Mehdi Hasan: Champion of Self-Determination or Selective Critic? Unpacking His Stance on Kurdish Independence

Mehdi Hasan, the British-American journalist, broadcaster, and founder of Zeteo, has built a reputation as a fierce advocate for human rights and self-determination movements around the world. Known for his sharp, unrelenting interviewing style on platforms like Al Jazeera's UpFront, Head to Head, and later at MSNBC, Hasan has consistently called out oppressive regimes and supported marginalized groups.

His vocal support for Palestinian independence, the Uyghur Muslims in China, and pro-democracy movements in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Taiwan has earned him high praise from progressives and frequent ire from conservatives. Yet, when the conversation turns to the Kurds—one of the largest stateless ethnic groups in the world—Hasan's rhetoric takes a noticeably cautious, and even critical, turn.

In interviews surrounding the 2017 Kurdish independence referendum in Iraq, he questioned the timing, warned of potential bloodshed, and highlighted internal issues like corruption and nepotism within the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). This apparent inconsistency raises a pointed question: Why does Hasan appear so skeptical of the Kurdish independence bid, while fiercely championing minority independence movements elsewhere?

The Progressive Champion: Palestine, Xinjiang, and Beyond

To understand this tension, we must first look at Hasan's broader track record of advocacy. Born in the UK to Indian-Pakistani parents, Hasan views global affairs through a progressive, anti-imperialist lens.

When it comes to Palestine, Hasan is unequivocal. He has repeatedly denounced Israel's military actions in Gaza, labeling them a "genocide" and fiercely advocating for Palestinian self-determination. For Hasan, the roughly 14 million Palestinians globally—including the roughly 5 million living in the State of Palestine—are indigenous people fighting against occupation and apartheid. During his speech at London's Wembley Arena for the "Together For Palestine" event, he urged the audience to bear witness to the "catastrophe in Gaza" and condemned mainstream media silence.

Similarly, Hasan has been a staunch defender of the Uyghur Muslims in China's Xinjiang region. He has openly labeled China's treatment of the approximately 12 million Uyghurs as a "genocide," pointing to mass detentions in "reeducation camps" that human rights groups estimate hold between one and three million people.

In a memorable UpFront interview with Victor Gao, an informal adviser to the Chinese government, Hasan pressed relentlessly on multiple fronts:

• Hong Kong: He challenged the suppression of pro-democracy protests, asking why Beijing refuses to allow greater autonomy.

• Tibet: He confronted Gao's claim that "Tibet has always been part of China," highlighting historical disputes and ongoing cultural repression.

• Taiwan: He questioned China's aggressive military posture and threats of annexation.

These positions paint Hasan as an unwavering supporter of oppressed groups seeking autonomy—particularly when the oppressor is a non-Western authoritarian power (like China) or a Western-backed state (like Israel).

The Kurdish Question: A Shift in Tone

Yet, when the spotlight turns to the Kurds, Hasan's tone notably shifts.

The Kurds are a predominantly Sunni Muslim ethnic group numbering between 30 to 45 million, spread across a mountainous region spanning Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

They have long sought independence, driven by a nationalist, often secular movement rooted in resisting the assimilationist policies of their host nations. In Iraqi Kurdistan, the KRG has enjoyed semi-autonomy since the 1990s, heavily bolstered by U.S. support following the Gulf War. In 2017, the KRG held an independence referendum that saw over 92% of voters vote in favor of statehood. It was a massive democratic exercise, yet it was non-binding and faced fierce international opposition.

Hasan's coverage of this pivotal moment was deeply skeptical. In a 2016 UpFront episode titled, "Could Kurdish independence lead to a new Iraq war?", Hasan interviewed Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the KRG's U.S. representative. Instead of championing their democratic aspirations, Hasan:

• Questioned the timing: With ISIS still active, was pushing for independence a dangerous distraction?

• Warned of partition violence: He invoked the bloody history of the India-Pakistan partition, warning it could provoke a violent response from Baghdad over disputed, oil-rich territories like Kirkuk.

• Scrutinized Kurdish leadership: He challenged claims of Kurdish "land grabs," cited allegations of Peshmerga forces displacing Arabs, and highlighted the Barzani family's dynastic grip on KRG politics.

Six months post-referendum, Hasan interviewed Rahman again, asking bluntly: "What was the point of that vote?" He noted that the referendum severely backfired, resulting in Baghdad slashing budgets, closing borders, and launching military reprisals to reclaim Kirkuk. While Rahman defended the vote as an expression of the people's will, Hasan countered that pragmatism was required in the face of "collective punishment" from hostile neighbors.

Geopolitical Pragmatism or Double Standard?

This highly critical line of questioning—focusing on geopolitical risks, internal corruption, and poor timing—stands in stark contrast to his advocacy elsewhere. Why the hesitation?

1. The Threat of Regional Fragmentation Hasan often emphasizes context. In the Kurdish case, independence directly threatens regional stability in the Middle East. Iraq's unity was incredibly fragile post-ISIS, and neighboring countries like Turkey, Iran, and Syria vehemently opposed the referendum, fearing it would ignite uprisings among their own Kurdish minorities. While Hasan views Israel and China as oppressive, colonizing forces, Kurdish independence pits Kurds against fellow Muslim-majority states, potentially fragmenting the region further.

2. Anti-Imperialism vs. Western Alliances The Kurdish movement is not uniformly aligned with Hasan's standard geopolitical worldview. While Syrian Kurds in Rojava lean heavily secular-leftist, the KRG in Iraq is more conservative and, crucially, maintains close strategic ties to the United States and quiet relations with Israel. For a commentator whose worldview is deeply rooted in critiquing "rapacious U.S. foreign policy" and Western interventionism, the KRG's Western alliances may complicate his willingness to offer unreserved support.

The Verdict: Idealism vs. Reality

It would be inaccurate to label Hasan as outright "anti-Kurdish." In a 2014 Huffington Post piece, he urged progressives to arm Kurdish fighters against ISIS, quoting the Kurdish proverb: "Freedom is never given but taken." He has praised Syrian Kurds for their "democratic experiment" in Rojava and fiercely criticized Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan for cracking down on Kurdish civil rights. In 2024, he explicitly listed the Kurds in a tweet about groups lacking—but deserving of—a state.

Ultimately, Hasan's approach to Kurdish independence isn't rooted in animus, but in a highly selective application of geopolitical pragmatism. He champions self-determination when it challenges powers he actively opposes, but he tempers that support when it risks broader regional chaos or aligns too closely with Western foreign policy interests.

In a world of complex geopolitics, Hasan's rhetoric highlights the uncomfortable tension between moral idealism and harsh reality. For the Kurds, the dream of a state persists, but as Hasan's coverage suggests, the international community's support often comes with strings attached.