This past week, the United States finally opened a consulate in Hawler. A few days before, they also opened one in Basra. Why did it take the Americans so long to open this consulate, and what are the implications of its opening?

The first question seems a good deal easier to answer than the second. The United States did not open the consulate earlier because they didn’t need to. Their Provincial Reconstruction Team offices and other operating centers in the Kurdish region, as well as elsewhere in Iraq, provided a fine platform for them to communicate with different Iraqi groups and conduct their business. So while the Iranians, Russians, Dutch, Danes, Germans, British, Brazilians, Croatians, French, Jordanians, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Norwegians and even the Turks (finally) all decided to open consulates in Kurdistan some time ago, the Americans only did so in July 2011.

Consulates focus on economic, cultural and business relations, and facilitate the day-to-day building and maintaining of links between the host region and the home country and the region they locate themselves in. Kurdistanis should now find it easier to apply for U.S. visas, to foster business links with the United States, attract American investment and engage with Americans in general. They no longer need to travel to Baghdad for any of these things.

The establishment of the U.S. consulate also has political significance. At a basic level, the maintenance of a consular relations signifies to both the region and the consulate’s home country that they recognize each other. Non-recognition happens often – one need only remember that the United States still has no embassy or consulate in countries such as Iran. The opening of the consulate also represents the latest in a series of transitions from a U.S. military presence in Iraq to a civilian-based engagement with the country. As U.S. military forces continue to withdraw from Iraq, they are being replaced by legions of diplomats, contractors and other U.S. civilian personnel. Most importantly, the transition signifies continuing American engagement with Iraq’s future, rather than a “pack up and go home” approach like the one applied to Afghanistan after Soviet forces withdrew in the late 1980s.

That’s good news for the Kurds, who developed a good working relationship with Washington and benefit from their continuing commitment to the country. American diplomats based in Hawler will naturally develop more familiarity with Kurdistan and Kurdish concerns, which can offer an important counter balance to the “Baghdadi socialization” of American diplomats in the capitol. The lines of communication between Hawler and Washington should operate more smoothly.

It’s also no secret that Iraqi Kurdistan, like many autonomous regions, would also like to build support for a recognition of Kurdish statehood, should this ever prove necessary. Besides the limited recognition, the symbolism and improved engagement that consulates offer a region, they can also be easily transformed into embassies. If Iraq fails as a state, the developing networks of international consulates in Hawler could provide a useful platform for a proto-Kurdish state seeking international recognition.
Before we read too much into the establishment of the U.S. consulate, however, it might prove useful to compare the American remarks on the new Hawler consulate to those relating to the opening of the new consulate in Basra. Regarding the Basra consulate, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey D. Feltman said “We pledge our continued support to the Iraqi people in establishing a sovereign, stable, self-reliant country. As a fellow democracy, the United States appreciates the challenges that the new democracy of Iraq faces in building an inclusive society. Partnering with Iraqi interlocutors, we will continue to support Iraq’s development in ways that reflect our shared values of tolerance and diversity.” At the opening ceremony in Basra, “[U.S.] Ambassador Jeffrey invoked the commitment shared by Iraqis and Americans to freedom and democracy.” In Hawler, however, Ambassador Jeffrey’s comments at the opening of the consulate there were, “It is our fondest wish that a strong and vibrant Kurdistan Region within a democratic and federal Iraq arise from the tragic history of this region. Our goal is to build an Iraq for all its citizens... Arabs and Kurds, Sunni and Shia, Christian and Muslim, Yezidi and Shebak, one that respects all its citizens and one which is governed by the rule of law....To all the people of Iraq, the United States pledges its continued support for a unified, democratic, pluralistic, and federal Iraq.”

The American choice of emphasis seems to show somewhat different concerns for Basra and Hawler. In the south, they worry about radical Shiite militias and Iranian influence (“a sovereign, stable, self-reliant country...), as well as human rights (“an inclusive society” and “shared values of tolerance and diversity”). In Kurdistan, by way of contrast, the Americans can’t seem to make a single official statement without invoking the mantra of “a Kurdistan Region within a democratic and federal Iraq” and “a unified, democratic, pluralistic, and federal Iraq.” The reference to ‘democratic’, ‘pluralistic’ and ‘federal’ acknowledges Kurdish concerns, of course, but “unified Iraq” never gets left out. So while American diplomats don’t feel the need to stress a “unified Iraq” when they go to Basra, they always remember to do so in Kurdistan.

The point is clear: Iraqi Kurds should not expect U.S. support for a bid towards independent statehood. Maybe it would help to remember that many U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador Jeffrey, served in places like Ankara before they came to Iraq, and remain very aware of the critical concerns of other U.S. allies in the region...