Tag Archives: Iraq Constitution

Amidst Political Wrangling, the Existing Guiding Light in Iraq, the Constitution, is sidelined.

Leave a reply

Hopes for a swift ratification of the provincial election law, after parliament’s summer recess, have been dashed with the negotiations assuming the same protracted path.

Further attempts at reaching a compromise agreement have only culminated in heightened emotions in rival camps. Earlier this week Kurdish lawmakers rejected amendments to the elections law regarding Kirkuk, a city fast becoming the Iraqi thorn most dreaded. The UN envoy, led by Steffan de Mistura, in tune with their Iraqi counterparts have been slow in  proposing solutions acceptable to all sides, almost a year after been charged with resolving the crisis over article 140.

However, disputes over Kirkuk and the shaping of the election law is just a tip of the iceberg in mounting friction between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Region. Debates still rage on claims of Kurdish advances beyond their “zone” of influence, the share of the Iraqi budget, status and integration of Kurdish forces into the Iraqi army and the formation of a new hydrocarbon law, which with the record oil prices on the global stage has added extra bite to the distribution ofstaggering oil revenues.

Somewhat ironically, Kurdish-Shiite relations were strong as the fledgling democratic motion took grip in Iraq. Both sides formed a productive and solid alliance in the mayhem that ensued after the Iraqi liberation. Understanding was commonplace on the blueprint of Iraq, non-better highlighted than the passing of the Iraqi constitution in 2005, despite some key differences. 

So much as agreement on federalism, Kirkuk and definition of the new Iraq highlighted the promising signs of democracy and all the trappings of classic compromise at the time, in hindsight the tentative agreements only veiled a ticking time-bomb.

It is no coincidence that as Nouri al-Maliki’s government has grown in power and military confidence, their stance has been continually more authoritarian and rigid in execution. Whilst al-Maliki can certainly be accredited for installing growing security and taking impartial action against rogue elements as an Iraqi strongman, it must not be forgotten that he is only the head of a coalition cabinet and is appointed to serve the whole of sovereign Iraq.

Clearly, a strong government in the midst of many destabilising elements in Iraq and contentious neighbours is a necessity for Iraqi progression. However, this must be based on the virtues of democracy and pluralism. Swaying of a military might and the associated threats this brings is simply unacceptable.

Beyond all the issues currently tainting relations between Kurdistan Region and Baghdad, lies the quandary of power. The Kurds, after a painful and unforgettable experience in the Iraqi experiment, are naturally careful to safeguard their gains as well as their future. The thirst for Kurdish strength comes in the quest for self-sustainability and self-sufficiency. For them, only greater autonomy as part of a federal structure will enforce that.

Mistrust and animosity, simply can not be wiped by a mentally-scarred nation. Conversely, it’s unwise to assume that all the Baathist elements that created Saddam Hussein and Arab hegemony have simply disappeared because Saddam statues and pictures are no longer in sight.

As Kurds strive for protection and implementation of a strong region, in turn this rattles the cages in Baghdad who in fear of inhibiting a weak status and losing national sway, invariably want to show who is still boss in Iraq.

If the rest of Iraq is genuine about partnership and a harmonious existence, then any achievement or gains in Kurdistan should be heralded and not despised.

The negative campaign to discredit the Kurdistan region and tarnish the image of the Kurds is unwelcome. Clearly, some politicians in Baghdad have been inducing and taking advantage of bitter stand-offs, with the aim of weakening the Kurdish position.

A future based on dialogue and federalism is the safety-net for all of Iraq, from Arbil to Basra. If Kurds ask for anything more than stated in the adopted constitution, then Baghdad will have a point.

Much of the current disputes including Kirkuk, oil sharing and federalism were already agreed and approved by 80% of the Iraqi population. There is already a strong basis for the shaping of Iraq.

Although US officials have continuously backed the constitution, after all it represent the exact democratic beacon that they claimed to bring, they have avoided taking sides in the debacle – even as democracy they have doggedly heralded is undermined, to safeguard their own achievements in their troubled adventures in Iraq.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Fuzzy Democracy is a Prelude to National Disaster

Leave a reply

As attempts to defuse the current crisis over Khanaqin intensify, it alludes to a more extensive web of tension and animosity between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Baghdad Ministry.

It appears that enmity between both parties, undoubtedly fuelled by certain elements in Baghdad and abroad, is not isolated but threatens to rip Iraq apart.

Almost all major negotiations and key parliamentary bills have been over-shadowed by heated exchanges between both sides. No other dispute is better illustrated than the current stalemate over Kirkuk.

Politicians scamper to intact a “democratic” and “fair” solution to the disputed territories, yet ironically millions of Iraqis have already adopted their democratic solution via a national constitution. Beyond the mask of greater security achievements and an improving national picture, lies much political uncertainty and an Iraqi practice of fuzzy democracy that is making national reconciliation in real-terms an improbable task.

Clearly, behind the Iraqi political veil, there still exists a deep-rooted problem in the mentality of some politicians in Baghdad. The totalitarian regime may have collapsed five years ago, but it’s unwise to assume its historical legacy vanished with it.

The Kurds make a significant portion of the Iraqi coalition and are in theory the partners in the new Iraq. However, the recent uncoordinated moves to employ Iraqi forces in disputed territories, the order for Kurds to evacuate offices in Diyala and the passing of the provincial election bill on 22nd July 2008 amidst a Kurdish boycott, does not just highlight puzzling motives in the Baghdad camp but smacks of a great deal of insincerity towards the Kurds.

Furthermore, coupled with the non-adoption of article 140, attempts to nullify oil exploration contracts awarded by KRG oil ministry and the annual squabbling over the Kurdish share of the national budget, this clearly does not just represent common democratic disputes but points to a general agenda against the Kurds.

There is currently a feverish campaign to discredit the Kurdish administration. This anti-Kurdish hysteria is designed to undermine the Kurds, and promote the perception of the Kurds as over-reaching, encouraging problems in ethnically mixed-cities and as obstacles to Iraqi progression.

This motion places pressure on Kurds to over-compromise or even cede certain demands. But the moment Kurds accepts crumbs, when they are entitled to their share of bread, then the ultimate result is Baghdad hegemony over the north, and in turn a heavy reliance by Erbil for economic and social support.

If Iraq is democratic as the brochure entails, then the Iraqi constitution is a real achievement for the Iraqi nation and should be heralded. However in Iraq, there is an ironic perception that abiding by such democratic values is the actual threat, not the solution.

As such Kurdish demands for the adoption of the constitution are a fair and legal obligation. Any article of the constitution should only be amended by a popular vote, not by hasty pro-Arab politicians. The constitution is the legal red-line. If Baghdad decides against any portion of the constitution and national power-sharing, then they are again choosing authoritarianism over democracy and Kurds should have no part of this project.

Kurdistan President, Massaud Barzani, in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat issued a damning assessment, and raised doubt that Baghdad views them as partners. The increasingly frustrated Barzani accused the Iraqi government of “monopolising authority” while pointing to a prevailing totalitarian mentality and has warned that voiding any part of the constitution will rip Iraq apart.

Kurds have proved a vital cog since the fall of Saddam when Arab factions were pointing guns at each other, by ensuring security and promoting national reconciliation. Now with the security improving in places such as Diyala, the Iraqi forces now threaten to point the gun at the Kurds. All this denotes to a campaign to diminish the Kurdish role in mixed areas and thus make political resolutions more one-sided.

Kurds could have taken advantage of the Iraqi bloodshed by annexing disputed lands, now their quest for legal justice may have worked against them.

Iraqi lawmakers that are genuine about driving the new Iraq must root out elements and ill-intentioned hands pushing for escalation and confrontation. Any Baghdad conspiracy to return all Kurdish forces to the blue line is a sure way of provoking armed conflict sooner or later. These are early doors in the new Iraq, if the right moves are not taken at its foundation, then there is really no hope.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Battle for Kirkuk Continues

Leave a reply

The Iraqi Mindset is, as long as there is no democracy in Kirkuk, there is no chance of a Kurdish cictory

After years of foot-dragging by Baghdad over the status of Kirkuk, Kurds have decided to dig their heels in. The heated-battle for Kirkuk continues apace with decisive concord out of sight.

Iraqi leaders, after weeks of deliberation within the Baghdad political chambers and with much pressure from George Bush and other senior US officials, failed to strike a deal on the provincial election law that would facilitate the progression of crucial elections, raising great doubt that the elections could be held this year. 

After failed attempts at forming elusive concord via extraordinary parliamentary sessions on a number of occasions in past weeks, the last session on 6th August before politicians enter summer recess, was almost perceived as a last throw of the dice with politicians optimistic that an agreement could be finally reached.

However, the heated session was adjourned without a vote on the provincial law, serving as a major setback to the Iraqi political landscape and the US administration. The debate was closed after it was decided to form a committee composed of the heads of parliamentary blocs to find acceptable text for the provincial election bill.

Mahmoud al-Mashahadani, the parliament’s speaker, a source of much controversy over the past couple of weeks, announced September 9th as the start of the second legislative term of parliamentary sessions for 2008.

The tense stand-off amongst Iraqi parliamentarians hinges on the hotly-disputed issue of elections in oil-rich Kirkuk. In spite of frequent pledges by Baghdad to abide by the Iraqi constitution, which under article 140 calls for the normalisation in Kirkuk and the suburbs followed by a referendum to decide eventual control of the district, deadlines and extensions to the implementation of this article have continuously ended without any real progress.

Now the issue of Kirkuk, which Baghdad has left simmering for far too-long, threatens to come to the boil in spectacular fashion. Seemingly, against the will of the Kurds, Arab blocs have sought to delay the process of dealing with Kirkuk even further.

Baghdad foot-Dragging

Even as another six months were added to the implementation of article 140 after it missed its original 31st December 2007 deadline, it was hard not to feel a great deal of pessimism that any real change in attitude would be witnessed on the ground.

Indeed, somewhat inevitably the six-month deadline passed and Iraq appears no closer or eager for that matter, to resolving the status of Kirkuk than the decades that preceded it.

Foot-dragging and a lack of desire to implement a constitution adopted by millions of Iraqis in a legal and democratic fashion, has understandably compounded Kurdish frustration.

Now, lawmakers in Baghdad are suggesting methods to resolve the dispute in Kirkuk that are simply too little, too late and which Kurds see as a sure formula of getting the short-straw again.

Intense negotiations in past weeks, was designed to finally bring a level of compromise between all parties, but the level of sentiments expressed suggest that the time of further compromise on the status of Kirkuk may have passed.

Article 24

Ironically, article 24, a special addition to the provisional and governorate law pertaining to provincial elections is designed to effectively cancel article 140 and suppress Kurdish ambitions to winning formal control of the city.

The inclusion of article 24 in the provincial law was seen as a red-line by Kurds, leading to angry demonstrations throughout Iraqi Kurdistan. However, although in latter sessions the text contained in article 24 was watered down significantly, this was simply not enough to appease weary Kurds.

Under Arab proposals, article 24 would mean that the elections in Kirkuk would be essentially prefixed with the Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens sharing the same number of seats. In addition, existing security forces in the region would be replaced by those in the centre and south – a clear attempt to undermine the mainly Kurdish security forces protecting the province.

Although, the law that was passed in spite of mass boycott by Kurdish lawmakers was always going to be vetoed, it was passed by Arab lawmakers more as a message to Kurds rather than in hope that it would by-pass the Iraqi presidential council.

Ruffling Kurdish Feathers

Controversial calls in Baghdad for a delay in the elections in Kirkuk, replace Kurdish security forces and non-implementation of the constitution is designed to ensure Kurds do not wrestle control of Kirkuk. Suggestion and notions such as article 24 are a flagrant attempt to destabilise Kurdish ranks and is specifically aimed at ruffling Kurdish sentiments.

Once Kurdish anger has been stoked, Arabs are aiming to induce a harsh reaction from them. The mass walkout is one example. This naturally places the Kurds as the representation of the spanner in the Iraqi machine. This perception continued in recent parliamentary sessions with Kurds unwilling to cave in to pressure for greater compromise.

Baghdad has failed to implement satisfactory measures to tackle article 140 for many years, and are now blaming the Kurds for the current stand-off.

Increasingly, this places Kurds in the context of over-reaching and as an obstacle to Iraqi reconciliation which could not be further from the truth.

The persistent disputes around the hydro-carbon law, which still has not been passed, and the provincial elections law, has been used as a marketing ploy by Baghdad to discredit the Kurds as genuine partners in the Iraqi union.

Cases of injustices against Arabs and Turcoman minorities in Kirkuk under the hands of the Kurds have been greatly exaggerated. Clearly, foreign proxy elements as well as political factions in Baghdad have sought to influence proceedings by creating instability and promoting an environment of mistrust.

There is plenty of Arab and Turkmen representation in the provincial council as well as security forces for that matter. In fact, many Arabs and Turcoman groups have been in support of implementing article 140 and the eventual annexing of the region to Kurdistan region.

The end-goal of the anti-Kurdish bandwagon, is to create an environment where holding an election would be unfeasible and against the interests of security gains in Iraq. For the Arabs it is simple, as long as there is no democracy in Kirkuk then there is no chance of any Kurdish victory.

Role of the UN

U.N. special representative Staffan de Mistura was appointed to help resolve the issues in Kirkuk by providing mainly “technical” assistance and to study alternatives to implementing a referendum on the status of Kirkuk, which many have touted as a one-way ticket to bloodshed.

However, after six-months of ‘fact-finding and analysis’, UN suggestions fell short of many expectations and provided solutions that were unrealistic and in some cases lacked the right level of political, ethnic and geographical grounding. In either case, Iraq moved no closer to stopping the “ticking time bomb” that de Mistura so boldly claimed to have done at the turn of the year.

Now the UN has entered the provincial council debate by promoting a postponement of elections in Kirkuk until a proposed committee can decide the best method for dealing with the current stand-off.

However, if the current track record of resolving the Kirkuk debate is anything to go by, the Kurds will miss the chance to solidify their hold on Kirkuk and yet nothing more will have been done in another six months time.

Why not hold elections in Kirkuk?

On the surface, according to lawmakers in Baghdad, holding elections in Kirkuk is technically and politically difficult due to working out registrar of voters in Kirkuk coupled with the prospect of holding elections in a volatile climate.

However, in practice, the fear is that an eventual and almost evitable victory of Kurds in the provincial elections in Kirkuk would make implementation of article 140 even more contentious. In many ways, holding elections at the current time would be perceived as a de facto substitute for holding a referendum on the status of the city.

Even if a referendum was never arranged, a Kurdish majority in the Kirkuk council would make things that bit more complicated for Baghdad. It would reinforce the Kurdish view that Kirkuk is a Kurdish city and would lead to more public efforts at annexing of the region.

Furthermore, the recommendations of de Mistura were formulated based on a number of factors such as historical influences but principally previous election results, when devising his suggestions to resolve disputed territories, including Kirkuk. A Kurdish victory at the polls in Kirkuk would make de Mistura’s analysis an interesting reading to say the least.

Kirkuk should be not treated differently to any other place in Iraq. All mutterings in Baghdad around the delay of the vote, is centred around ensuring Kurds do not get their hand on the substantial oil-reserves. This is hardly Iraq’s best kept secret.

If it was not about oil, article 140 would not even appear in Iraqi newspapers, let alone dominate the agenda of neighbouring foreign ministers.

Mosul a different example?

While minority Arabs and Turkmens state their opposition to living under Kurdish control, Kurds living under Arab control is now seen as a formality and a historical expectation in Iraq.

If minority Kurds asked for Mosul to be given special dispensation for the upcoming elections since it’s also a volatile and ethnically mixed city, Arabs would chuckle at the idea.

Then how are the voices of the majority in Kirkuk dampened by unsubstantiated fears of the minority in Kirkuk.

Kirkuk Provincial Council Threat

Almost before the Kirkuk provincial council could finish their threat of requesting to be annexed to the Kurdistan region, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was on the phone to voice his concerns.

External interference has only hampered democracy in Iraq, and neighbouring countries have served to only stoke tensions ad influence proceedings for their own benefit, rather than promote a new dawn across their border.

Turkey, in particular has been vociferous in its opposition of any moves toward Kurdish control of Kirkuk. Only this week Turkey called for more UN involvement in Kirkuk and stated the Turkish government was watching all developments in Kirkuk.

However, as Baghdad pressured the council not to follow their threat, Kurdistan President Massaud Barzani congratulated their stance.

Kurds have always stated Kirkuk as a red-line, but now appear increasingly more agitated in the face of the lack of desire by Baghdad to resolve long-standing disputes.

Democracy – the only solution

Ultimately, the one and only solution to the Kirkuk stand-off should not be decided by Kurdish leaders, the Iraqi national Assembly or even the Kirkuk council, but by the people themselves.

The wills of the million is far great than the will of a small number of politicians, who have been elected to serve them. If people in Kirkuk decide to vote in favour of joining the Kurdistan Region, then Baghdad has no basis to confront legal and democratic measures, other than to ensure minority rights are respected.

All talk of complex proposals by the UN and the need to place Kirkuk under special consideration is unnecessary and is only designed to complicate matters. The only viable solution is to let the people decide.

The US should then do its utmost to be the supporter and protectorate of the wishes of the people. Although, the provincial elections is as much vital to George Bush leaving his tenure as president on a positive as much as a move the they consider essential to reconciling Iraq’s ethnic and religious communities, elections should not be placed to appease US political interests but should be in the best interests of all groups in Iraq.

It is also ironic that Turkey as the role-model of democracy for the region is unwilling to accept legal and democratic principles chosen by millions of citizens by a neighbouring country. If there is genuine interest in seeing a stable, plural and democratic age in Iraq, then at the minimum true democratic ideals must be encouraged and not hampered by the US and their so-called allies.

If the voting in Kirkuk should be suspended then voting in all of Kurdistan region should be suspended. More extensions to the resolving elections in Kirkuk would be fruitless without any real desire.

Baghdad wants to slip the Kirkuk rug from under the feet of the Kurds. Kurds should be warned, after all they have had enough time and suffering to read the writing on the wall.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Did the UN Really Stop the Clock?

Leave a reply

In December 2007, as the deadline for the implementation of article 140 of the Iraqi constitution unsurprisingly passed, UN special envoy to Iraq Staffan de Mistura claimed: “…the question of Kikruk was a ticking time bomb. The United Nations has stopped the clock”. In reality however, the UN never stopped the clock, they only added more time to the “ticker”.

After Iraqi political figures agreed to “technical” assistance from the UN, it was hoped that a breakthrough could be finally reached on the hotly-contested territories including oil-rich Kirkuk. That aside, officially article 140, despite Turkoman and Arab rhetoric, is still the only legally binding paradigm for solving land disputes. The decision in December was to extend the deadline by another 6 months. However, only the deepest optimist would have thought that a referendum would be held by 31st June 2008.

The fact that Iraq is unwilling to follow democratic principles adopted by a clear majority speaks volumes about the level of mistrust and animosity gripping the national horizon and lack of genuine appetite for egalitarianism. Iraqis should never have allowed the interference of outside parties in internal affairs, let alone that of the UN. Simply, the UN lacks an adequate understanding on the level of differences rooted amidst the socio-political landscape.

The Kurds have never had representation in the UN and have been commonly persecuted while the UN Security Council has taken no action. Whilst 250,000 Kurds were kicked and beaten without remorse from their historical homes, “compromise” was not a word uttered by Baathist forces. Now those same Kurds, wishing to return home, are been told their legally-enshrined demands constitute overreaching and they must compromise.

In tandem with political progress on article 140, even the UN missed their own deadline to table suggestions to Iraqi leaders by weeks. Finally, those widely anticipated suggestions arrived in Baghdad last week.

Even the first phase of a methodology designed as a stepping-stone for dealing with Kirkuk by resolving less-contested areas was met with much apprehension. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) “first analysis” recommended putting Akra and Makhmour districts under Kurdistan Region control and with the districts of al-Hamadaniya and Mandali to be administered by central government.

The recommendations were based on “the administrative history of the areas and the change that have taken place after 2003 March along with the population structure and 2005 elections”. No matter what historical trajectory is analysed, UNAMI suggestions will always be based on approximations, until the people of every town are consulted in true democratic terms. This simply takes the argument a full circle – no technical agreement can formulate an all-encompassing basis for each region without an unambiguous consultation.

The suggestions were almost immediately criticised by Iraqi lawmakers on both sides of the Arab-Kurdish divide. There was general Arab census that the recommendations were “unconstitutional”, complicated the issue and had no legal basis. The Kurds themselves are unlikely to be happy without the prize asset of Kirkuk returning.

For the Kurds, this is a historical juncture. This is a chance to correct the wrongs of the past in a democratic and legal manner. If Kurds were unwilling to compromise in 1975 over Kirkuk, then any deal in the “new” Iraq of 2008 not involving its rightful return would represent a huge setback. The UN is an international yet generic taskforce when it comes to fiercely-contested regional matters. They will adopt a formula to try and please all parties, regardless of the weight of historical argument. If the UN is truly a taskforce capable of ensuring equal rights and safeguarding stability, then Kurdistan would have been independent long-ago.

The UN formula seemingly side-steps the fact that article 140 is synonymous with Kirkuk. A solution to deal with other less-emotive areas under dispute does not alter the picture a great deal.

Recently, Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, stated his administrations willingness for power sharing. If realised, such concessions are likely to be weighted with many caveats. Possibly, for greater compromise by Baghdad on the hydrocarbon-law or the return of all other disputed lands without question. Concessions would give Kurds productive short-term gains as well as a major boost of ties with the Turkish administration, yet the sense of regional defeat may be unavoidable.

Kirkuk has been a historical red-line and remains a future icon of Kurdish prosperity and survival. The will of the majority must not be sacrificed as a political token or gesture.
Regardless, the ticking time-bomb continues its countdown.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Just who is ‘Illegal’ in the Fuzzy Politics of Post-liberated Iraq?

Leave a reply

As the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) signed 5 new petroleum contracts and announced ongoing negotiations with foreign firms over 24 new oil blocks, the rather customary rhetoric by Iraqi Oil Minister, Hussein Shahristani, took a new twist by warning international companies that they would blacklisted by Iraq and even prevented from exporting oil. Ironically, in a bitter war of words, the Kurds claimed that it was Baghdad that was ‘neither legal nor responsible’. 

Arguably, oil is the blessing and curse that has plagued modern day Iraq, from its artificial boundaries based on the discovery of oil to the modern day scramble for control in post-liberated Iraq.

It is clear to see why one of the Bush administration’s fundamental goals has been national unity but more specifically the division of the national resources in a way that brings bitterly-divided factions back from the brink of civil-war.

Typical of the new ‘democratic’ Iraq, political progress was compromised with all-frequent vague agreements and the haling of achievements such as the Iraqi constitution when clearly most of the issues were swept under the political rug.

Even today, despite several short-lived announcements of agreements and hundreds of hours of negotiations there is no official hydro-carbon law in Iraq and no clearer end-sight into the formation of a workable partnership amongst the Iraqi ethnic mosaic.

With the KRG working tirelessly to live up to the billing as ‘the other Iraq’ and the only oasis of stability in a shattered country, they pushed ahead with their own oil law in August and have since approved a remarkable 15 exploration and production sharing contracts (PSC).

As the Kurds have pressed on with their own development, the threats and accusations of illegal dealings from Baghdad have been all too common.

The signing of the latest five contracts with TNK- BP, Korea National Oil Corp (KNOC), Hillwood, Sterling Energy and Aspect Energy, were historical as well as a political statement authorising the legitimacy, prominence and stability of KRG.

In reality, the fuel for this debate has been the virtual independence of the KRG. Perhaps the only remaining noose that the central government has on the north is the provision of oil. A determined drive towards self-sufficiency by building new power stations, new oil refineries and even talk of a new oil pipeline has only stirred nationalist blood in the Baghdad administration to boiling point.

Once the ties of oil have also been severed, then the Kurds will be effectively independent from Baghdad. Although, officially all resources are to be shared with the KRG getting 17% of all revenues, the long-term strategic and political implications are all too vital.

Defending the so-called ‘defiance’, KRG Prime Minister stated that 85% of revenues from these agreements will go to Iraq and that all exploration activities are for the good of the greater Iraqi population. There are now 20 international companies working in the north and working according to the Kurds within ‘democratic, federal, and free market principles mandated by the Iraq Constitution’. 

Clearly most of the land in the KRG is not explored and provides remarkable returns for would-be investors.

In spite of Shahristani’s warning of ‘consequences’, evidently the companies who have flocked to win contracts were already aware of the ramifications and decided the risk was worth taking. Most major oil producers were waiting for rest of Iraq, with the vast majority of oil resources to become stabilised, however, the wait is over 4 years and counting, whilst Kurdistan is ready to welcome them with open arms.

Long-term the Iraqi government seemingly views the KRG as a competitor and not a partner. Once the contentious issues of oil-rich Kirkuk is resolved and probably annexed to the KRG, this means that effectively Kurdistan would ‘own’ a sizable proportion of Iraq’s oil reserves.

One can begin to see the real Baghdad fear of a literal Kurdish break-away and Turkish alarm of the Kurds becoming a huge economical power house. This would leave the rest of Iraq to be fought between Sunni’s, with potential large swathes of barren land and with the Shiites retaining control over the rest of Iraq’s precious reserves.

Equal distribution of natural resources is one thing, but in Iraq with deep-mistrust and an artificial social patchwork, actual control of the oil-rich lands is everything.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.