Ethnic Rights Against Human Rights

Emadeddin Baghi
Published in Seda magazine, no 132, 7oct 2017(15مهر1396 ) p:6-10 editorial

Introduction:
I know that in a situation where the sphere is bipolar and some are so enthusiastic for liberation and independence; while others are so furious against disintegration and accordingly, the actions have become so emotional, argument will find no way; and anyone hearing anything against their will and aspirations, will hurt. Exactly like when we try to obtain the consent of the family of the murdered to avoid retaliation. As soon as the family of the victim finds that there is someone who is satisfied with less than vengeance, they got so angry and the path for dialogue becomes so bumpy and uneven. In such a situation, just those who are outside the cycle of victim and guilty may be able to judge a little more realistic or rational.
I know that in the context of the Third World politics, these kinds of human rights attitudes face enmity and insults, but indifference in such situations is tantamount to welcoming war. May be some say that Iraqi Kurdistan is none of our concern. Although from a human rights perspective, humanitarian issues, especially those relating to life and peace, are not bound to any borders and they are related to us, wherever they appear. But the fact is that the fate of Iraqi Kurdistan has a direct impact on our lives. Of course, the majority of the Kurdish people are not in accord with the recent acts in Iraqi Kurdistan Region, but certainly it is provocative and disturbing and it will definitely challenge the strong moderate currents of Kurdistan. Our criticism goes back to the designers of independence, rather than the noble Kurdish people. In Iran, too, some organizations pretending to be representative of People of Kurd launched war from 1979 to 1981, but eventually the very moderate Kurds overcome the separatists.
The issue of the referendum on Iraqi Kurdistan is worth discussing from different perspectives. Geographical debates such as how borders are defined in the region and how it is in the world, and how can one identify the boundaries of a people in a realm. Political debates such as the independent Iraqi Kurdistan, Is it Iran the second or Israel the second? And because of the Aryanism of the Kurds, it is for the benefit of Iran or not, all are political debates and, at the same time, valuable and practical, but less discussed are the legal aspects and less than that are the human rights aspects.
Even the political and geopolitical debates on Kurdistan is also a kind of human rights debate because of the great inflammation and the looming war it has created at a time when the region is in dire need of peace. In addition, the ISIS zombies continue taking lives and bleeding.

The context and cause of danger
Some topics are assumed by the author and I do not need to discuss them. For example, when the governments or the influential local media weaken national identity and its components, and by reducing the joyous spaces and equal opportunities for progress, they undermine attachment to the motherland, or when the governments do not care for the rights of the ethnic groups or oppress or discriminate against them, they are providing the ground for separatist or deconstructive movements and somehow they are the initiator of the crisis. But, apart from the widespread political debate on this issue, this action of the territory may not be regarded as justified and defensible, and for the reasons that will be counted, the governors of the territory are also responsible for the consequences and they cannot put all the blames on the neighboring country.

Human rights against separatism
1- The right to self-determination in human rights instruments: Defenders of the measure of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region attempt to regard the disintegration of Iraqi Kurdistan in accordance with the Charter of Human Rights, while their action is in conflict with the provisions of the Charter. The right of self-determination contained in human rights instruments has a definite definition, and the methods of obtaining it, is also stated. This right is not a unilateral right, and it is not in conflict with the territorial integrity of countries. If so, this charter was not able to last so far since the second half of the 20th century after surviving so many crises and conflicts.
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: "All nations have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Regardless of the fact that this clause is about mandated and colonized countries that were supposed to be taken decision over upon end of the World War II, not about the ethnicities within a territory. But even if we want to generalize it to the ethnicities within a territory, it talks of self-determination not independence. Moreover, it is stipulated to be without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.
Also: "According to the 1970 Declaration of the Principles of International Law on Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, the" right to self-determination "should not be a permit or incentive for any act that leads to the degradation or threat, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States».
Article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, concerning the rights of ethnic groups and racial and ethnic incitements, states: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. But in the last 27 years, the territory authorities not only have used their media to incite and exacerbate racial sentiments, but also they went too far by claiming for independence by virtue of being Kurds. Racism is discredited; whether it is Farsi, Kurdish, Turkish, or Balochi racism, etc., and it is in contradiction with human rights anyway. Justifying independence on the basis of ethnic and racial origin and by arguing that “we should have an independent state, since we are Kurds” is the very formation of states on the basis of racism. On the basis of this argument, today we should have had 4,0000 states in Africa, 3,000 states in India and even the republic of Dagestan, as a small part of the Russian Federation, should have been divided into 70 countries on the basis of language and ethnicity.
3. International law and international system convention, federalism or independence: An overview of the history of separatism and independence in the United States, Europe, Yugoslavia, Nigeria, Iran, the Soviet Union, and others, as well as the philosophy of formation of the United Nations alone, provides informative lessons.
In the United States, after the southern states decided to withdraw from the union of the united states and form a new union from southern states, Abraham Lincoln (who was elected president in 1860) ordered the army to defend the soil and integrity of the united states; the results of which was a 4-year war with the southern secessionists which was one of the most devastating wars of 19th century. In this way, federal government was retained in America and all states enjoyed sufficient powers, rights and authorities. The United States was consolidated as a single nation, ending forever the notion that a state would be able to leave the union and it was added to the constitution as an amendment to the constitution. Certainly, we would have had another world today if Lincoln had not taken that decision or had not won the war, considering the role that America played in the future especially in the World Wars I and II which prevented the domination of the Nazis and Fascists over the world.
In Europe of the 18th and 19th centuries, separatism and racism created terrible violence and bloodshed, and World War I and II were the continuation and results thereof. The same Europe in the twentieth century moved towards unity and brought about progress and civilization. Today separatism outside the UN framework is in contradiction with the convergence and with the philosophy of the United Nations. Therefore, even in developed societies, it is not the case that Barzani conducted. In Scotland, a referendum was held in agreement with the British government, and no foreign hand or conspiracy intervened in the referendum, while in Catalonia, where the referendum was held unilaterally and without any coordination with the central government, it was faced with the severe reaction of the central government.
Separation from a country requires a legal mechanism, an internal and international agreement, and it is impossible to unilaterally conduct a referendum and independence. Despite the fact that the US government, which is usually politically motivated, holds amicable relations with both sides (central government in Iraq and the territory) of the conflict, inevitably took a legal stance in this case and called it a unilateral act.
Now, I will focus on the human rights perspective and do not deal with how much this type of separatism has bring about bloodshed in Nigeria, Yugoslavia and even in our own country for the separatism during the post-constitutional era as well as during the post revolution era of 1979-1981 in Kurdistan and Khouzestan in early years of the revolution. My concern is human lives. Only with this criterion is that I assess the correctness or incorrectness of the decisions. Any decision leading to violence and suffering of humans, killing and war is deemed false, even if it is based on rational reasons.
I have always been defender of federalism in the administration of multi-ethnic countries and I have expressed this in several writings, but federalism is something other than separatism, independence and formation of an independent state. Independence provides the background for war and it triggers the waves of blind and negative nationalism in the regions. It is even dangerous for the world. In many countries of the world, such as California, US, Quebec, Canada, Chechnya, Russia, Crimea, Ukraine, Tibet, China, Taiwan, China, Kashmir, India, Baluchistan, Pakistan, Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan, as well as some regions in Africa and Europe are seeking independence and are facing international legal barriers. Actions, like what happened in Iraqi Kurdistan, could activate all these faults. Let's not forget that the First World War spark was an ethnic and separatist struggle between Austria and Serbia.
In our time, relying on racial and ethnic characteristics as the basis for formation of nations, ruins international system. When it is possible for different regions to gain some degree of independence within the national framework without wars, violence, fears and losses arising from independence, why is the independence strategy pursued?
4. The conflict between ethnic and human rights: Ethnic rights are one of the components of human rights. The right of self-determination is from among natural and inherent rights of mankind, but is it acceptable to endanger more fundamental or critical human rights due to them? If the very principle of life of human being is in danger of degeneration, basically, there shall remain no issue for human rights, ethnic rights and self-determination right. One cannot, without regard to the realities, launch a war and destroy other human rights just by virtue of one human right. Human rights are a whole unit, and as it is not discriminatory, accepting some while denying others, it should be treated in such a way that they are all respected. Even under Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in interpreting the material of the Declaration of Human Rights: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. In clause C of article 29, it states: These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
5. National interests, territorial unity and human rights: The issue of ethnic rights and territorial unity is clear in international and human rights documents, but it is obvious that there is no place for national interests amid separatist sentiments. Some of the supports originates more from their disdain towards their concerned state and is due to their obstinacy with the central government than their enthusiast towards independence of Iraqi Kurdistan. This kind of positioning is of displaced aggression type in psychoanalysis: Transfer of feelings or anger from one threatening person or thing which is inaccessible to a more secure person or thing. It lacks any legal, human rights or behavioral aspects and it is contrary to national interests and human rights. But there is no reason that some Iranian politicians will react on Iraqi Kurdistan so that it is a reaction to or a function of their internal dissatisfaction.
Ayatollah Sistani says that after the ISIS's defeat, the Kurdish referendum is another distress for Iraq. Sistani, known for his moderation, is the one who warned the prime minister al-Maliki to hear the frustration of the Sunni brethren, two years before the rise of ISIS and it was Maliki's disregard for this warning which provided the ground for the establishment of ISIS. Sistani, who is today the anchor of Iraq's equilibrium, has urged the Iraqi government and the territory to return to the constitution. Why do not they take him as a criterion, and they are constantly talking about the behavior of Turkey and Iran? Let's not forget that Erbil was in the hands of ISIS if it was not for Iran’s sake. Erbil was saved by the blood of Iranians and Iraqis.
6- Human rights fallacy: They may commit the fallacy that if the opposition of the governments and regional powers leads to a retreat in defense of the right to self-determination, such retreat should also be made with the same logic in autocratic countries due to the opposition of the governments with the right of freedom and the danger of taking lives and freedom. But this analogy is an irrelevant analogy, because:
One: The subject of human rights and freedoms is the "individual" and the issue of independence is the "national and social unit".
Two: We do not say that ethnicities forget their rights, but we say that they pursue their rights while observing the rights of others, security and lives of people; so that it may not require violence, provocation and war.
Three: It is due to the very priority of right to life over other rights that we also oppose with the acts of terrorism against authoritarian governments.
Four: In human rights also, the axiom is insistence on human rights with simultaneous negotiation even with autocratic governments as well as non-violence. Even the very human rights instruments have accepted realism, flexibility. Observing gradual change and the usual practice of human rights institutes is also based on the principle of encouragement for improvement, negotiation, civil pressure and gradual reform.
Five: Are the territory authorities themselves doing this in practice?
Six: Is there the demon, on the one side, and the angel, on the other side, as if there is no power greed whatsoever on the side of the referendum organizers?
The flag of Israel and the official announcement of Saudi Arabia to take the war to the borders of Iran and Turkey and the intentions of the territory authorities against the central government, etc., is not a different part of reality? Why, by ignoring such facts, they want to consider the referendum as a pure act of human rights originating from self-determination rights and they regard any opposition to it as an absolute political act?
7. Right to separate countries: The fact that they say that all ethnic groups have the right to separate themselves is right in itself, but it belongs to the paradigm of the outdated era when what retained a territory or power was mere might; each state was able to retain its integrity as long as it had might; and as soon as it lost its power, the people who had found opportunity of authority in the power balance, would rise. This right was enforced by force, but since the United Nations and signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenants, there is a basis for power and territory which is agreement and treaty, aiming at preventing the repetition of the international chaos of the first and second world wars. In this era, it's not so that any new-comer ethnic group claim that it wants to be separated for self-determination right. It must be within the framework of international treaties and it is not a unilateral act.
8. Natural state and civil status: Philosophers like Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau differentiate between natural and real states. The natural state is the state in which humans are free and there is no state and power and compulsion other than nature over them and in the natural state of living, making decisions on place of living is free and based on natural right, but in civil and current real circumstances, various factors interfere with the affairs. In civil status, everything must be based on negotiation, dialogue, contract, agreement, and consent; otherwise; wars will break. The decision to separate by virtue of the rights of natural state in conditions where unnatural, political and ambitious factors are interwoven with the interests of the foreign powers and arms cartels is ,in fact, kind of seduction.
9. Policy and Rights: Wherever the hidden hands of politics come in, the mere talk of rights is being turned into anti-rights and anti- human rights. The regional governments of whatever nature may be, democratic or non-democratic, there is no doubt that foreign policies as well as security agencies have dreams for the region and they cannot be ignored or acquitted and just the regional governments should be blamed. Still, if we concur and condemn the opposition of regional governments to the Kurdish referendum, is it still justifier of the action which brings fire and blood? Did not the very Iranian and Turkish governments have good relations with Iraqi Kurdistan Region during these 27 past years of their independence? Why are territory presidents pushing the same governments to the brink of military confrontation?
When officially the scenario of the breakup of Iran comes from foreign powers (not from the people and ethnic groups of Iran) and a minority of these people get along with them in some particular ways, and, of course, ethnic repressions, discrimination and human rights violations fuel the situation, when a summit is convened in United States with the presence of security officials, Abdul Malik Rigi and some separationists from other areas and they recklessly released the news of such conference; when the dead president of Azerbaijan, Aliyev, says "Our long-term plan should be separation of Azerbaijan from Iran" and Israel supports him, when Saudi Arabia says we are going to take the battle to Iran while the region is sunk in war, when the Democratic Party of Iran's Kurdistan has announced not a civil campaign, but an armed struggle against the state and is present in Iraqi Kurdistan and is under support and .... Is it possible, in such a situation, to suddenly become an idealist and ignore all these facts and speak romantically about ethnic rights?
10. The bugbear of Israel: With full knowledge over the regional conflicts and Israel positions, they raise the flag of Israel, prostrate on it, kiss its David Star, and circulate its images in the world and scare Iran from neighboring Israel; then they object why Iran opposes the independence of Kurdistan and relate the positions of the Iranians to Israeli-phobia.
Without any belief to the correctness of the positions and attitudes of the Iranian government, I have repeatedly expressed it over the past years, but it is obvious that the very international human rights organizations that oppose the Iranian government, consider the Israel state racist and violator of human rights. The obvious support of this government for the break-up of Kurdistan and the support of the autocratic and backward Saudi state for the referendum are ignored with the purpose of warring around Iran and Turkey, and the opposition of some other states to the referendum are regarded merely as a political act opposed to the right to self-determination. Is not this a biased and wicked act?
I have always been opposed to the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially its regional policies, which even Rohani administration, with all its endeavors and proficiency, has not yet managed to escape from its whirlpool. But those who say opposition to Kurdistan's independence is reliant on Israel-phobia, they themselves have ignored Iran-phobia of Israel and have fallen into its dipole trap. Why do they justify the vital issue of the region with this dipole? Is any opposition to Israel, in fact, agreement with Iran's policies? Noam Chomsky, an American intellectual, is the author of the most important book against Israel and also opposes to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Hundreds of other intellectuals in the world, while criticizing Iran, oppose Israel and question its legitimacy. But, in my opinion, I consider the position of the international human rights institutions have the authority. International human rights organizations, and at their top, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemn Israel for many years for violating human rights and racism. How can one defend Israel by claiming human rights opposition with a state? And how can one regard opposition to separatism of the territory as Israel-phobia?
11. Greater Iran or Negation of Ethnicity: In addition, Barzani has said: "We are looking for negotiation and dialogue. I repeat, time and again, that the independence we seek is for the Kurds of Iraq and we are not seeking to interfere with the affairs of neighboring countries. "Some point to cultural issues and conclude that Iranian should not worry because the Kurds would not leave the motherland of Iran. Or they say that the independence of the Iraqi Kurdistan has nothing to do with Iran and it is not a threat to it, and because the race of Kurds is Iranians, there is no worry for formation of Greater Kurdistan. These words which have an apparent Iranianism position and are a cover for defending the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan has the function of lullaby for putting the oppositions to sleep, because the territory representative in a discussion panel on BBC Persian on September 28, 2017 said:" The four neighboring country should be concerned, too, because each of the four have occupied part of the Kurdistan”. Our separation from Iraq will not be based on war, but we will go the same way as Czech and Slovakia. "Even if Iran and Turkey want to confront us, the stronger countries of the world are with us”.
The speaker of this statement is one of the Barzani’s commanders who escaped ISIS. Over 5,000 Yazidi women were captured by ISIS and were sold as sex slaves and many men and children were destroyed due to fled of the Iraqi Kurdistan Democrat Party from ISIS in Shingal.
But the discussion of the greater Iran and the Aryan race of the Kurds and posing no threat by it for Iran has, in fact, a racist inside. Surprisingly, some resort to this type of arguments from the position of an intellectual and human rights activist. The issue is, " Is it desirable from a human rights perspective (political view), even if it is to the benefit of Iran in the long-run? The claim that the independence of Kurdistan poses no threat for our motherland suggests that we will agree with the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan if it is not harmful to us, albeit it is to the expense of the security and the interests of our neighbors. Regardless of its flaws in terms of strategic politics, these types of arguments are the prelude to separatism in other regions, and, by negating the equality of other ethnic groups; they persuade them to repeat the pattern of independence (not administrative federalism) that will be encountered with the support of Iran's neighbors. Moreover, this claim is unfounded because the history of contemporary Iran has experienced the same experience three times.
It seems as if everyone has forgotten that we have had a crisis of bloodshed and separatism not in our ancient history, but it was just the same yesterday. Over the past 200 years, how many times have we experienced the crisis of independence and separatism? Once 200 years ago, Caucasus, Armenia, the eastern provinces of Georgia, Yerevan and Nakhichevan were separated from Iran by the plots and crimes of the Russians. Once in 1920-1921, we have confronted with the declaration of the Republic of Guilan and in 1940s (1941-1951), the breakdown of Kurdistan and Azerbaijan, and the declaration of the republic state and the consequent bloodshed. Once again in 1978-1980 which we have confronted it which led to thousands of losses. Why should not be afraid of it? In particular, the result of such crises was consolidation of despotism which pushed back Iran which was at the beginning of its progress. Why, when we know, this bitter and bloody experience is repeated a few times and we can repeat it again, while there are other solutions that protect both ethnic and human rights, and federalism is one of those ways.
But the human rights aspect of the issue is that, in addition to insulting and humiliating other ethnic groups, it leads to a rise in negative and violent nationalism. Experience has also shown that after the great constitutional movement, Reza Khan emerged out of those separationisms. That is why this process can repeat the bitter events and the rise of the most violent type of tyranny. Moderate Kurds should not allow a pretext for the growth of oppression and tyranny arise.
12. Use of democracy against human rights: Territory officials have made a referendum to legitimize their independence. Regardless of the fact that this referendum should be in accordance with the constitution of the government whose president is from Iraqi Kurdistan Region and it must be with local and national agreement. In principle, the fact that in some countries democracy is restricted to elections has become a source of disaster. The tyrants and criminals legitimize their domination and power by holding elections. If the mere democracy reduced to elections is the criterion, it is not far off for the Taliban to win the elections in Afghanistan upon holding free elections. In other countries, including Egypt, the enemies of human rights have risen by the popular vote. The precondition of democracy is human rights. At the very least, these two are interdependent and to the extent that human rights progresses in a society, its democracy is more authentic. I do not say this today to be accused of justifying opposition to the referendum on the Kurdish territory, but I have also said it so many years ago (for example, see my interviews with Aseman daily and Pool Press). What is the position of human rights in Iraqi Kurdistan with this criterion? I have nothing to do with the claiming that referendum is a tool to cover up the widespread corruption that territory authorities have repeatedly acknowledged, as well as the widespread dissatisfaction with the territory. The very fact that Mr. Barzani has been in power for a quarter of the century, there is no free movement of elites, and, the fact that he dissolves the parliament of Kurdistan before the referendum, and not allows the parliamentary speaker of the Gorran (Change) Movement to take presence in Erbil and the local assembly, and the fact that whose terms of office is over, but Barzani is still the head of the territory while not supported by law, are big signs of undesirable human rights situation. How do Kurdish delegates hold a Kurdish referendum when parliament is closed? A week before the elections, the parliament was opened without allowing the Parliamentary Speaker to come to the parliament, and representatives of the two main spheres, Barzani and Talabani, voted for a referendum. Also, the civil war between the two main parties of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdistan Democratic Party (PDK) with thousands of Kurds killed, missing, tortured and live burial, a large number of mass protests that were answered by bullets, and others were killed and wounded as well as the pervasive corruption are exemplary human rights abuses. Civil and political activists in Iraqi Kurdistan complain about the harsh security and military influence. Nawshirwan Mustafa, leader of the Change Movement, and deputy chairman of Jalal Talabani, said: "The one-party system is dominant in Iraqi Kurdistan, and there is no pluralism, and there is discrimination between partisan and non-partisan citizens. He spoke of the use of influence and threats in the elections (Goft-o-Gu Quarterly, Special Issue for Iraqi Kurdistan, No. 58, August 2011). Soran Omar, member of the Provisional Council of Meidan, says that political prisoners are not revealed to the Red Cross (Goft-o-Gu Quarterly, No. 58). Therefore, it was better to advance efforts to improve the human rights situation before independence, in order to be a model not only for the Kurdish regions but for the whole region.
13. The price of independence: They say that the territory referendum has been against the Constitution and there are serious legal impediments. But now, I want to assume that all of these statements are false and all reasons of the Barzani's are correct, but independence for what expense? Here is one of the most challenging human rights issues. If the achievement of independence at all cost is authorized, many of the killings and genocides of human history are justified and, as much as Iraqi Kurdistan finds itself entitled to it, the invaders also consider themselves entitled to it. If Independence, with all its value, is in conflict with human lives and leads to genocide and mass murder, it is subordinate to human life. Although both sides of killings are guilty, but it is obvious that the one who is the initiator is more sinful; and in the issue of the territory, undoubtedly, the Kurdistan territory is the starter, because they have been independent for 27 years and now this question arises as to what happened that suddenly the idea of formalizing it in this grave situation of the region has occurred to them. If they claim that the central government have not had observed their rights, the solution would have been to refer to the Supreme Constitutional Court, and this is what the Region authorities never did.
We, human rights advocates, work studiously for months and years so that we may be able to save one person from execution, but sometimes a political official my make a decision that will bring hundreds and thousands of killings on the hands of the nations. Are we allowed to make a decision while we are absolutely certain that it will lead to bleeding in the current turbulent situation of the region? You might say that it is neighboring governments which must be protested who oppose independence; but everyone is aware that the only Kurds who have enjoyed independence for 27 years and have their own army, economics, administration and parliament are Iraqi Kurds; they have good relations with the same governments (Iran and Turkey) until recently, but having practical autonomy and separatism lacks any legal legitimacy.
14. Ethnic oppression and centrifugal force: There is no doubt in the fact that one of the most important reasons for divergence in the region is despotism which strengthens the centrifugal force which appears in different forms from migration waves and brain drain to separatism. It is exactly due to this opposite situation in Europe, once entangled with the divergence of 18th, 19th and the first half of the 20th century, that Europe of today is much stronger in convergence because of its democratic structure and it suffers no brain drain but it attracts the brains. So, when the Kurds speak of ethnic oppress ions, it is a righteous thing they say, but the wrong result is intended, because" Have only the Kurds been under oppressions?" In the last 100 years, have authoritarian governments only oppressed the Kurds? Haven't the people of Baghdad, Basra, Tehran, Isfahan and Azerbaijan undergone oppression? Take a look at the history of Iran and Iraq. Did Saddam just oppress the Kurds and stroke the people of Baghdad? How many of the people residing in the center were in Saddam Hussein's prisons and.... Should today Baghdad, with the same logic, declare independence from the central government? With this logic, there should be armed rising in the center of the country, which means justifying violence and repeating the terrible revolutionary experiences and negation of nonviolent struggle. Ethnical oppression is thought to be just a cover and a justification for humanizing the issue.
This is a dangerous practice in personal and family life; too, that people justify their bad work based on confrontation with another bad work, in this way, evil never ends because evil itself acts as a justifier of other evils.
Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reads: "Everyone can accept any nationality, and nobody can be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality or denied the right to change their nationality." This holds true about Kosovo and Bosnia, where ethnic groups were suppressed, while the Iraqi government, notwithstanding some criticism of its sectarian behaviors, not only did not deny the Kurdish nationality of the Kurds and the Kurds were independent in all aspects, the central government of Iraq was not able even to fire or employ a junior clerk. No one was aware of the fate of the oil revenues, and the Iraqi government did not even have an official on the borders of the region with Iran and Turkey, notwithstanding the Iraqi Kurdistan's Region contributed to the power of the central government. One of the Kurdish characters says that the president, several ministers, vice presidents, chief of army staff, several commanders of the army, commander of the air force and commander of the intelligence organization all are Kurds. Today Baghdad is not the former Baghdad, and we have a sense of partnership towards it, not hostility. So great danger has been eliminated from Kurdistan (Nawshirwan Mustafa, Special Issue of Goft-o-Gu Quarterly on the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, No. 58)
15. Controversial Argument: The independence of Iraqi Kurdistan from a human rights perspective is defendable neither through positive logic nor through controversial logic. I have so far talked from a political, legal and human rights instruments point of view. Now, considering the fact that our main cause is human lives and the threat that threatens them, I concur with the separatists, and in the most radical terms, I say that the three neighboring countries are bully. Does intellect and conscience allow us to kill our people in a situation of imbalance of power? Which one is crazy? The one who endangers himself against a blind drunk or the blind drunk one?
This is what is also known by the Region authorities, too. In an interview with the Turkish newspaper, Nichervan Barzani, PM Kurdistan Region, said that we do not want the independence that leads to war (IRNA). But why did they do that?

Post Script
Finally, according to the forgoing debates, the least is that it is a suspicious move, and it is not as clear and civil as the decision of Scotland which arose no concerns.
Now, any action by any government, entity or person that exacerbates inflammation, insecurity, risk and violence in the region is an act of inhumanity.
In the human rights logic, war and any other action that paves the ground for war is forbidden as long as there is the least hope for negotiation. Even for the sake of the suffered Kurd people, the Kurdish region officials should return to the constitution of Iraq as soon as possible, and pursue negotiations within the framework of Iraq and follow the principle of regional and global convergence as well as the realization of federalism, and think of nothing else except the lives of the human beings and their security and comfort.

Reference:
Ehsan Houshmand's Interview with Nawshirwan Mustafa, The Special Issue of Goft-o-Gu Quarterly on Iraqi Kurdistan Region, No. 58, August 2011.
http://www.ehsanhoushmand.info/fa/noshirvan_mostafa/
Interview of Ehsan Houshmand with Soran Omar, The Special Issue of Goft-o-Gu Quarterly on Iraqi Kurdistan Region, No. 58, August 2011, “They do not Show Political Prisoners even to the Red Cross".
http://www.ehsanhoushmand.info/fa/soran_omar_political_prisoners/
Interview of Ehsan Houshmand with Qadir Aziz, The Special Issue of Goft-o-Gu Quarterly on Iraqi Kurdistan Region, No. 58, August 2011," Protest Plan belongs to the people". Qadir Aziz is the president of the Independent Workers' Party of Kurdistan in Iraq. His party has supported recent protests in Iraqi Kurdistan.
http://www.ehsanhoushmand.info/fa/qader_aziz/
Emadeddin Baghi in an exclusive interview with Poolpress: The only way to secure rights of ethnic groups is to strengthen civil institutions.
http://yolpress.ir/?p=4739
http://www.emadbaghi.com/archives/001344.php
Baghi, Interview with the Sky Magazine on the Draft of the Charter of Citizens' Rights, Weekly Magazine of the Sky, No. 67 Saturday, Dec. 07, 2013. P. 64-70
http://127.0.0.1:8580/do/Qaak/tooLNhvfwGPQRLxjh/v2xzAcN3/001265.php#more