This article argues that defending Kurdish self-government and defending the rights of Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs are compatible commitments. Evaluating a political system requires distinguishing the formation of its institutions, their constitutional position and their treatment of residents. Military strength or foreign backing alone is not an adequate measure of people’s rights. Discussion of Iraqi federalism becomes more useful when it explains which institution must answer for which right and public need, instead of ranking communities.
Examine the region’s institutional history carefully
Human Rights Watch’s investigation of Anfal, drawing on Iraqi government documents, interviews and fieldwork, examines the campaign against Kurds as genocide. It documents chemical weapons used against civilians, widespread killing and enforced disappearances. Its discussion of Christian communities also describes destroyed villages and harm to residents. Recognising Kurdish suffering does not require overlooking other victims. Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds.
According to the Kurdistan Parliament’s official history, regional elections on 19 May 1992 led to the establishment of the Kurdistan National Assembly and regional government. The history also records five seats for Christian parties in the first assembly. This is a specific example of institution-building and representation; it does not show that all political disagreements or questions of rights were resolved from that point onwards. The Kurdistan Parliament’s institutional history.
Three constitutional articles, three different questions
Article 117 of Iraq’s constitution recognises the Kurdistan Region and its existing authorities as a federal region. Article 125 guarantees administrative, political, cultural and educational rights for various nationalities, including Turkmen, Chaldeans, Assyrians and other constituents, with regulation by law. Article 140 provides for normalisation, a census and then a referendum to determine residents’ wishes in Kirkuk and other disputed territories; its text specifies 31 December 2007 as the deadline. Iraq’s constitution, UNAMI English translation.
Textual analysis: Recognising a region, protecting communities’ rights and addressing disputed territories are different matters. Article 125 does not itself draw the map of a particular administrative unit; the absence of such a map does not excuse disregarding the rights it states. Quoting Article 140’s historical deadline does not answer every question about its subsequent implementation. Specific claims about boundaries, ownership or administrative arrangements require separate examination of the relevant documents and processes.
Judge security through civilians’ experiences
In September 2024, UNITAD announced reasonable grounds to believe that international crimes had been committed by ISIL against Christians in Mosul and the Nineveh Plains between 2014 and 2017. Its statement included forcible transfer, pillage and destruction of cultural heritage. These findings connect the question of security to victims’ experiences that can be investigated. The United Nations investigative team’s announced findings.
Analysis: Leaving home under threat should not be treated as evidence that a community has less political worth. Armed forces’ contributions to protecting people should also be assessed through specific actions and evidence. Unqualified praise and collective condemnation both weaken accountability. This article proposes that each institution answer for protecting residents’ lives and property in proportion to its own powers and decisions.
Analysis: Accountable self-government and effective participation
For the defence of Kurdish rights, self-government matters because it enables people to make decisions about their collective lives. To sustain that argument, other communities’ rights to effective participation, language education and identity must also be taken seriously. Recognition of Assyrian, Chaldean or Syriac identity should not depend on party allegiance; being Kurdish should not be reduced to compulsory support for a party either. The freedom to criticise and to choose independent representatives should form part of any assessment of governance.
Proposals for local administration can also be examined through practical questions: What powers would the proposed administration have? How are public resources distributed? Who oversees security forces? How can residents challenge decisions? Every proposal must explain the rights of everyone within its proposed area, including opponents. In property disputes, hearing ownership claims and examining documents should replace judgments based on ethnic labels. Support for voluntary return should include security and the possibility of a dignified life.
Within this approach, Kurdish demands to maintain the region’s position can accompany demands by Assyrians and other communities for guarantees of their rights. The proposed path is negotiation over clear powers, transparent budgets and complaint mechanisms. A federal system should prove its value to people in schools, courts and local administrations. No community should have to prove its historical or military superiority to have a voice and security.
Editorial note: This version was rewritten using the cited sources. Sections identified as analysis express the editorial position of this version.