Tag Archives: KRG Baghdad Relations

The Iraqi political machine’s tricky path

Leave a reply

As the painstaking election process stumbles to a close in Iraq, the intricate political work has just begun.

Resolution of Iraq’s issues not without their “perils and dangers”

Arranging and preparing for the national elections in Iraq was complicated enough. The elections finally held on 7th March 2010 were hailed by western powers and generally observed as successful, however, this was after much wrangling over the election law that saw the elections postponed, a highly contentious decision to ban hundreds of alleged ex-Baathist weeks before the elections and not to mention deadly suicide bombings on Election Day designed to deter would be voters.

However, the convoluted and tricky path for the Iraqi political machine is very much ahead. If the holding of relatively successful elections in the face of a number of challenges was painstaking itself, the formation of a new government to appease embittered Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites against a backdrop of mistrust will be an even tougher task that  will drag on for months longer.

Political jostling, with only handful of ballots left to be counted, has already commenced with the key parties vying for power already well on the path of seeking coalition partners, with no group alone likely to win the 163 seats required to form government. The power for government is augmented with the fight for the key positions of President, Prime Minister and Parliament speaker. The position of President for example has already become heated by remarks in some nationalist circles that since Iraq has an “Arabic” identity, the post should be held by an Arab.

However, even before tiresome negotiations ensue, the Iraqi High Independent Electoral Commission (IHEC) will have its work cut out to address claims and counter-claims of voter fraud and irregularities, particularly in Kirkuk. The IHEC is already under-fire for the laboured nature of announcing the votes, which has aided to claims of electoral mishaps and even to calls for a full recount in some circles.

A different flavour

At least on paper, the elections present a good prospect of facilitating cross-national reconciliation. The political parties attempted to undercut the sectarian divides, with Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law coalition and his closest contender and former premier Iyad Allawi’s al-Iraqiya, encompassing a number of political parties across sectarian lines.

With the Sunni turnout showing a marked increased from the boycott of 2005, the competitive nature of the elections was evident with divisions present within traditional Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish alliances.

The race for the hotseat

Whilst Maliki’s hard-line leadership alienated a number of groups, he was equally heralded for installing security in Iraq and possessing the right credentials as the nationalist leader that Iraq required. On the back of the highly successful showing at the 2009 provincial elections, results revealed to date put Maliki in prime position to win a majority once all votes are tallied up.

State of Law coalition is ahead in the symbolic Baghdad constituency, which remarkably represents one-fifth of the overall seats on offer. Al-Maliki was ahead in another several Shiite-dominated provinces with the predominately Shiite Iraqi National Alliance (INA) a close second in a number of these provinces, as well as leading in three southern provinces.

Against the popular view that religious parties have not fared as well, the Sadrist bloc of the INA has gained a credible number of seats and their influence as well as that of neighbouring Iran may well dictate the shape of the future coalitions. A strong showing by Moqtada al-Sadr is particularly bad news for Maliki, who instigated the infamous and bloody crackdown of his militia in 2008.

Whilst Maliki may be a leading contender, his quest to reassume power in Baghdad is far from sealed. His old foes and newly created adversaries will almost certainly jokey ardently to ensure that he does not win a critical second term in office.

In contrast, the surprising contender for the hot seat is Allawi. Results show that the secular and nationalistic agenda of al-Iraqiya bode strongly amongst Sunni voters in north and western provinces, many who remain sceptical at Maliki’s Iranian connections and Shiite control of security forces. Al-Iraqiya gains include Nineveh, which has the second highest number of seats up for grabs. As a result of the strong electoral showing, Allawi is neck-to-neck in the votes counted to date with Maliki. Allawi could well strike a coalition agreement with the Kurdish groups or the INA, as well as other smaller parties.

In this respect, the coalition opportunities on the table have far greater significance than ever before. Depending on who can be enticed into the political fold, a number of coalitions can be struck and thus the jockeying promises to be as intensive as ever.

Kurdish wildcard

The Kurds are widely acknowledged to assume the role of kingmakers once more. With the Kurds looking to achieve between 60-65 seats, this will have significant bearing on who ultimately assumes the premiership in Baghdad.

As far as the Kurds are concerned, if you have the power to make a king, then you have to ensure the “right” king is “made” at all costs.

Any future coalition will almost certainly require the support of the Kurds, and this places great leverage on the Kurdish bargaining position. The Kurdish support for Maliki at crucial times arguably helped to salvage the Baghdad government, especially when Iraq was on a fierce downward spiral between 2006 and 2007.

A number of Kurds grew increasingly sceptical of Maliki, but with al-Iraqiya vying directly for power with the Kurdistan Alliance in Nineveh and especially in Kirkuk, where they have based their support on promises to ward off Kurdish attempts to annex Kirkuk, Allawi is hardly a firm favourite either. Comments from al-Iraqiya liking Kurdish attempts at wrestling control of Kirkuk to Israeli settlements was hardly the right tonic to sweeten the growing bitterness.

Either way, the Kurdish aspirations of peacefully implementing article 140, resolving the issue of disputed territories and agreeing a national hydrocarbon law, will certainly hold fundamental importance to any prospective Baghdad partnership.

With growing pressure from the Kurdish public and political competition at home, the KDP and the PUK under the Kurdistan Alliance umbrella can ill afford to leave Baghdad without Kirkuk and the key Kurdish demands.

Kurds must stay as close as they can to the throne of power to safeguard Kurdish interests and may well support any legislation and lobbying further south, as long as their status quo is maintained and ultimately enhanced.

Race for Kirkuk

If the hotly-disputed race for Kirkuk needed any incitement, the close race between al-Iraqiya and Kurdistan Alliance for the province is increasing in intensity all the time. If the Kurds assume a majority as they did in 2005 and as they anticipate once more, this will aid their claim to annexing Kirkuk to Kurdistan, with many eying the elections in Kirkuk as a de-facto referendum.

While the final figures may well be disputed under contentious guidelines outlined in the election law specific to Kirkuk, the planned census in October 2010 will ultimately serve as the real battle to secure the future status of the city.

Change in Kurdistan

The three provinces that officially make up the Kurdistan Region had the highest turnouts across Iraq. With the new Kurdish opposition Change Movement (Gorran), entering the fray in dramatic circumstances in 2009, the race for votes in Kurdistan took on additional importance.

As expected Gorran faired well in the province of Sulaimaniya, but the contest with the PUK was as close as ever, with the PUK performing strongly in Kirkuk where Gorran was expected to make inroads.

It is too early to say to what extent the fractious nature of the Kurdish vote this time around hindered their quest for influence in Baghdad, but what is clear is that without a united Kurdish voice in Kirkuk and particularly Baghdad, the new political competiveness within the Kurdish scene may well hamper Kurdistan.

Gorran may well use their newfound leverage in Baghdad to indirectly pressure the Kurdistan Alliance for the much hyped “changes” they propose in Kurdistan itself.

Furthermore, with the much higher turnout of Sunnis than in 2005 and with increased number of seats in parliament not resulting in the anticipated number of seats in Kurdistan in proportion to the population, the Kurdish position becomes more tentative as the dust settles on the new political climate in Iraq.

American Withdrawal

Months of protracted negotiations and heated discussions will take place, all the while as the US increases its demobilisation efforts in anticipation of its iconic withdrawal by the end of August 2010.

While the next government will be the first under full Iraqi sovereignty and under relative blanket of security, this does not mask the key constraints and challenges that may hinder Iraqi progress once more.

Progress is very much reversible in Iraq and with emotive and historically entrenched angles on critical national issues, the resolution of these issues will not be without their perils and dangers.

Regardless of any election outcome, entities in Iraq will still decree a significant share of the Iraqi cake. While the system of proportional representation is designed to reflect the overall will of the electorate across the mosaic, the common policy of appeasement will be evident. For example, to keep Sunnis on the political stage, the expectation is they will still assume key posts, key percentage of the armed forces etc. This appeasement policy was a key reason for the decline in Sunni insurgency and the newfound security in Iraq, not necessarily just strong handed tactics by al-Maliki.

The greatest danger for America is that while Iraqis bicker and the US military arsenal wanes, this may yet give the encouragement for insurgents to reassume centre stage.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Iraqi national elections: a crucial year ahead for Kurds and Baghdad

Leave a reply

With national elections in January 2010 and the upcoming withdrawal of US troops, the next year will prove decisive for Iraq.

Although, progress and political reconciliation has been arduous and slow four years after the last elections, security and general stability has improved. There have been many alliances and splinters groups within the past few years, but judging by the provincial elections earlier this year, Iraq is slowly shifting away from the sectarian tendencies that have severely blighted trust and reconciliation amongst the Iraqi mosaic.

Although, the platform has been set to enhance democracy and at least theoretically propel the country towards a level of national reconciliation, if sides have the appetite for such a phenomenon, the real issues have simply been sidelined for far too long. Ultimately, it is these issues that will determine what future course the Iraqi machine will take.

For example, there are still fundamental differences over federalism and central powers, how the immensely rich Iraqi cake can be shared via an elusive national hydrocarbon law, enticing Baathist into the political fold, keeping influential Sunni factions happy in the long run and calls for changes to the constitution.

The above mentioned set of obstacles is no mean feat, however, coupled with the growing stand-off between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad over disputed territories, and 2010-2011 will surely leave many anxious personnel in the Obama administration.

A chance for new stakes

What the national elections do provide is a chance to refresh the political landscape, alliances and power makeup. As for the Kurds, the national elections will come on the back of their successful regional elections in July, which for the first time instilled real opposition in parliament via the Goran List.

These elections are a chance for Kurds to strike the right concord internally and with other Iraqi factions, with viewing to finally breaking the impasse that has seriously hindered bilateral ties with the Baghdad government.

It is becoming apparent that the Goran List and the PUK-KDP headed lists will be running under separate lists in the national elections, but will “pool” their votes. Such ardent competition that is brewing between Kurdish groups does not have to be a hindrance but can actual spur Kurdish goals. Internal opposition, different views and fresh thinking can be just the tonic on the regional and national level, as long as the overall strategic goals of the Kurds remain unaffected.

Such goals should be designed around maximising the benefit of the Kurdistan Region, ensuring the issue of disputed territories is resolved via the implementation of constitutional articles, and promoting an oil law that is fair and equitable and generally safeguarding the interests of the people in the region that they have been elected to serve.

Fresh thinking, fresh alliances

After years of stalemate on a number of fundamental issues, new political groups and alliances such as the Goran list, can act as the right boost on the national stage.

Now that there is a perception of a balanced air to Kurdish politics, the onset of new Kurdish political groups may spur other Iraqi parties to do business with them. Years of protracted negotiations and tensions between the KRG and Baghdad has left a bitter taste in the mouth, and a genuine new thinking is required by Baghdad coupled with new impetus in Kurdistan, to avoid another four years of lingering progress and sluggish attitude towards implementing constitutional articles.

There have been signs that in Kirkuk that the ubiquitous dispute between Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen has been added to by a possible power-battle for the city by Kurds themselves.

It is perfectly natural to have differing Kurdish political actors on the Kirkuk stage and this is a part and parcel of a healthy democracy. However, once again the common goals of the parties must not change and that is to ensure the implementation of article 140.

The advent of Goran in Kirkuk may actual help entice moderate Arab and Turkmen groups to some extent. The provision of a more broad alliance in Kirkuk is absolutely vital to finally break the stalemate. Arabs and Turkmen may well be encouraged to work with a “reformist” Kurdish group.

The Goran list has already indicated that they will deploy a “softer”, more reconciliatory tone towards Baghdad. This would be a productive development, but such moves towards compromise should not usher a sell-out of Kurdish interests.

The compromise towards Baghdad is vital for the development of Kurdistan that will hopefully see a breakthrough on oil sharing and increased oil exports in the region. However, the red-lines must not be altered. Certainly, the democratic implementation of article 140 is one of those fundamental red-lines. The moment democratic principles voted by millions of Iraqis are sidelined this will signal the death of Iraqi unity.

Baghdad is an important strategic partner of Kurdistan and prosperous relationships is vital to the long-term health and success of the region. This engagement should be based on equality and mutual understanding, any Baghdad political rally against the Kurds in the aftermath of the elections to muster Arab nationalist sentiments must be strongly rebuked.

Kingmakers

The Kurds are likely to form the single largest parliamentary bloc in the Iraqi National Assembly, so thus their support is almost a prerequisite to the formation of any subsequent government in Baghdad. No alliances should be formed by the Kurds or any move to waste this precious position, without firm guarantees from the prospective alliance partners that will serve the benefits of Kurdistan in practical terms and not just via promises and rhetoric that came with previous alliances.

There is no reason why in Baghdad a ruling coalition can not be formed from Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni parties, with a strong bout of realism and genuine desire for reconciliation, the interests of each group do not need to be mutually exclusive.

Elections in Kirkuk

This paradigm could not apply to Kirkuk more strongly. Rather than trying to indefinitely delay elections in the province or sideline Kurdish interests, Arabs and Turkmen must comprehend that at some point elections will have to be held in the province like any part of Iraq – delay tactics will not solve the dilemma.

The continuous delays of referendums, census and provincial elections in Kirkuk are undemocratic and illegal. Arab and Turkmen groups should start to work with Kurdish groups to safeguard their interests and build broader alliances, but all within the remit of the constitution. If the majority of the people of Kirkuk decide to annex with the KRG, then Arabs and Turkmens must live with this reality and maximise their positions within this framework and vice versa.

The Kurds must not allow any postponement of elections in Kirkuk come January. Any calls by groups to share power equally in Kirkuk are unlawful. In a democratic system, how can power be shared in any way other than based on proportionate votes of the electorate?

Compromise is important in Iraq as in any part of the democratic world. However, compromise and reconciliation can not be grounded on hypocrisy. How can one share seats equally in one province and disproportionately distribute power in another province (Mosul) with clear intent of sidelining a major political rival and manipulating democratic principles?

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Leave a reply

While much of the attention since the liberation of Iraq has been occupied by the sectarian strife of the south, heightened tension between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad are increasingly the object of much focus.

Although international mediums have concentrated on the tense relationships in recent times, none of the issues are particularly new and too often have been merely brushed under the political rug for the sake of progress.

Time and again political agreements such as with the constitution and key laws have been fraught with protraction, acrimony and difficulty. On many occasions, Iraqi’s agreed to disagree under fierce pressure from the US, intent on showcasing a new democratic Iraq and political progress amongst the feuding elite, whilst in reality the problems were simply postponed.

Ironically, even when the Iraqis did find concord on political notions after what may be deemed as “classic compromise”, in the aftermath not all sides had the stomach to implement the measures it entailed. Article 140 is a prime example of a legal stipulation that has been overlooked and prolonged, for the simple reason that ultimately Baghdad does not want to implement the motions for fear of its underlying implications – Kurdish control of oil.

The Kurdistan Region since 1991 has been practically independent and as such reintegration with the rest of Iraq was never going to be easy. Kurdistan has been relatively stable and protected, while bloodshed and terror has ensued further south. It is evident that the Kurds have benefitted from the situation, economically and politically, becoming kingmakers in the new Iraq. Now voices in Iraq cry of overreaching and hostile actions. 

A look across the 300-mile or so “trigger line” that spans from Syria to Iran covering disputed territories paints its own story of why friction is a common theme as the Arab-Kurd divide becomes murky. However, it’s hardly a secret that ethnic and historical pride aside, one can not overlook the simple fact that this line weaves through an immense amount of oil.

As compromise on issues such disputed territories, particularly Kirkuk and article 140, national hydrocarbon law and federalism has become more difficult to muster, both sides have seemingly dug their heels in.

On the one hand, a rejuvenated Baghdad is somewhat on a mission to rescind Kurdish powers, thwart their demands and form a new strong centre. This is best highlighted by the refusal of Baghdad to recognise oil contracts signed by the KRG and in reluctance to deal with the issue of disputed territories.

The fear is simple, Kurdish expansion in terms of land, power and economy will push the country further towards de facto disintegration, even if in reality it may have occurred long-ago.

With the US engaging in its elusive exit strategy and beginning its much anticipated withdrawal, its eyes are firmly on political reconciliation. Washington has placed much focus on reconciling both governments in fear of leaving an Iraq on the verge of all out war. The Pentagon has expressed it anxiety with what it calls as the “most dangerous” development in Iraq, but in reality these problems did not arise overnight but with the very foundation of the state. 

Recently, influential senator John McCain and a number of aides visited Kurdistan on the back of a recent visit by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, with the easing of the current stand-off likely to be on the agenda.

The US must not overlook the very fact that the Kurds and Arabs have been at odds for decades over influence, autonomy and natural resources. Fear of Kurdish power and demands, is the very reason Saddam Hussein went to such great lengths to repress the Kurdish community.

In this historic land that houses different ethnicities and sects, only an all encompassing and “future proof” solution can work. This can be achieved by a loose federation, with borders decided via internationally recognised and legitimate referendums, which no sides can dispute. It is ultimately the people that should decide their fate, taking the argument around the importance of implementing article 140 a full circle.

Under US pressure, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki travelled to Kurdistan with hope of striking reconciliatory tones with Kurdistan President, Massoud Barzani, and the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani. Although the meeting was symbolic, given that al-Maliki and Barzani had not spoken in over a year, smiles in public are unlikely to change moods in the background.

Both sides agreed to create committees to deal with disputes, however, such committees have proven ineffective in the past and in essence may change little if the appetite for such principles does not change from the top.

Iraqis need a roadmap and legal starting point to underline their negotiations and as such there is not better product than the blueprint of the country – its constitution. There should be room for compromise and negotiation, but primarily on the principles of this document. The sidelining of this document, the calls to deem key articles as void or attempts to make wholesale changes to the constitution is a prelude to the collapse of the “heart beat” of Iraq and thus its demise.

In all essence two national armies are employed in Iraq, with as much animosity for each other as ever. As the disputed borderline becomes cloudy, so do the lines of responsibility, engagement and control. As tensions have reached dangerous heights, this has pitted the Kurdish and Iraqi forces ominously on a collision course. A number of recent incidents have been averted, while clearly the message from the respective commanders was shoot on order.

Ill-feeling has not been helped by a string of bombings in the Nineveh province and disputed territories with al-Qaeda keen as ever to foster instability. This has led to a war of words between both sides as the KRG have warned about the increasing violence and has accused al-Hadba of fermenting the escalations. Sentiments are hardly aided by the fact that the Kurds boycotted the new Nineveh administration after been deprived of practically all key positions by al-Hadba.

Now, not only two armies roam this province but also now in essence two administrations. If Kurds are deprived of power as a minority in Mosul, then the Kurds may choose to do likewise in Kirkuk. The call for compromise on hypocritical foundations is recipe for future problems.

With key Iraqi parliamentary elections around the corner, this may provide room for a breakthrough as sides look to build alliances. However, all too often in Iraq it has been a case of one step forward and two steps back, simply because animosity has been masked by short-term tactical gains.

Kurds are ever-weary of a stronger revitalized Baghdad and anxious about the prospect of US withdrawal. Their stance has also served as a warning to their US counterparts that in spite of pressure and mounting friction, they are not going to be the ones that budge over what they deem as legitimate rights.

Focus on ethnic tensions further north, must not mask the sectarian bloodshed that still firmly grips Iraq, as recent bombings have ripped through the heart of Baghdad. The question of how the Iraqi cake can be affectively shared between the Iraqi mosaic is as pertinent as ever.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Breaking the Kirkuk deadlock?

Leave a reply

Of all the current issues in Iraq, the dispute over the oil-rich Kirkuk region could go a long way in deciding future fortunes of the “new” Iraq.

Kirkuk was a persistent thorn in the side of the Iraqi Kurds and Baghdad for many decades and the new Iraq after the downfall of Saddam Hussein has done little to change that, in spite of the fact the stipulations under article 140 of the Iraqi constitution adopted in 2005 was designed to bring a democratic solution to the control of Kirkuk once and for all.

Once the deadline for the implementation of article 140 inevitably passed at the end of 2007 and without much progress, the UN was tasked with the responsibility of diffusing tensions, or in the words of UN special envoy to Iraq, Steffan di Mistura, stopping the ticking time-bomb.

Fast forward to 2009, after many months of fact finding, research and analysis, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) finally submitted their detailed report outlining recommendations to Iraqi leaders on resolving the numerous border disputes, of which Kirkuk is the most notable.

Kurds have ubiquitously accused Baghdad of dragging their heels, and heeding to pressure from neighbouring countries particularly Turkey, who is naturally unfavourable to seeing Kirkuk’s immense oil wealth ‘fall into the hands’ of the Kurds.

As tensions have reached a knife-edge between the Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen, Kirkuk has often been referred as a touch-paper for the rest of Iraq with international powers keen to prevent civil war.

Kurdish frustrations are compounded by Baathist Arabisation policies that saw thousands of Arabs resettle in the area at the expense of the Kurds and the changes to the provincial boundaries to dilute Kurdish population figures.

Now Kurds, who have remained insistent that article 140 is a red line, wait anxiously for resolution of Kirkuk, especially with the US withdrawal plans expected to gather pace. The exact details of the UN report are still unclear, whether the suggestions will lead to an agreement is even more uncertain.

According to KRG Special Representative to the UN, Dindar Zebari, UN Resolution 1770 and 880 gave the UN involvement crucial legitimacy which was aided further by the direct request for “technical” assistance from Iraqi leaders. “The involvement of the UN has been a big help to the political process in Iraq”, remarked Zebari.

According to Zebari, UN recommendations are intended as a “complete package” that is not designed to appease one Iraqi group or any neighbouring country.

“UN is providing consultancy, technical and logistics support, assistance in terms of data, and other criteria that have to be used to formulate solutions. So the UN involvement is essentially in an advisory and consultancy capacity”, stated Zebari who emphasized from an executive perspective that the implementation of any solution can only come from the Iraqi side.

Iraqi leaders now have the opportunity to analyze the report, based on elements that were officially requested for the UN to determine, and come up with their own feedback or recommendations. All four solutions proposed in the report, however, deal with Kirkuk as a single unit.

“The UN reports doesn’t say these areas have to part of a certain authority but may state that according to criteria that have been used, let’s say geographical, historical and cultural backgrounds, previous elections result, the majority of the certain districts of these areas are supporting annexation or support to be part of that authority. However, it does not stipulate that the UN decides,” Zebari reaffirmed.

Whether agreements lead to sustainable solutions is unclear, however Zebari warned that that there must be more urgency to progress.

Zebari emphasized that from a KRG perspective they are eager for a quick solution, and are keen for more compromises amongst all the sides, but moreover any discussion or solutions must be formulated around article 140 of a constitution that is essentially “a package and you can not ignore a part of that package”, otherwise as Zebari warned, “other groups or minorities can take other articles out of the constitution”.

As far as the KRG are concerned, “the solution must be immediate and more urgent, because it affects the political process and the trust between Iraqis in this important period of transition.”

According to Zebari, the UN and international community have a key responsibility in the post-liberalisation of Iraq and “have a key role in successful reconciliation, where the current involvement serves a part of the UN commitment to the political process”. Zebari underlined that the International community are committed to the peace and security of Iraq and still have “a huge responsibility to make Iraq a success.”

Either way, it remains to be seen whether the UN stopped the ticking-tomb or simply just delayed its implementation. The real desire to reconcile, compromise and enforce democratic principles is down to Iraqi’s alone. International powers can facilitate the process but ultimately in Iraq it may be a case that ‘you can take a horse to a well, but not make it drink it’.

First Published On: The Media Line

Other Primary Sources of Republication: Kurdistan Regional Government, Kurdish Globe, Rudaw, Peyamner, eKurd, PUK Media, Online Opinion, Various Misc.

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.

‘Time for Realism’ But is it Really the Kurds in Need of a Reality Check?

Leave a reply

Evidently, the Kurds have excelled under de-facto autonomy since 2003, whilst the rest of Iraq has been in turmoil and insurgency. However, it is often forgotten that Kurds have been practicing self-rule and increasing prosperity since 1991. Kurds chose to rejoin Iraq under a ‘voluntary’ union, whilst inheriting their pre-2003 status.

Depending on your source of news and political oratory, Kurds may be portrayed as a rather small rebellious group that has consumed more than its entitlement and has made unlawful gains whilst subsequently blocking national reconciliation. Common reference to ‘time for Kurdish realism’, Kurdish unilateralism, overreaching, land grabbing and disproportionate share of power, portrays a rather indifferent, greedy, inconsiderate and outrageous picture of the Kurds. 

Perhaps, neighbours, politicians and foreign analysts, simply fail to observe eight decades of Kurdish history let alone the rich-history and culture dating back thousands of years. Admittedly, the rise to prominence is unparalleled in a remarkable short period of time in comparison to their lost and neglected existence for several decades before that. However, by no means should a tale of rags-to-the-riches be perceived as over-ambitious tendencies or overreaching.

The Kurds were harshly treated as second-class citizens and obstacles to the ideals of successive regimes. Neighbours Iran and Turkey and other Kurdish critics with their own agendas, should take note that the real parties in need of a reality check are not the Kurds. Days of denials, systematic persecution and crimes against humanity in the knowledge that the world would turn a blind eye is over.

Clearly the Kurds are reaching a critical conjecture in their history. After enduring decades of pain and sacrifice to rewrite partial wrongs and misfortunes of history, the Kurds must do all they can to patiently safeguard their historical gains and strategic standing. Swaying to the pressure and unjust rhetoric of Arabs, Turks and the like may well set the Kurds back decades more.

This is an opportunity for the Kurds via democratic and diplomatic means, in true contrast to their oppressors, correct the wrongs of the past and stand-up to chauvinism, aggression and belittling by other nationalists in the region.

Kurds must not allow foreign parties to dictate their fortune and destiny once more or be used as pawns in the greater schemes of global powers. This is nothing short of political suicide.

In Iraq, where the Kurds control the only stable, prosperous and peaceful part of the country, Arab Sunnis and Shiites after battling each other relentlessly for years, are now slowly uniting against the Kurds.

With a political memorandum issued by Arabs parties, the aim was clearly to halt Kurdish gains and impede their ‘overreaching’. A normalisation of Kirkuk, jurisdiction over oil, distribution of budget and regional authority had all been key conditions for Kurdish coalitions in government. Baghdad has been dragging its feet for years over Kirkuk and now Baghdad’s self-imposed actions that culminated in the missed referendum in 2007, are been used to annul article 140 of the constitution.

Reversal of past policies and crimes is the first litmus test of whether Arab mentalities really have changed or democracy can really be achieved. However, rather than stick to constitutional principles, Baghdad and their neighbours are simply looking at the unilateral aspect of Kurds inheriting oil in Kirkuk. Oil or no oil, money should not tamper the rights of inhabitants to return to the homes of their fore-fathers and to decide their fate.

The Iraqi flag imposed by Baathist leaders should have been the first to change and not grudgingly in 2008. After all it is the very symbol of a country. Yet more strikingly, the Iraqi national budget continues to remain stalled due yet again to a perception of transgression of boundaries by Kurds.

Disputes over provisional powers and rights of regions to explore oil, are again designed to put a spanner in Kurdish advancement. Clearly, Baghdad is now deflecting the blame for a lack of national reconciliation onto ‘uncompromising’ Kurds.

Ironically, as Kurds should be commended for their hard-fought gains, democracy, economy and a model of religious tolerance, they are been harshly judged as overstepping the mark.

Anywhere else, rectifying wrongs of the past, embarking on economic achievements and prominence against remarkable odds would be applauded, however clearly this would not happen in Iraq or neighbouring countries, only simply because in this instance it is the ‘impudent’ Kurds who stand to endure benefit and prosperity.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Hewler Post (Kurdish), Peyamner, Various Misc.

New Dispute Over National Budget Marks Mounting Friction Between KRG and Baghdad

Leave a reply

The Iraqi Political Paradigm – taking one step forward and two back.

The transitional road to democracy in Iraq has been symbolised by protracted negotiations, widespread animosity and mistrust and above all a lack of lasting compromise. However, in spite of the recent commendations by the US administration and the United Nations on progress in Iraq and the desire and effort to establish national reconciliation, particularly with the disenfranchised Sunni Arab population, fundamental problems continue to haunt Iraq.

The fulcrum of national discord is a long-running feud and increasing divide between the largely autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad, on a number of highly-contentious issues.

Often in Iraqi politics, much to the frustration of a disillusioned population and their foreign occupiers, where Iraqis take a step forward in striking the right reconciliatory tones, other deep-seated issues plaguing the social horizon, means it habitually takes two steps back.

On paper, two major milestones were achieved in Iraq recently. Firstly, the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed a law to allow certain ex-Baathist Party officials to return to public life, fulfilling a key demand of embittered Sunnis.

Secondly, the Iraqi parliament voted in a majority over a draft to modify the existing flag by removing the three stars that served as an icon of Baathist Party ideology, to satisfy demands by Kurds who refused to fly a flag that symbolised all the misfortune and suffering that they had endured under it.

Although it marked a rare union in the National Assembly, in essence the urgency of taking a swift measure to change the flag, where similar initiatives had been rejected in the past, was the threat of a great embarrassment that would have engulfed the Iraqi government at the planned meeting of pan-Arab parliamentarians in Kurdistan, had the Iraqi national flag not been raised on a territory of a member of the Arab League.

To blight short-lived hope, as agreement over the new temporary national flag was embraced, almost simultaneously another hot-issue came to the fore. Over three weeks into the new year, the Iraqi national budget for 2008, allocating some 49 billions dollars, is dramatically stalled.

At the heart of the debate are objections from Sunnis and particularly from the ruling Shiite alliance, whose traditional alliance with the Kurds is diminishing, on the allocation of 17% the national budget to the KRG. The Kurds had also insisted that the Kurdish Peshmerga should be paid out of the national defence budget as a legitimate “Iraqi” defence force. Other reservations, stemmed from the lack of accountability of government spending over the last few years and the perceived lack of strategy and clarity as to how the budget will be affectively spent to tackle key areas of poverty and unemployment.

In reality, the dispute over the national budget is an off-shoot of the bitter disagreement over the Iraqi hydrocarbon law all that was all but postponed indefinitely due to deepening disagreements between the fractious groups in Iraq, over the rights and jurisdiction of regions in the distribution of Iraq’s immense oil wealth.

Add the heated-disputes over the unilateral signing of oil-exploration contracts by the KRG in defiance of the oil ministry and the increasingly shaky-ties with Prime Minister al-Maliki’s Shiite alliance become ever noticeable.

All the while in the foreground, politicians stutter towards a much-publicised drive to bring the nation closer to reconciliation, reconstruction and stability.

Recent Arab motions to effectively reign-in what they perceive as Kurdish overreaching only served to fuel increasing antagonism.

150 Arab lawmakers, including both Shiites and Sunnis, issued a memorandum criticising the ‘go-it-alone’ mindset of the Kurds and attributing their stance on the holding of the much-delayed referendum on oil-rich Kirkuk, and signing of independent oil-deals as a threat against national unity.

As tensions simmer, the Sunni population continue to demand more influence in the national security forces, more representation in government and more of a direct sway on the future blueprint of Iraq, starting with the amendments to the Iraqi constitution which they see as unrepresentative of Sunnis who largely boycotted the vote.

However, despite the recent much-hailed gestures, meeting bold Sunni demands, whilst simultaneously seeking concord between the KRG and Baghdad, would be near impossible, at the current way each party is driving their bargain at the negotiating table.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Hewler Post (Kurdish), Peyamner, Various Misc.