Nechirvan Barzani and Yazidi Rights: Twelve Years On

Twelve years after the attack on Şingal, Nechirvan Barzani assures us that his administration will continue defending Yazidi rights.

Continue.

A remarkably comfortable word for a political leadership that still owes an explanation for why its armed protectors withdrew when people needed them most.

The president’s message was delivered on 21 October 2026 at the launch of the Survivors Rise Network in Erbil. It promised support for survivors, continued searches for abductees, and the reconstruction of Şingal. The survivors’ initiative deserves support. Their self-appointed protector’s political performance deserves scrutiny.

Between a president promising rights and a family waiting twelve years for their daughter lies more than a government programme running behind schedule.

There lies a question: whose interests does this politics actually serve?

Protection comes with an outstanding debt

On 9 August 2014, Human Rights Watch published accounts from displaced Yazidis describing the Peshmerga withdrawal. Those interviewed reported that forces deployed to protect them had pulled out on the morning of 3 August. One Yazidi Peshmerga reportedly questioned the local commander and was told there were no orders to fight. The same report described Syrian Kurdish fighters helping people escape. Responsibility can be identified precisely. An entire population does not need to be accused.

ISIS committed the genocide. That does not erase responsibility for the collapse of protection.

Anyone claiming political credit for subsequent assistance must also answer for the earlier failure. What orders were issued? Who authorised the withdrawal? What consequences followed?

Declaring yourself a permanent defender answers none of this. It simply places a polished speech over an unpaid debt.

2,526 people. Not a footnote.

In August 2026, the Kurdistan Regional Government itself reported that 2,526 Yazidis remained missing. These are people whose fate remains unknown. The figure does not mean that all are confirmed alive or still in captivity. That uncertainty is precisely what their families continue to endure.

We can acknowledge the work of rescue teams while holding political leaders accountable. Rescued people are not receipts a government can produce to settle every other obligation.

On 1 October 2026, the remains of another 25 genocide victims were returned to their families. According to Yazda, approximately 530 recovered remains were still awaiting identification. Twelve years after the killings, relatives were still waiting for the chance to put a name on a grave.

The comparison with Israel makes that wait particularly bitter. The remains of Ran Gvili, the last remaining Israeli hostage in Gaza, were recovered on 26 January 2026, more than two years after 7 October 2023. Not everyone came home alive.

The political and military circumstances differ. But the question remains: where is the comparable urgency for our missing? Where is the sustained pressure that makes finding them a permanent political priority?

Another presidential promise will not return the years their families have lost.

Şingal is a homeland. For political parties, it is also power.

Anyone presenting the struggle over Şingal purely as concern for Yazidis leaves out the territorial dispute.

In 2023, Human Rights Watch documented how disagreements between Erbil and Baghdad over local administration obstructed reconstruction. According to the accounts it gathered, allocated funding remained blocked while the governments disputed responsibility. The organisation also criticised the absence of guarantees for local participation in important decisions.

That is the political core: who administers Şingal? Who determines its security arrangements? How much authority do its own people actually have?

In my assessment, at least three interests sit behind the language of protection: influence over territory, influence over political representation, and international prestige as the guardian of a persecuted community.

These interests do not establish a secret conspiracy. They do explain why promises of protection must be examined alongside claims to power.

Politics does not become selfless because it is delivered at a remembrance ceremony.

Our identity belongs to us

In its own statement marking the genocide’s twelfth anniversary, the KRG described the victims as “Yazidi Kurds”.

An ethnic classification arrives already attached to the people whose identity the government promises to protect.

Yazidis have the right to define their own belonging. Those who identify as Kurdish may say so. Those who assert a distinct Yazidi identity do not require permission from Erbil.

A government’s respect is tested by whether it protects people who reject its preferred national narrative.

Mr President, will you defend the right of Yazidis to reject your political and ethnic classifications?

Or does your celebrated diversity end when someone refuses the assigned subcategory?

A tent is not a reconstruction programme

Years in displacement camps must not become an accepted way of life. Closing the camps alone, however, would solve nothing. Human Rights Watch warned in 2024 against pressuring people to return while security, housing and essential services remained inadequate.

People need habitable homes, schools, work and functioning administration. They need the freedom to return safely and remain there.

It would be unsubstantiated to claim that all prolonged displacement is deliberately engineered to benefit Kurdish autonomy. It is entirely legitimate to ask who gains influence from continuing dependency.

Control over assistance, administration and access carries power. Any government presenting itself as an indispensable protector therefore deserves especially close scrutiny.

One measure of successful protection is how soon people can live without political patronage.

Coexistence must work outside the conference hall

Yazda’s report Under Constant Threat documented the wave of anti-Yazidi hatred in August 2024. According to the organisation, the resulting fear drove thousands from displacement camps in the Kurdistan Region. Many returned to Şingal despite inadequate security and services.

Consider what that means: genocide survivors left their place of refuge because they feared renewed violence.

Celebrating tolerance before an international audience is insufficient. Leaders promising protection must explain how they protect people from intimidation and incitement within their own jurisdiction.

Which threats were investigated? Which people received protection? What measures will prevent the next campaign?

Religious authority cannot provide an exemption. A preacher’s position must never become a licence to turn a minority into a target.

Coexistence faces its real test after the cameras leave.

Then accept a measurable test

Mr President, your next speech needs commitments the public can verify:

A transparent, funded plan to locate missing people and identify the dead.
An independent examination of the failure of protection in 2014.
Binding arrangements with Baghdad for reconstruction and safe, voluntary return.
Effective protection against incitement and threats, with publicly documented results.
Meaningful Yazidi participation in decisions, including the right to reject your parties and national classifications.

Yazidis are under no obligation to excuse Baghdad’s failures or endorse Erbil’s ambitions. Our right to govern our own future is not a bargaining chip between governments.

We do not need another political career decorated with our survival.

You want to remain our defenders?

Then show us that our rights still matter when they stand in the way of your interests.