Erbil-Baghdad disputes: A cycle of missed opportunities and deep-seated divides

Shafaq News

28-07-2025

Shafaq News
For two decades, promising opportunities for cooperation between the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil have consistently been lost. A lack of unified vision and an accumulation of political crises have undermined efforts to build a stable and prosperous Iraq. This persistent deadlock has stifled national progress and deepened economic instability and political uncertainty for the Iraqi people.
The Unfulfilled Promise of the Constitution
The 2005 federal constitution, which recognized the Kurdistan Region as a federal entity, was seen as a landmark opportunity to shape a democratic, multi-ethnic Iraq. Yet Baghdad's centralizing approach and intra-Kurdish party rivalries hindered its full implementation. Rather than uniting the country, the constitution became a source of dispute and political leverage.
The 2017 Kurdish independence referendum, though a bold assertion of regional will, highlighted the limits of Iraq's federal system. While the vote did not alter Iraq's territorial integrity, it demonstrated to the KRG the importance of adhering to the constitution to preserve its existing gains, despite Baghdad's uneven commitment to its terms.
Post-ISIS Hopes and Economic Friction
Iraq's victory over ISIS offered another chance to promote national unity through shared sacrifice. However, lingering political and financial disagreements again took precedence, preventing the KRG from capitalizing on its role in the fight. The Kurdistan Region's diplomatic reach and economic potential—especially in tourism—positioned it as a possible success model within Iraq. But recurring tensions with Baghdad, compounded by fragmentation within Kurdish leadership, limited this potential.
One key flashpoint remains the obstruction of oil exports from the Kurdistan Region. Rather than fostering economic cooperation, it became a recurring source of tension, dragging both governments into repeated crises. The inability to jointly manage Iraq's most vital resource reflects a deeper institutional dysfunction.
Similarly, the Region's agricultural capacity—strong enough to position it as Iraq's breadbasket—has been undercut by federal policies, adding to the frustration in Erbil.
Legal Paralysis and Exploited Divides
Political analyst Khaled Waleed links these persistent disputes to political opportunism, legal ambiguity, and a lack of commitment to shared national goals. 'The relationship is part of the broader state of political, economic, and social instability that Iraq has been suffering from for more than two decades,' he told Shafaq News.
He warns that numerous problems afflicting the relationship are being exploited by political actors for narrow interests, ultimately harming citizens.
A key example is Article 140 of the constitution, whichlays down a clear road map to define the final boundaries of the territory to be administered by the KRG. Its neglect has instead intensified divisions.
Member of Parliament Aref Al-Hamami, from the Legal Committee, holds both Baghdad and Erbil accountable for failing to implement Article 140. He notes that other critical laws remain unfulfilled as well, including the budget law, its recent amendments, and legislation related to the transfer of non-oil revenues.
The Blame Game
Responsibility for the impasse remains hotly debated. Al-Hamami, a member of the State of Law Coalition led by Nouri al-Maliki, claims that 'the Kurdistan Region maneuvers and negotiates but does not implement. Therefore, the failure to hand over oil revenues is entirely the KRG's responsibility.' He adds that all agreements are essentially stalling tactics.
Others, however, point fingers at Baghdad. Kurdish political analyst Mohammed Zangana argues that the federal government is deliberately delaying progress by creating new obstacles concerning the Region's budget and employee salaries. 'While salaries for May were disbursed, those for June and July remain suspended pending decisions by a committee formed to resolve disputes, including on deductions and retiree rights.'
A Path Forward?
Without durable solutions rooted in enforceable legislation, the cycle of conflict is likely to continue. Waleed stresses that as Iraqis grow more politically aware, the ongoing stalemate benefits only those who profit from the power-sharing system—leaders who are increasingly facing public discontent in both Baghdad and Erbil.
He adds that meaningful solutions require a commitment to the national interest, one that reflects and benefits all segments of society and embraces an inclusive Iraqi identity.
Zangana concludes, 'The ball is now in the court of the federal government, which is delaying the resolution of these problems,' despite pressure and the Kurdistan Democratic Party's threats to withdraw from the political process.