What are the consequences of regional autonomy on regional ethnic group conflict? This project uses data from interviews with ethnic minorities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and data on regional ethnic group conflict in regional units around the world to examine the consequences of regional autonomy on ethnic conflict at the regional level. Regional autonomy is viewed as one solution to ethnic conflict without consideration for how regional autonomy impacts regional minority groups. This overlook in research is not surprising given that scholars and policymakers assume mistakenly that ethnically-concentrated regions are homogenous. The Kurdistan Region of Iraq is widely viewed as a mostly ethnic Kurdish region when in fact it is internally diverse and comprises of different ethnic groups like Assyrians, Yezidis, Turkmen, and Arabs. Regional autonomy to the Kurdish majority shaped the political status and strategies of other ethnic minorities within the region. Ethnic minorities within the region are powerless when it comes to shaping legislation or influencing policy because they are excluded from regional government and are unable to secure a majority of support for policy recommendations. Exclusion of ethnic minorities from regional governance has led to some ethnic members aligning with the Kurdish Regional Government in order to secure resources from the state and other ethnic members protesting the regional government for stronger responsiveness to regional minorities. The consequences of regional ethnic power imbalances may create challenges to peaceful governance between regional ethnic groups that may threaten the stability of the regional and national system.

Coloniality is predominantly linked with or defined in relation to Europe in the Middle East; specifically, the nineteenth century European military advances into areas ruled by Mughal, Ottoman and Qajar empires. Like many postcolonial states in western Asia, the story of Iraq as a nation-state begins with the British mandate and the drawing of borders which divided Assyrian territory between the newly constructed modern states of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. In the case of Iraq, the arbitrary carving of this territory rendered the Assyrians a minority within an Arab majority state with a sizable Kurdish “minority.” The globalization of the Westphalian state system ushered in a new world where states were territorial enclosures of one nation. Consequently, the history of Iraq (pre-2003) is one of Arab nationalism with a Kurdish “problem,” both of which manifested in the erasure and appropriation of Assyrian heritage and land. In post-2003 Iraq, we see continuities of this pattern, even under the auspices of “democratic nation-building.” Locating the dispossession of Assyrians within modern state-making practices which have resulted in the dispossession of Indigenous peoples globally in the construction of homogenous states, this paper is concerned with the interplay between nationalist narratives and the legal-political possibilities imagined from such narratives in modern Iraq. Specifically, this paper shows the continuities in the dispossession and erasure of Assyrians whereby Arabs claim Mesopotamian history as Iraqi and Kurds in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) claim Mesopotamian history as Kurdish in their attempts to build an Iraqi/Kurdish state(s). I use the 2005 Iraqi Constitution and the Kurdish Constitution Writing Committee as mechanisms with which Assyrians are denied recognition as Indigenous and as a nation, which in turn, denies them their rights to self-determination and self-governance. I argue post-2003 Iraq’s power-sharing model, which insists on “equality” between ethnic groups to build the state has, in reality, produced disastrous economic, political, and cultural consequences for Assyrians that are akin to nation-destroying.

The ongoing violence against minorities in Iraq poses many challenges to the multi-ethnic foundation of Iraqi society. In particular, the systematic targeting of minority communities presents a serious threat to the existence of the indigenous people, the Assyrians, as they are at risk of extinction. However, their identity as indigenous presents an interesting area of inquiry since they are often recognized as ethnic-religious minority instead of indigenous. This comparison between their status as minorities or indigenous provides a valuable opportunity to examine the uses and limits of the discourse of human rights, and the benefits and drawbacks of utilizing a minorities or indigenous political rights framework. In doing this, this paper provides a comparison between the human rights approaches to explore the thoughtful ways in which the indigenous rights regime compels fruitful understandings and solutions for assessing the Assyrian case. The paper seeks to answer the following question: how does a community such as the Assyrians benefit from using an indigenous rights framework rather than a minority rights one to attain their political rights? I seek to answer this by first theoretically analyzing the relations between disenfranchised minority and indigenous groups, respectively, and the state. Secondly, this will be juxtaposed with post-2003 Assyrians’ acts of resistance and movements, examining their continued plight for indigenous recognition in Iraq and internationally, to highlight the importance of the indigenous rights regime for securing and safeguarding their rights as the native inhabitants of Northern Iraq. This will be essential in analyzing the myriad ways in which the internationalization of indigenous rights challenges the international norms of human rights with their recognition of collective rights.

The ‘global promise of federalism’ is a deeply contested matter in the field of federalism studies. Instances of federal success and failure in global north and global south countries provide the empirical foundation to understand instances where federalism leads to stability in a country or fuels instability resulting in secession, or worse. This literature falls under the paradox of federalism subfield within federalism studies. Iraq features prominently as an ongoing case in the paradox of federalism literature. Studying Iraq in this discipline entwines scholars and policymakers alike seeking to understand whether Iraq is failing or succeeding and the causal factors driving either outcome. Assyrians and similarly vulnerable groups such as Yezidis are effectively absent in both the scholarly and policy studies looking to see whether federalism promises to remake or unmake Iraq. Research focusing on contestation over the Nineveh Plain in Iraq reveals a realm of various forms of conflict that confirm the weak foundations of Iraq’s federal bargain. Careful study of populations such as Iraq’s indigenous Assyrians, who lack a ‘violence veto’ as a tool for political contestation, allows scholars and policymakers alike to appreciate the conditions driving forms of violence that are more likely to unmake Iraq. Expanding the scope of research on federalism’s promise in Iraq cannot ignore evidence gained from studying the indigenous Assyrians given the near decimation of the Assyrian population in Iraq, escalating forms of contestation over the Nineveh Plain, and the worsening conditions facing the peoples seeking to make that territory a province.