Sovereignty and National Interest

From the book (Iraq’s Sovereignty Crisis), published by Al-Alamein Publishing Center in 2021
Dr. Youssef Muhammad Sadiq
His Excellency Dr. Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, and dear colleagues in the Department of Political Science at Al-Alamein Institute for Graduate Studies and Al-Muwatin Newspaper, we thank you for this initiative and research project on the concept of sovereignty. We hope that the project will open the door to a comprehensive discussion of a shared understanding of national sovereignty based on the national and shared interests of all segments of the Iraqi people. As requested, we will focus on the third axis, which is devoted to the relationship between the concept of sovereignty and its forms in relation to achieving national interests.
We must reflect more deeply on the concept of sovereignty to begin to understand the relationship between sovereignty and national interest. There are two types of sovereignty at the theoretical level: Negative sovereignty and positive sovereignty. This classification is based on political sociologist Isaiah Berlin’s classification of freedom into two types: negative freedom and positive freedom. According to Berlin, negative sovereignty means that the state is sovereign over its own entity, not subject to the authority, influence, or pressure of any other state or power. Therefore, negative sovereignty is the non-interference of any other international actor in the internal affairs of the state, and the state is sovereign over all its powers and territory.
However, positive sovereignty is the possession of the ability, awareness, and appropriate tools to exercise its sovereignty. Therefore, sovereignty is not achieved merely through the absence of interference from others; rather, the state must be able to exercise its sovereignty in order to be sovereign. These capabilities are not only internal; they can also be external, such as the ability to conclude agreements, alliances, and contracts with other countries and the international community. At the same time, for a state to enjoy positive sovereignty, it must have a responsible government and a productive citizenry. Therefore, sovereignty is not only a legal right, but also a political advantage. This means that it has social, economic, technological, and psychological dimensions, as well as other tools that provide the state with the ability to govern internally and externally. There is a close connection between negative and positive sovereignty. For a state to prevent any interference in its internal affairs, it must be able to prevent such interference. Hence, we find the close connection between sovereignty and national interest. National interest refers to all interests that serve the nation and/or the interests of the country’s citizens, without discrimination or distinction. This is manifested in the existence of a free and strong economic system, a national and professional military system that provides security, and good governance. This enables the state to enjoy positive sovereignty, which ultimately results in negative sovereignty as well. Therefore, achieving the national interest enables the state to extend its internal and external sovereignty and bridge internal gaps that prevent others from interfering in its affairs. A sovereign state must therefore achieve the national interest(s) internally and defend them externally. The emphasis on achieving the national interest, the internal interest, and the interests of citizens leads us to discuss another type of sovereignty: popular sovereignty, which means the sovereignty of the people and is directly linked to the system of government. That is, how citizens exercise their sovereignty through political participation, electing their representatives, and all forms of political activity. Popular sovereignty (like state sovereignty) can also be divided into negative and positive popular sovereignty. In other words, it is not enough for the state to not interfere in the private affairs of citizens and not deprive them of their freedom; rather, citizens must have the ability to exercise their sovereignty through institutions and the political system. The philosophy of the parliamentary system stems from this very idea: achieving the national interest through citizens exercising their sovereignty by building governing institutions. This idea was our goal when we sought to activate, invigorate, and strengthen the role of the Kurdistan Regional Parliament during our term as parliament president. We wanted to reduce the role of informal and illegitimate authorities and their influence and influence on
Parliament. We believed, and still believe, that consolidating popular sovereignty by activating the role of the people’s representatives in parliament will achieve the national interest and strengthen the political system in the face of foreign threats and interference. Hence, our term as president of the Kurdistan Regional Parliament has been the most active period for representing citizens, their aspirations, and their concerns.
As we previously stated, achieving the national interest through the application of the principle of popular sovereignty will enhance the state’s internal capabilities to confront external threats, on the one hand, and bridge the gaps and fissures that foreign powers could exploit to intervene and undermine the state’s sovereignty, on the other. Let us discuss, for example, the Kurdish issue in Iraq. The failure to reach a radical solution to the disputes between the Kurds and successive governments in Baghdad after the artificial establishment of the state of Iraq led to the outbreak of a historical conflict that gave many external powers the opportunity to intervene, sometimes in favor of the Kurds and sometimes in favor of Baghdad, to serve their own interests and goals. This resulted in both sides losing, both regionally and centrally, while other international powers intervening in the conflict benefited. For example, the two sides failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution to the Kirkuk issue in the mid-1970s. Under the Algiers Agreement of 1975, the former Iraqi regime resorted to ceding part of Iraq’s sovereignty along the Shatt al-Arab to the former Iranian regime, which in turn turned its back on the Kurds while previously urging the late Mulla Mustafa Barzani to return to fighting with Baghdad! Imagine Iraq ceding part of its sovereignty to another country in order not to cede to a portion of its people and citizens, and to forcibly liquidate the Kurdish issue. However, this failed, and the Kurdish struggle continued. The ceding of the Shatt al-Arab became one of the preludes to the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted for eight years and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands on both sides. The war did not lead to any solution, but rather opened the door to other problems and conflicts that fueled subsequent wars, such as the Kuwait War. It is time for both sides to learn from historical experiences and change the relationship between the region and Baghdad from a conflictual, zero-sum game that benefits neither party and opens the door to the intervention of others in service of their national interests. It is time to transform the relationship between the region and Baghdad from a conflictual, zero-sum game that benefits neither party and opens the door to the intervention of others in service of their national interests. It is time to transform the relationship into a complementary, win-win relationship that serves the national interest and the interests of citizens and bridges the gap for interference from others. Achieving popular sovereignty throughout Iraq mitigates internal conflicts among its components and strengthens its institutions, enabling them to extend their internal and external sovereignty. Based on the above, Iraq’s geopolitical location, its human and natural resources, and even its ethnic, religious, and sectarian diversity can be leveraged within the framework of a geostrategic and economic project that connects all its components and serves the public good, the national interest, and the interests of its citizens, on the one hand, and transforms Iraq into a bridge linking the East to the West and the Gulf to the Mediterranean, making it the “beating heart” of international land trade. However, this requires that Iraq be an extension of its citizens, components, forces and internal capabilities, and not be transformed into an extension of the strategic and national projects of other countries and international and regional blocs. I know that talking about such a project can be considered difficult to achieve, especially in light of the current situation and the accumulation of current political, security, economic and financial crises, but the “Pulsating Heart Strategy” is the gateway to solving Iraq’s internal and external problems and crises, and helps it bridge the gap between its components and build a strong national economy that helps in strengthening internal political stability and strengthening its national political, military, security and economic institutions in the service of the public interest, that is, strengthening the state’s structure internally, which helps it in extending the greatest degree of sovereignty externally in an international environment in which achieving absolute sovereignty, even for large countries, has become a fantasy. Without building a national project that citizens believe fulfills their aspirations for a dignified life, Iraq will remain captive to particular factional agendas and increasingly become an arena for settling scores for others. If a country fails to exploit its strengths and resources, these factors could become a heavy burden on the state, weakening it rather than strengthening it