The Kurdish Civil War and Peace Negotiations, 1994–1998

Salih, Dana Ali; Hama, Hawre Hasan

doi:10.1177/00219096211062470

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The civil war between the PUK and KDP ended with the Washington Agreement of 1998. Pursuant to United Nations Resolution 688, economic sanctions against Iraq eased, allowing much-needed goods to enter the Kurdish region (Salih and Hama, 2021). In the early 2000s, the United States increasingly sought to make a case for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of the Ba'athist regime.…”

Section: Memory Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

Memory and trauma in the Kurdistan genocide

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Memory and trauma are often considered to be interconnected social phenomena. Collective memory exists in every society, but when a particularly catastrophic event occurs, it leaves an impact on behavior, and enduring memories of a cultural trauma. This paper considers the changing social meanings of the Anfal, an act of genocide which occurred in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988, and inquires whether the legacy of the Anfal can be most accurately characterized as a social memory or a cultural trauma. The paper uses a mixed methodology of historical research and a recent survey carried out among young people in Iraqi Kurdistan.

show abstract

Section: Memory Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

Memory and trauma in the Kurdistan genocide

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two parties fought a civil war between 1994 and 1997 over election results, power sharing and resource competition (Natali, 2010). In 1998, a US brokered accord ended hostilities and allowed for the creation of two separate governments: one in Erbil under the KDP and another in Sulaymaniyah under the PUK (Salih & Hama, 2023). After years of fighting, disagreements and territorial division, the KDP and PUK signed a Strategic Agreement in 2006 to merge their two separate administrations and observe parity in the distribution of government posts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Civil disobedience and lawfare: Protest movement and contentious politics in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Fazil,

Connelly

2023

Studies Ethnicity & National

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the US‐led invasion of Iraq, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) appeared to be on a path toward consolidation of liberal democracy. While the rest of Iraq drifted into chaos and civil war, the KRI remained quiescent and was for many years hailed by outsiders as: “a beacon of hope”, “an oasis of stability and democracy”. The region adopted the principles of press freedoms, religious tolerance, and good governance to conform with United States (US) and western incentives. The adoption of procedural democracy, however, concealed an underlying system of rigid social regulation based on a two‐party power sharing agreement that resisted democratization while appropriating its parlance and institutional structures. The government's resistance to liberalization along with its lack of resilience to political and economic shocks promoted popular disillusionment with the Kurdish nation‐building project with the region's dominant political parties at the center. In response, the ruling parties have sought to exert influence through alternatives to the democratic process that reinforce partisan rule. This article argues that economic crisis and austerity have precipitated the expansion in the scope of dissent and hastened the demise of the power sharing arrangement in the KRI. The ruling political parties have since employed a variety of undemocratic means to manage popular grievances. However, these responses do not address significant public concerns regarding freedom of expression, unemployment, and governance issues.

show abstract

Are Democrats or Republicans better for the Iraqi Kurds?

Hama

2024

World Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This piece offers an introduction to US foreign policy toward the Iraqi Kurds since the First World War by dividing that policy into seven discernible stages—from Wilson's Fourteen Points to the actions of the Trump administration. In doing so, I query whether the existence of US foreign policy toward the Kurds has been more active and supportive during Democratic Party administrations or Republican Party administrations. Are there any clear indications as to which party has been better for the Iraqi Kurds? Or is US foreign policy toward the Iraqi Kurds unequivocally dependent on regional dynamics and US interests, not on which political party is governing or the values they espouse? The central argument is that American policy toward the Iraqi Kurds has mostly been dependent on changing regional dynamics, particularly on the changing nature of the United States relationships with Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria, and this does not seem to be affected strongly by which US party holds the presidency. Perhaps counter‐intuitively, there is no evidence to suggest the Democrats have been better for the Iraqi Kurds than the Republicans. While some of the most significant setbacks for the Kurds occurred during Republican administrations, their two most essential political achievements were also during Republican administrations.

show abstract

The Kurdish Civil War and Peace Negotiations, 1994–1998

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

Memory and trauma in the Kurdistan genocide

Memory and trauma in the Kurdistan genocide

Civil disobedience and lawfare: Protest movement and contentious politics in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Are Democrats or Republicans better for the Iraqi Kurds?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About