Suchergebnisse

View the Executive SummaryThe withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq at the end of 2011 left behind a set of unresolved problems in the relationship between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and the Federal Government in Baghdad—notably relating to the disputed boundaries of the KRG, and the extent of its autonomy. Tensions have since been compounded by the discovery of significant quantities of oil and gas in the KRG area, and Erbil's pursuit of an energy policy independent of and in opposition to Baghdad. Turkey, uneasy with the increasingly sectarian and authoritarian flavor of the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad, has since moved closer to the KRG, not least with respect to energy issues, deepening Turkish-Iraqi tensions still further. Added to the mix is the increasingly sectarian standoff in the region as a whole, in large measure as a consequence of Syrian developments, which has further pitted Ankara against Baghdad and its ally Iran; and the emergence of a bid for autonomy by Syria's Kurds, which has complicated the stance of both Ankara and Erbil toward Syria and towards each other. Washington is in danger of being left behind by the fast-paced events in the region, while the ethnic Kurds of the region may be approaching a decisive moment in their long struggle for self-determination. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1504/thumbnail.jpg

On 25th September 2017, the eligible voters of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq were given the opportunity to respond 'yes' or 'no' to the question, posed in Kurdish, Turkmen, Arabic and Assyrian: "Do you want the Kurdistan Region and the Kurdistani areas outside the administration of the Region to become an independent state?" The aim of this note is to give an empirically focussed account of the independence referendum. The note has been written by four members of a delegation which spent one week in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) with the purpose of observing the referendum. The key point that we draw from these observations is that the referendum and associated aspiration for independence, which potentially could have unified the different political factions in the KRI, has in fact cruelly exposed divisions.

Flockhart, T.: Visions and decisions: a new security order. - S. 1-21. Flockhart, T.: Implementation: an overlooked aspect of foreign policy. - S. 23-41. Borawski, J.: The OSCE: implementing democratic stability. - S. 43-57. Salmon, T. C.: The EU and CFSP: gaps between intentions and outcomes. - S. 59-78. Joergensen, K. E.: The WEU. - S. 79-93. Park, B.: NATO, NACC and PfP: architect, builder, building and customer. - S. 95-111. Wallace, W. V.: The EBRD: towads economic security. - S. 113-121. Waddan, A.: The United States and Europe. - S. 123-139. Kennedy-Pipe, C.: Russia and Europe. - S. 141-160. MacQueen, N.: The UN and Europe. - S. 161-180. Flockhart, T. ; Waever, O.: Implemented vision - envisioned reality? - S. 181-206