​EXPLANATIONS OF USED TERMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACADEMIC WRITING AND CULTURAL SENSITIVITY

 

A widely used word for the scrutinized historical chapter is The Anfal campaign. However, the term is also used in further contexts. To avoid creating the impression that the tragic events are harmless, we will mainly use the word operation.  

 

Regarding the definition of genocide, it is worth mentioning that the International Criminal Court does not have the authority for crimes committed after 01/07/2002; hence, jurisdiction cannot retrospectively be exercised in the Anfal case, even if the Iraqi state would have officially recognized the jurisdiction of the ICC:

»The ICC has jurisdiction only with respect to events which occurred after the entry into force of its Statute on 1 July 2002. If a State becomes a party to the Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of the Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC retroactively. However, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction with respect to events which occurred before 1 July 2002 [1].«

 

Indisputably, the word genocide should not be used over-proportionally. Its propagation, nonetheless, outlines the perception of the occurrences from the perspective of those directly affected, depicts the proven deliberate and systematic destruction, and was respectfully adapted as it matches the legal definition of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that entered into force on 12/01/1951. The second article of the convention includes five key acts we will come across during the research:

»a. killing members of the group, b. causing serious bodily or mental harm, c. imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, d. preventing births within the group, and e. forcibly transferring children out of the group [2].«

 

 

[1] “Understanding the International Criminal Court”. In: International Criminal Court 2020, The Hague, p. 11. Available here: www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/understanding-the-icc.pdf

 

[2] “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”. In: United Nations, p. 1. Available here:

www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

​

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Abstract

 

I. Prologue

 

II. Introduction: The Anfal Operation in the Historical Context

 

III. Research Objectives and Question

• Expectations and feasibility

• Research Timeline

 

IV. Methodology

 

V. Theoretical Fundamentals

• The Conceptuality of Self-Esteem and Collective Identity

• Transnational History

 

VI. Epilogue: The societal impact and the significance of temporal dynamics

 

Bibliography | Sources 

 

Appendix

​

​

I. Prologue

 

Building upon the foundations of my doctoral research in Post-War (1947−1953) and Cold War History, I respectfully submit this proposal to the Department of Balkan, Slavic, and Oriental Studies at the University of Macedonia. My overarching aim is to situate the Kurdish genocide—implemented through the Anfal operation (1986–1989)—within an expanded geopolitical and normative framework that elucidates the entanglement of regional conflicts with broader constellations of international complicity, strategic collaborations, and ethical responsibility without overlooking the repercussions, to which the project meticulously pays attention.

In seeking to advance the scholarly boundaries of Oriental political studies, accomplished by considering the triptych perpetrator−accomplices−victims, it is structured around two domains of inquiry:

 

1) A systematic re-examination of the structural dynamics governing Middle Eastern history and international politics in the late 1980s by enforcing a comprehensive reassessment of the historical responsibility borne by the Iraqi State for the orchestration of Anfal, examined in conjunction with the corollary accountability of Western powers—most notably the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany—whose political, technological, and industrial interventions substantively enhanced Iraq’s strategic capacities during the Iran–Iraq War on the one hand. The project particularly accords analytical prominence to Germany for numerous reasons:

 

a. Distinctive modalities of involvement

In contrast to other Western states whose engagement was predominantly geostrategic, Germany’s participation was driven primarily by economic imperatives. Although Dutch intermediary Frans van Anraat—exporting materials to the United States and Japan—facilitated certain transfers, the principal production of Iraq’s chemical weapons of mass destruction occurred within German-owned military-industrial and chemical facilities.

 

b. Diaspora configurations and commemorative practices

Germany hosts the largest Kurdish diaspora. Despite state-imposed constraints—particularly with respect to individuals associated with, or presumed to be associated with, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)—Kurdish communities have nonetheless succeeded in establishing collective spaces for commemoration, public testimony, civic engagement, and cultural preservation, frequently supported by segments of German civil society. In addition to that, thirty years after the Halabja massacre, survivors have sued three German companies for aiding and abetting genocide and crimes against humanity―a judicial verdict has not yet been reached. Notwithstanding these developments, on 23/06/2021, the German Federal Parliament declined to endorse a proposal submitted by the Left Party to formally recognize the Kurdish genocide. Consequently, the Federal Republic has issued no formal acknowledgment of shared responsibility and has initiated no measures aimed at reparative justice or restitution.

 

c. Security doctrine and the institutionalization of prohibition

Since 1993, the Federal Republic has proscribed several Kurdish self-organization groups on the grounds of purported affiliation with the PKK, preceding by more than a decade the European Union’s designation of the PKK as a terrorist organization in 2004. The subsequent unilateral disarmament and dissolution of the PKK on 12/05/2025, coupled with Abdullah Öcalan’s articulation of a more moderate orientation, renders the German case particularly salient for examining the intersection of state security doctrine, minority politics, and transnational governance. 

 

d. Contemporary institutional frameworks

The present research was undertaken shortly before the announcement of the establishment of the first German–Kurdish university, the Internationale Kurdische Hochschule Deutschland (IKHS), on 18/10/2025 in Dresden, marking a substantial institutional milestone in the formalization of European–Kurdish academic and cultural exchange.

 

2) An examination of the formation, articulation, and consolidation of Kurdish discourses and identity, shaped by intersecting historical, political, and religious determinants, and manifested through practices of remembrance, resilience, and narrative self-representation within Kurdistan and the Kurdish diaspora.

This component involves a critical examination of homodiegetic Kurdish narratives in literary texts, commemorative rituals, and witnesses' interviews conducted during my ongoing fieldwork in Kurdistan since April 2024.

​

II. Introduction: The Anfal Operation in the Historical Context

 

The Anfal Campaign, rooted in the Arabization of the villages around Kirkuk in 1963, the subsequent deportation of Feyli Kurds, and implemented in various locations beyond the Halabja district, was a series of systematic, coordinated military operations, conducted between 1986 and 1989 by the Iraqi Ba'athist regime under Saddam Hussein—primarily targeting the Kurdish population in northern Iraq.

 

Named after the eighth surah of the Qur'an, »Al-Anfal« (»plunders of war«), orchestrated under Saddam leadership and implemented by Ali Hassan al-Majid, it signifies the genocidal effort to conquer Kurdish resistance and erase Kurdish identity. The acts further included forced disappearances, mass executions, the destruction of numerous villages, large-scale displacement of civilians, and the use of chemical weapons—including the chemical [3] attack on Halabja in 1988. These vicious episodes of state-sponsored violence during the final stages of the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988) endure as a critical case study and mark a pivotal moment in modern History that sustainably shaped the broader Middle East.

 

The state-orchestrated military and political operation against the Kurdish population in Iraq 's northern regions was officially portrayed by the Iraqi government as a counterinsurgency measure aimed at eliminating Kurdish guerrilla fighters (Peshmerga) allied with Iran during the Iran–Iraq War. Nevertheless, Anfal evolved into a war of mass violence that has since been recognized by numerous scholars and legal bodies, outside of Iraq, as an act of genocide and deserves further research.

 

The roots lie in a long history of tension between the central Iraqi government and the Kurdish minority. Following the formation of modern Iraq under British mandate in the early 20th century, Kurdish aspirations for autonomy were consistently suppressed. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, successive Iraqi regimes clashed with Kurdish resistance movements, particularly the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP/PDK) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), headed by Bafel Talabani, that sought greater political rights and cultural recognition. 

 

By the 1980s, in the pinnacle of the Iran–Iraq War, the Kurdish leadership saw an opportunity to strengthen its position by aligning with Iran against Baghdad. This was perceived as a betrayal and intensified the regime’s hostility toward the Kurds. In response, Saddam Hussein authorized a comprehensive military strategy to eliminate both the Kurdish resistance and the broader civilian population suspected of supporting them. The campaign was spearheaded by Ali Hassan al-Majid―later dubbed "Chemical Ali" for his role in employing chemical weapons during the operation.

 

The Anfal Campaign was conducted in eight distinct phases, each targeting specific areas of Iraqi Kurdistan. Tactics included mass executions, destruction of over 4.000 villages, agricultural devastation, forced displacement of entire communities, and the widespread use of chemical agents such as sarin and mustard gas. One of the most notorious episodes occurred in March 1988 in Halabja [4]. Estimates advocate that approximately 5.000 civilians, including women and children, were killed in a chemical attack.[5]

 

International response to the Anfal Campaign was limited at the time, mainly due to the Cold War’s geopolitical dynamics and the West’s interest in maintaining Iraq as a counterbalance to revolutionary Iran. It was not until after the 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent exposure of mass graves and testimonies that the full extent of the atrocities became widely known.

​

Beyond the immediate loss of life, the campaign inflicted enduring demographic, psychological, and cultural harm upon Kurdish society. These cumulative effects, paradoxically, also contributed to the political consolidation that later facilitated the emergence of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in the post-2003 period. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution formally recognizes the Kurdistan Region—whose administrative foundations were established in 1970—as a federal entity within the Republic of Iraq.

 

The post-war period in Baghdad and Erbil

In an almost 1.000 pages document, the Iraqi High Tribunal, according to documentary evidence, survivor testimony, and military order, concluded that the Anfal Campaign consisted of multiple coordinated military operations designed to destroy the Kurdish rural population through mass executions, widespread village destruction, forced displacement, and the use of chemical weapons. It was determined that these actions were not isolated abuses but a centrally planned state policy. In its decision, the IHT declared that the Anfal Campaign met the legal criteria for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Several defendants, including Ali Hassan al-Majid, were found guilty and received the death penalty. The judgment is significant as the first domestic legal ruling to formally classify the Anfal Campaign as genocide.

 

Regarding the political landscape in the Kurdistan Region, it functions today as a parliamentary democracy encompassing the governorates of Duhok, Erbil, and Sulaymaniyah. Although Masoud Barzani remains a central figure in Kurdish politics and continues to wield significant influence as the long-standing leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the presidency of the Kurdistan Region is held by Nechirvan Barzani, who has served since 2019. His recent political activities, including public statements and institutional engagements in November 2025, supported by the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Region, Masrour Barzani, underscore ongoing efforts to advance constitutional implementation and to vnegotiate enduring disputes between Erbil and Baghdad. According to preliminary results, the ruling party secured over 1 million votes in the recent elections on 11/11/2025.

 

The project does not conceptualize the events as discrete or isolated occurrences; instead, it situates them within a longitudinal continuum of political domination, resource exploitation, and sectarian stratification whose structural legacies remain deeply embedded in contemporary regional dynamics. The Iraqi state’s reconquest of the predominantly Kurdish city of Kirkuk on 16/10/2017—an urban center of exceptional strategic importance due to its extensive oil reserves—exemplifies this historical continuity. Currently administered by the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a coalition of predominantly Iran-aligned Shi’a militias, Kirkuk constitutes a paradigmatic locus of persistent interplay between geopolitical contestation, structural violence, and collective precarity.

 

A dedicated chapter of this project examines the genocide perpetrated against the Yezidi (Yazidi) community, with particular attention to the Islamic State’s assault on Sinjar on 3/08/2014. This case accentuates the persistence of genocidal violence and the recurrent manifestations of state-sponsored or state-enabled persecution in the broader Middle Eastern context.

 

Moreover, it reveals the extent to which entrenched forms of international complicity, structural indifference, and the persistent inadequacy of global accountability mechanisms have facilitated the recurrence of mass atrocities. By drawing systematic parallels between historical and contemporary configurations of state and non-state violence, the project seeks to make a substantive contribution to ongoing scholarly debates concerning transnational responsibility, regimes of memory, and the ethical and political parameters of humanitarian intervention.

​

​

 

[3] United Nations Security Council. Report of the Secretary-General on Chemical Weapons Use in the Conflict Between Iran and Iraq. New York: UN, 1986–1989. Available here:

www.securitycouncilreport.org atf/cf/{65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9}/DisarmS17911.pdf

Cf. also US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Chemical Weapons Use in Kurdistan. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1988. Available here: www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/senatecw8810a.pdf

 

[4] Kurdistan Regional Government. Halabja: Documents of Genocide. Erbil, 2013.

 

[5] McDowall, David. A Modern History of the Kurds. 3rd ed. London: I.B. Tauris, 2004, pp. 357−367.

Cf. also Human Rights Watch. Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds. New York: HRW, 1993. Available here: www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm

​