Article 140: From constitutional guarantee to the trap of political bureaucracy

Article 140: From constitutional guarantee to the trap of political bureaucracy

2026-06-08

Badr Ismail Cherokee
Let us close our eyes for a moment and recall the world five hundred years ago, when there were no strict borders on the globe, and religions decided who declared war on whom, or which nation lived with another in peace and security.

But the world later began to suffer from the tyranny of kings and monotheistic religions, and grew weary and bored. So it was decided to draw lines between the lands of nations and peoples, lines drawn under the name of borders. A definition of identity, love of country, and loyalty to it emerged from the womb of the great and bloody French Revolution, leading to the birth of the concepts of modern political and humanitarian institutions and organizations, and armed forces in the post-Sykes-Picot era. This agreement contributed to consigning the last empires and the religious authority of the Ottoman Turkish Empire to the archives of history, and the lands of its imperial influence—which belonged to other peoples and nations—were submerged in a sea of ​​colonial political decisions, constitutions, laws, and rules.

Since then, the Kurds have been caught in the vortex of that policy and forced to submit to those lines and designs. From that time until today, the Kurds and their cause are treated as if they are in a waiting room, without ever setting foot in the room for final signing.

The formulation and inclusion of Article 140 in the Iraqi Constitution to resolve the problems of the Kurdish regions outside the geography of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s administration, or the geography that came under the control and administration of the Kurdish Regional Government after the Iraqi uprising in 1991 as a fait accompli, may not have been seen by the Kurdish leadership and Kurdish diplomats as a legal trap.

But from the perspective of the political wings that adhere to strict centralism, and which inherited the bureaucratic mechanisms of the previous regime, that article was designed and established as the beginning of a certain path, in order to undermine the legitimacy of this geographical area and the Kurdish lands and its practical application, and to turn the whole issue into a routine of politics and crisis management, and to turn it from a closed file into mere texts and formulations of repeated demands, petitions and postponed promises.

Ultimately, with the passage of time, changes in ministerial formations, prime ministers, and general regional policies, the written and unwritten promises, in a conflict between strategy and political tactics, become a pending issue with no timeline or date. This issue, in itself, loses its vitality with the passage of time, the changing political circumstances, and the Kurds losing their winning cards, leaving this issue marginal and without impact.

While Article 140, from the beginning, was, in the view of the Kurds, merely a piece of land, a region, an environment, and a number of disputed cities, it was, from the beginning, for the currents of central influence in Baghdad, a weaving and knitting of a fabric for a unified central Iraq, the legitimate heir to the history of a century past, and it makes oil, geopolitics, depth of influence, the transformation of people and land into minorities, and the minimization of Kurdish power and rights in this article of the constitution an agenda to impose political and national hegemony.

Why does the map of the state shake in the minds of central decision-makers as soon as the disputed areas covered by Article 140 are mentioned?

The disputed areas were, historically and currently, geographically areas with a Kurdish majority. So why are they considered ethnic borders and sacred areas for the central government, while it sees them as political borders drawn with map rulers, while the Kurds defend their historical demographic and geographical extension that was baptized with sacrifices before and after the maps?

Even if the conflicting statements and strategic policies were to be taken into account, the disputed territories, in the visions, understandings, and plans of those in power in Iraq, are not seen as a meeting point for two harmonious cultures and geographies, or as citizens of one country. Rather, they are viewed as a strategic depth for the settler demographics of newcomers. Without regard for peaceful coexistence and the redrawing of the map of governmental administration based on the rights of all components and on national and religious pluralism in the new federal Iraq, these areas are instead being turned into an arena for imposing the hegemony of ethnicity, language, and geography against the Kurdish influence as a distinct people, land, and language.

Therefore, in such a psychological and political climate, Article 140 falls under the mercy of committees, investigations, and statistics, and constitutional terms become in need of new interpretations and explanations, so that files are archived and promises are erased from memory, and regional stability, economic security, and the sovereignty of the central state become strategic goals imposed by force. Article 140 will never have a chance to be implemented, because the rulers, without regard for the good and general interests of the Iraqis, are presenting the disputed areas to their street and masses as a fortress and shield to defend economic security and the hegemony of the Iraqi state. This is happening at a time when there are hundreds of square kilometers of barren, desolate Iraqi land that the state must develop and revive and make into another important part of the food basket and economic security of the country.

The rulers who seize the Kurds’ land and rights, turning them into gains and gifts for their own constituents and society, are oblivious to what history, spanning more than a century since the founding of Iraq, tells us: that these rulers have severing the friendship and brotherhood of the Kurds from the rest of the Iraqi people and offering them enmity. Therefore, in the new Iraq, the rulers of Baghdad must be a symbol of peaceful coexistence among all of Iraq’s components, not a symbol of geographical and security impediments, and an obstacle to coexistence and the well-being of the people of this country. As long as Article 140 remains mired in bureaucratic obstruction, the need has become urgent to devise new diplomatic tools that move the issue from the halls of postponed committees to the realm of comprehensive strategic understandings based on shared economic interests, citizenship, and pluralism.

shafaq.com