Despite the huge international pressure to postpone or cancel the independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan, it went ahead and 92% voted yes, with a 72% turnout. We Kurds are the largest “nationality” in the world without our own nation – and we were not going to be deterred from having our say.

More than 92% of voters in Iraqi Kurdistan back independence Read more

There are roughly 40 million of us distributed among Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman empire – the victims of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement between the French and British authorities in 1916, which was confirmed at the San Remo conference in 1920.

After the Kuwait crisis in 1991, the Kurds in Iraq enjoyed some kind of “empirical sovereignty” – the right to defend their own areas – and “positive sovereignty”, managing to deliver public services to the citizens. In 1992 they held their first parliamentary elections, and agreed to be part of a future federal Iraq. After the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Kurds voluntarily took part in building the new Iraq and its institutions, under the protection of the Kurdish peshmerga troops – the only organised armed force in the immediate aftermath of 2003. In 2005 all Iraqis, including the Kurds, agreed on a federal constitution to preserve the rights of all.

But now, after 14 years of post-Saddam Iraq, Kurds believe that our time has come to end that forced marriage to Iraq. The dominant narrative in Kurdistan is that during the first Iraqi republic – between 1921 and 2003 – our people were gassed, bombed, displaced and ethnically cleansed; and now, during this second republic, we are deprived of a proper budget to manage our own affairs, while our political rights are violated.

Among the nearly 55 constitutional articles violated by the federal government is article 140, which deals with disputed areas of the country, including Kirkuk. Kurds also believe that Iraq is in danger of losing sovereignty to Iran, and that it is increasingly becoming a religious state, rather than the civil state agreed on in the constitution. At the same time, the rise of Islamic State and the establishment of the Shia Popular Mobilisation Forces are persistent threats to the region’s security. Being part of “one Iraq” has been an expensive business that Kurds can no longer afford.

Opposition to the Kurdish referendum seems to have brought together rival actors for the first time in the history of the region. Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, the US, the UK and Isis all came out against it: they’ve never agreed on anything before. Baghdad says the referendum is not constitutional. However, the federal government’s violation of the constitution is what has paved the way for the dissolution of the country.

The US and its allies say that the referendum would affect the war against Isis. This argument is also weak. The peshmerga are ready to defend the areas under their control. Isis is operating near Kurdish areas, there’s an obvious strategic interest for Kurds to defeat them – that’s not going to change with independence. Kurdish officials have repeatedly assured Washington and Baghdad of their commitment. They are prepared to fight Isis alongside Iraqi forces in Hawija near Kirkuk.

Was it not only a few years ago that the US and the UK waged a war supposedly to spread democracy in Iraq?

It should not be a surprise to see democratic governments opposing this democratic referendum – we are seeing the same thing in Catalonia too. But was it not only a few years ago that the US and the UK waged a war supposedly to spread democracy in Iraq? This fresh rejection cannot be described as anything other than a form of neo-colonialism, in which the voice of oppressed people is forcefully muted.

The result of the Kurdish referendum reflects a popular demand. The free world should stop taking sides, and instead help Erbil and Baghdad to achieve a peaceful solution. Instead of insulting democracy, they should respect the will of the Iraqi Kurds. They should value the sacrifices our people have made in the fight against Isis by addressing the grievances that we have had for over a century now. I think Abraham Lincoln said it best: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”

• Amjed Rasheed is a research fellow at the Institute for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at Durham University