|
Turkomans and Kurds in Kirkuk are an
explosion waiting to happen 1.12.2006
Jonathan Steele in Kirkuk
|
|
|
|
Iraq is already
enduring two wars. Could it survive a third? The
competing claims of Arabs, Turkomans and Kurds in
the oil-rich Iraqi north are an explosion waiting to
happen
December 1, 2006
The governor's office in this tense city had rarely
been so crowded. Friends, colleagues and officials
were queuing to congratulate Abdul Rahman Mustafa on
surviving the second assassination attempt on him
within a fortnight.A suicide bomber blew himself up
on Tuesday when the governor's motorcade slowed for
roadworks.
The armour -plated car was badly damaged, but the
only fatality besides the bomber was an Iraqi
civilian. Still shaken two hours later, Mr Mustafa
told me he was undeterred and would carry on.Like
every other Iraqi city, Kirkuk has seen a rising
tide of violence. Two years ago you could drive
there from Baghdad. This time I reached it by coming
south from the relative safety of Kurdistan in an
armoured pick-up with five Kurdish peshmerga
soldiers in the back.
The main hazard is the roadside bomb - 663 have gone
off already this year, with another 334 detected
before they did any harm. They are almost always
targeted at officials, police or US and Iraqi army
convoys. Kirkuk has so far been spared the carnage
of Baghdad and Basra, where car bombs and mortars
are launched at crowds of civilians.
Indeed Kirkuk is the story of a war that hasn't
happened. With a mixed population of Arabs, Kurds
and Turkomans vying to control a province rich in
oil, it was the place which most analysts focused on
in the first weeks after the US toppled Saddam
Hussein. It seems long ago now, but the argument
then was that if violence were to break out in the
"new Iraq", it would pit Arabs against Kurds, not
Sunni against Shia, and the cockpit would be Kirkuk.
Whether Iraq is in the midst of a civil war or an
insurgency has become a crucial question in the US,
with obvious policy implications. For Iraqis it is
academic. They see both wars happening together,
with the chaos further compounded by criminal gangs
who kidnap and murder for cash.
In Kirkuk, by contrast, there is only an insurgency.
Ethnic war has not broken out. The picture is not so
good in the other Iraqi territories with large
Kurdish populations, many of which the Kurds call
historically theirs.
Tens of thousands of Kurds are being intimidated to
leave Mosul in slow-motion ethnic cleansing. In
Khanaqin, in eastern Iraq, thousands of Arab
settlers who had been brought in by Saddam Hussein
were summarily evicted in 2003.
But by and large the Kurds are playing fair. In
Kurdistan they have enjoyed autonomy since 1991, and
they pride themselves on building the kind of
democracy the US hoped to install throughout Iraq
after 2003. The rolling hills of their fertile
region are as different from the flat lands and
date-palm groves of Mesopotamia as is the political
and security climate. Foreigners and locals can walk
the streets and sit in cafes with no fear of kidnap
or sudden death.
The Kurds are better off than if they had full
independence. This would provoke regional tension,
particularly from Turkey. It would also end their
current position of having considerable influence in
Baghdad's government, with the hope that the
"disputed territories" may become theirs by
non-violent means.
The bad side, as many Kurds see it, is that they are
still tied economically to Iraq. Their electricity
comes from the national grid, which means rations of
only two hours a day, as bad as Baghdad. They have
no refinery for the oil they produce. They live off
revenue from the central budget, with their rightful
share always cut or delayed unfairly, officials
complain.
But Kurds are waiting for the referendums, promised
for next year under Article 140 of the new Iraqi
constitution. They would allow people to vote to
join Kurdistan. Not just in Kirkuk, but in all other
disputed territories there is supposed to be a
census in July and a referendum in November. The
first stage, due by March, is "normalisation", which
means the return of tens of thousands of displaced
people and the restoration of their homes or
compensation.
Kurdish politicians claim to be confident that they
have the votes to win. Only violence can prevent it,
they say, which is why Kirkuk is suffering from an
insurgency. "Implementing Article 140 is not in the
Ba'athists' interest," Rizgar Ali Hamajan, the
provincial council's chairman, told me. "It will
wipe out their Arabisation policy. So they create
security problems.
They want to make it hard for contractors to work,
tell people the provincial council is doing nothing
and pave the way for ethnic conflict."
But there are more important reasons why the process
is way behind schedule. Western officials in Kirkuk
describe next year's deadlines as "risible". Article
140 is "hopelessly vague", making no attempt to
explain who will delineate the disputed territories'
borders, how a census will be conducted, and what
the eligibility criteria will be for voting in the
referendum.
Arab and Turkoman politicians want to delay it,
preferring the status quo. "The best thing for
Kirkuk would be to create a special kind of
independent entity where all nationalities and
minorities can take part. We need dialogue,
negotiation and compromise," says Tahseen Saray
Khaya, a member of the Turkoman Front. He accuses
the Kurds of packing the voter rolls by bringing in
people from the north who were never displaced.
The International Crisis Group, an independent
thinktank, proposes a similar plan for special
status, though only for 10 years. Western officials
call it a non-starter, since it would require
amending the constitution.
They expect the referendum issue will ultimately be
decided by a political bargain in Baghdad, rather
than Kirkuk. Iraq's majority Shia government will do
a deal with the Kurds to delay the crunch.
How that will be sold to the increasingly impatient
Kurds is crucial. Without clear milestones towards
an eventual vote or major concessions on other
issues dear to the Kurds, there could be a political
and social explosion in Kirkuk. On the other hand,
holding an unprepared vote and letting Kirkuk join
Kurdistan against Arab and Turkoman wishes could add
ethnic conflict to the city's current insurgency.
In that case Kirkuk would no longer be the story of
a war deferred. The ethnic cleansing already under
way in Mosul could accelerate and spread to Baghdad,
where some 100,000 Kurds still live. Iraq is already
suffering from a war between insurgents and the
Americans, and the Sunni versus Shia clashes which
flow from it. Can it survive the horrors of war
number three?
guardian co.uk
The former Iraqi president forced about 250,000
Kurdish residents to give up their homes to Arabs in
the 1970s, to "Arabize" the city and the region's
oil industry.
Kirkuk city is not under the full control of
Kurdistan Regional Government administration. A
referendum is to be held in late 2007 to decide
whether the oil-rich Kurdish province should be
annexed to the safe semiautonomous Kurdistan region
in Iraq's north.
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 