Kirkuk Question: Obama's post-election Challenge (The Hawler Tribune)

http://ping.fm/Leqo5
Namo Abdulla
18 January 2010

After many parliament sessions, the passage of the election law was made possible through US pressure on the Kurdish leadership to compromise over the extra parliament seats. The Kurds agreed to gain fewer seats than what they thought they were entitled to. In return for this Kurdish concession, the White House expressed its support for the implementation of Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution.

US support for Article 140 is seen by Kurds as US support for the annexation of Kirkuk to the Kurdistan Region. Whether or not the US will keep its promise does not change the fact that Iraq’s security and its politics are still dependent on the United States.

The difficulties that the passage of the election law entailed also displayed how unlikely it was for Iraqis to be able to solve their difference on their own. Iraq’s Vice-President Tariq Al Hashimi, the main representative of the Sunnis in Iraq’s politics, vetoed the first approval of the election project because he thought it did not grant enough seats to expatriate Iraqis. Most of the Iraqis living abroad are Sunni Arabs who fled from the country in protest over what they perceive is the Shiite domination of Iraq in 2003. Throughout the modern history of Iraq, the country had been dominated by Sunni Arabs.

The Kurds objected to the second proposal of the election law on grounds that the 50 additional seats had been unfairly distributed against the Kurdish governorates. They questioned why a Sunni-Arab populated province like Mosul were granted 12 additional seats, while no extra seat was assigned to Slemani, a Kurdish populated province.

The political battle over the parliament seats were mainly fought between the Sunnis and Kurds. The Kurds were the second powerful group in Iraq after the Shiites thanks to the Sunni boycott of the 2005 elections. But this time the Sunnis, as their population is almost equal to that of the Kurds, want to replace the Kurds. Even one seat could play a decisive role in the Sunni-Kurd struggle to become second and, in turn, win the office of the president of the Republic of Iraq.

The Kurds have already backed down for a US promise of Kirkuk. The Kurdish compromise showed two things. First, that the Kurds still trust the Americans more than they do any other Iraqi. They still believe that their being openly pro-America and pro-West makes them more favored by America. Secondly, Kirkuk was more important for the Kurds than having better representation in Baghdad.

While drawing down violence and restoring normalcy to Iraq had topped former president George W. Bush’s agenda since the overthrow of the late dictator Saddam Hussein, Kirkuk is expected to take political center-stage for Obama in his dealing with post-2010-election Iraq. Kirkuk is a multi-ethnic province inhabited by Kurds, Arabs and Turcomans. It is also home to 25 percent of Iraq’s oil reserves. It has often been considered a “ticking time bomb” that could explode anytime if wrongly handled. One living in Kirkuk or familiar with the city’s people knows that the residents there have no problem with each other. The problem has been politicized by political figures.

The Arab elites of the city, backed by the Shiite-led central government, and Turcoman leaders, aided by Turkey, have a fairly similar view on Kirkuk. Instead of formulating a clear policy for Kirkuk, they are opposed to its annexation to the Kurdistan Region. Both Turkey and the Baghdad government fear a scenario whereby the Kurds would declare independence as soon as they control Kirkuk’s oil.

The Kurds have a similarly narrow view. They follow a blind ethno-nationalist rhetoric, that is, Kirkuk should return to Kurdistan. They have done so, instead of proposing fair arguments and to convince the Kirkukis to favor Kurdistan. The Kurds should abandon this way of speaking and free Kirkukis to decide about the future of their city whether they want to join Kurdistan or not.

The main reason why opposing parties do not approve of Kirkuk becoming part of Kurdistan is due to the city’s oil reserves. However, on 1July 2009, the Kurds assured everyone that they are ready to end even their ownership over their oil reserves just for the sake of the resolution of Iraq’s problems. They allowed the production of the oil of its two main reserves of Tawke and Taq-Taq to be distributed by the central government equally to all Iraqis. If Kirkuk gets annexed to Kurdistan, the KRG should still allow the central government to be responsible for all oil matters. This should be set by the law.

However, for the Kurds, Kirkuk is not only about oil. It is more symbolic. It stands for their honor and dignity. It is the issue of a land for which thousands of Kurds have perished throughout the last 50 years on order by successive Arab-dominated governments in Iraq. If the Kurds could make concessions over anything, it is unlikely they would abandon Kirkuk. Kirkuk cannot be left unresolved by the Americans. Doing so could bring disastrous consequences. On the other hand, the second major ethnic group of Iraq, the Kurds, cannot be ignored. This issue would delay US withdrawal, if a quick solution is not found. The best and easiest way for US President Barack Obama is to be frank with all Iraqis and persuade everyone that it is in their best interest to respect the constitution of their country.

Print this post