United States is complex and multifaceted. It is defined by moments of both cooperation and disappointment. At best, it’s a bittersweet bond forged, broken, then morphed by the brutal forces of geopolitics in the Middle East and international affairs.ÌýÌýÌý

Denied of their own state after World War I, the Kurds have sought to leverage opportunities arising from geopolitical shifts to advance their aspirations for autonomy and cultural identity. In the 1960s, the Cold War brought the Iraqi Kurds and the U.S. closer; however, the partnership left the Kurds disillusioned when they were abandoned at the height of their insurgency against the Iraqi government in the mid 1970s with dire political, military, and tragic humanitarian implications. The Kurdish autonomy of 1970 fell apart, the Kurdish revolution collapsed, to neighboring Iran, and the subsequent chain of events eventually enabled the Iraqi state to perpetrate against the Kurdish people in 1980s.Ìý

The first Gulf War in 1991 revitalized the relationship after two decades. The West’s No Fly Zone over northern Iraq proved pivotal, from Saddam Hussein's brutal crackdown after their 1991 uprising against Baghdad. The protection further enabled Kurds to hold elections and in 1992. The bilateral ties solidified during the post-Cold War era. As Washington pursued a dual containment strategy against both Iran and Iraq, the They received from Washington, fostering deeper ties indirectly.Ìý

The 2003 invasion of Iraq elevated KRG-U.S. alliance to a strategic level. Kurdish forces fought alongside U.S. forces against the Iraqi army to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and the Kurdish leadership subsequently in shaping the new Iraq. However, by 2011, particularly regarding federal government powers, oil resources, and control of the Kirkuk province. Driven by the Obama administration pressured the Kurds to to Baghdad, leading to friction in the relationship.ÌýÌý

However, the strategic landscape shifted dramatically in 2014 with the . The Kurdistan Region became in the fight against the terrorist group, leading the frontline defense from 2014 to 2017. This period marked , characterized by extensive political, diplomatic, and military cooperation.Ìý

The once-strong Kurdish-American relationship is again descending, marked by a significant decline in trust. Kurdish leaders in Erbil feel abandoned by the United States, especially as they face mounting regional and internal political and security challenges. They perceive Washington as . The frustration is reciprocated by Washington, which is increasingly concerned about the growing political divisions, , and within the Kurdistan Region, especially given the financial and military investments made. These internal issues, in Washington's view, in Iraq.ÌýÌý

Despite these challenges, the potential for a defined/strengthened U.S.-KRG relationship is attainable. Both parties share vital interests in regional stability, countering terrorism, and promoting democracy. Therefore, it is crucial to convert the relationship into a more robust and formal partnership based on mutual trust and shared goals.ÌýÌý

Key FindingsÌýÌý

Asymmetrical Power & Shifting Priorities:  The partnership between Erbil and Washington is built on uneven ground, shaped by unequal power dynamics, regional geopolitical tensions, and evolving U.S. strategic interests. One of the key reasons for such asymmetric partnership is the KRG is a non-state actor and Washington has to manage Kurds through its policies towards Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Accordingly, this delicate and often difficult balance determines the level of engagement between them, with major geopolitical events acting as seismic shifts. These shifts can push the partnership closer to cooperation or create distance. While a strong alliance emerged during the fight against ISIS, the diminishing threat of the group has weakened this bond. The 2017 Kurdish independence referendum further strained the relationship, highlighting the limits of U.S. commitment to the Kurds.ÌýÌý

Erosion of Trust:  Kurdish leadership is frustrated with perceived U.S. reluctance to deepen ties and address their economic, financial, and security concerns. The lack of the U.S. response to defend the Kurdistan region from the attacks by Iran and the pro-Iranian groups have further undermined Erbil’s confidence in Washington as a reliable partner. As a result, the KRG’s persistent quest for increased American support remains unmet, causing frustration within Kurdish leadership amid financial and security challenges from the Iraqi government.ÌýÌý

Undervalued Strategic Ally: Roundtable participants highlighted the potential of the KRG as a strategic security partner for the United States in a region dominated by anti-U.S. forces and sentiment. They argued that the KRG's role as a counterbalance to these forces is currently underappreciated, particularly in the face of escalating threats posed by Iranian proxies. The discussion emphasized the need for a reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy in the region, given the KRG's potential to contribute to stability and safeguard American interests. However, it was also noted that financial viability is crucial for the KRG to effectively fulfill this role.ÌýÌý

Inadequate U.S. Diplomacy: A majority of participants believed that there was a need for Washington to proactively engage with Baghdad and Erbil for a long-term agreement on the issues of oil management and exportation, budget allocation, and power sharing. They argued the United States possesses significant diplomatic, political, and financial leverage over the Iraqi government to deliver such deal. Addressing KRG’ chronic financial problems is seen as essential for ensuring the KRG's stability and its ability to serve as a regional security partner.ÌýÌý

Deterrence & Air Defense:  Participants argued that imposing consequences on both external and internal actors responsible for attacks on the Kurdistan Region is essential for deterring future aggression. They emphasized that deploying an air defense system in Kurdistan would not only safeguard American strategic assets and personnel in the region but also serve as a powerful message to both allies and adversaries, demonstrating Washington's commitment to defending its partners. However, they highlighted that the partisan Kurdish forces have posed serious challenges for the international coalitions forces to better equip and train Peshmerga forces. They said that fueled by trust deficit, the Kurdish elites, particularly those affiliated with the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), remain hesitant to unify and institutionalize their respective forces under the umbrella of the KRG's Ministry of Peshmerga. The hesitancy persists despite sustained efforts by the International Coalition since 2007 to encourage and support such unification. The discussants advocated for a stronger U.S-KRG security partnership conditional on institutionalizing Kurdish armed forces and security sector.Ìý

Intra-Kurdish Divisions: Discussants portrayed a grim scenario of the detrimental impact of internal fragmentations within the Kurdistan Region, singling out the KDP and the PUK as the primary contributors to this division. They argued that such discord has negatively impacted governance. The resulting gridlocked political environment has hindered effective policy implementation and service delivery and has led to frustration and resentment among the Kurdish population. The KRG’s divided stance has also weakened its negotiating position with the Iraqi government in Baghdad, making it harder to reach agreements on crucial matters like oil, revenue sharing, and security cooperation, which further destabilizes the region. The lack of unity between the KDP and PUK also creates an environment prone to violence, making the Kurdistan Region more vulnerable to both external threats and internal unrest.ÌýÌý

Shrinking Exchange Programs: Building and maintaining a strong people-to-people relationship between the Kurds and the United States requires robust cultural and educational exchange programs. However, recent years have seen declining opportunities for Kurdish students to study in the United States due to visa restrictions and shrinking scholarship availability. Participants argue that the current trend poses a risk of redirecting Kurdish involvement towards China. This is because China provides alternative educational and cultural exchange programs at a growing rate. These opportunities are readily accessible to Kurdish students, staff of civil society organizations, and employees of the KRG without concerns about visa delays or rejections.ÌýÌý

RecommendationsÌýÌýÌý

Reinvigorate the Partnership: Develop a comprehensive strategy with congressional backing, acknowledging the KRG's strategic value.ÌýÌý

Strengthen Security Cooperation: Equip and train the Peshmerga with advanced air defense systems, conditional on institutional reforms. This demonstrates U.S. commitment while promoting Kurdistan Region’s stability.ÌýÌý

Increase High Level U.S Diplomacy: Intensify engagement at the highest levels of diplomacy to facilitate a comprehensive agreement between Erbil and Baghdad over budget allocation, and oil management and exportation. Similar American diplomacy should be leveraged for a political deal between the KDP and the PUK, similar to the 1998 Washington Agreement. A U.S. security guarantee could be crucial to address concerns and secure cooperation from both parties.ÌýÌý

Champion Democratic Values: Encourage and support efforts to promote human rights and democratic reforms, which are crucial for internal stability and international legitimacy.ÌýÌý

Build People-to-People Ties: Invest in cultural and educational exchange programs, fostering lasting connections and countering Chinese influence.ÌýÌý

ConclusionÌýÌý

The relationship between the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and the United States stands at a pivotal moment. While a shared past fosters a bond, tensions are rising due to shifting U.S. priorities, uncertainties surrounding the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, perceived disregard of KRG interests by the U.S., and doubts about American commitment to Kurdish protection, compounded by internal divisions within the Kurdistan Region.ÌýÌý

This precarious situation threatens to reverse the political, economic, and security gains the Kurds have made in the Middle East, potentially leading to violence, instability, and humanitarian crises. Such a setback would not only deprive the West of a valuable security partner but also dim the prospects for democracy in a part of a world dominated by authoritarian regimes. It could also significantly damage America’s global reputation as a reliable ally, with far-reaching political, diplomatic, and security implications for countering its adversaries through a web of reliable allies.Ìý