The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Battle For Kirkuk

Battle For Kirkuk

Posted by Roma Parhad (Guest) - Sunday, February 28 2010, 21:00:49 (CET) from 201.159.197.76 - matsa1317.cybermatsa.com.mx Mexico - Windows XP - Internet Explorer Website: Website title:

Present day Iraq was created out of the former Ottoman Empire in 1938, irrespective of ethnic divisions or religious factions, causing a significant amount of internal turbulence in the subsequent decades. The conflict between the Kurds, the Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs and the minority ethnic and religious groups of Iraq has escalated since the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. This paper focuses on the clash between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the Iraqi government over the city of Kirkuk, its ethnic divisions and vital resources. The first part of this paper focuses on the players involved, their relationships and the positions they support while the second part of the paper focuses on the role of leaders and forced demographic transitions to explain the root causes of this conflict. The primary parties are made up of the Kurds and Arab Iraqi's and to a certain extent the ethnic minorities, while the secondary parties are the United States and Turkey. The Kurds are a non-Arab ethnic minority in the Middle East most closely related to Iranians ethnically and linguistically; however the majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslim unlike the majority Shi'ite Iran (“Kurds”, Columbia Encyclopedia). They are the largest ethnic minority in the Middle East and with a population of nearly 40 million they are the largest stateless nation in the world divided between Northern Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria (Centre for Kurdish Studies). Their dreams of autonomy, after years of persecution, were finally realized in 1992 with the creation of Kurdistan as a semi-autonomous region in Northern Iraq. In spite of this there have been continual clashes; more recently involving the KRG's attempts to annex additional regions of Iraq. The city of Kirkuk has become a vital target, and the centre of the conflict, for both the Iraqi Government and the KRG for economic and nationalist reasons. The Kurds argue that historically Kirkuk was “an integral part of Kurdish domains that were subsequently Turkified during the Ottoman Empire and Arabized by every Iraqi government since the inception of the state” (Stansfield & Anderson, 2009, p. 137-138) while the Arab perspective prefers to return to the status quo under Baathist rule and “objects against attempts to reverse the earlier ethnic cleansings of Kurds and Turkmens” ( Leezenburg, 2010, p. 137). The Iraqi government “asserts that there are no ‘disputed territories’ in Ninevah, Diyala or Kirkuk…they have all been traditionally recognized as distinctly ‘Iraqi’” and “Arab tribes are only too keen to embrace any authority that can challenge the power of the Kurds in these areas, largely for their own local reasons rather than for any wider Iraqi nationalist nostalgia” (Stansfield & Anderson, 2009, p.138). Gareth Stansfield and Liam Anderson explain the complicated situation of Kirkuk is not just the ethnic mix of Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens and Christians, but the fact that Kirkuk sits on top of Iraq’s second-largest oilfield, containing 20 percent of the country’s proven oil reserves (2009, p.137-138). According to an International Crisis Group report, “The Kurds are not the only ones with their eyes on what to them is the ultimate prize” and “any central government in Baghdad is likely to assert its claim to Kirkuk” meaning the “future status of the city of Kirkuk will play a pivotal role” (War in Iraq, 2003, p. 1). In addition to the claims of the Arabs and Kurds, the Turkmens and Christians residing in Kirkuk have laid claim to it as well, bringing “communities into conflict on the basis of ethnic identity (War in Iraq, 2003, p. 138). Turkey, Syria and Iran have a historically oppressed Kurdish population of approximately 30 million combined (Sieff, 2007) and can agree on one thing: the less power the Kurds have, anywhere in the Middle East, the better for them (Leezenburg, 2010). Turkey has been especially wary about the KRG becoming increasingly powerful and attempting to unite with the 12 million already rebellious Turkish Kurds to create a larger, sovereign, Kurdistan state. The United States, however, is in a precarious situation, supporting Kurdistan's territorial claims while making sure the Iraqi government doesn't collapse and as the “Iraqi army and pesh merga (KRG's military) formations [continue] to manoeuvre against one another...it is only the presence of American soldiers that averts violence” (Pollack, 2009, p.10). The second part of this essay focuses on the important role of leaders and what part Saddam Hussein's regime played in creating the present day tension in Kirkuk. The Baath party took power in 1963 and brought with it a series of policies that laid the foundation for many of the ethnic conflicts in Iraq today. Saddam Hussein took power, officially in 1979 and unfurled a policy of “Arabization” that included ethnic cleansing, corruption, economic discrimination, destroying villages and displacing peoples. According to Nouri Talabany, between 1963 and 1988 the National Guard “recruited Arab Baathists and Turkmens who systematically attacked ethnic Kurds... destroy[ing] 779 Kurdish villages in the Kirkuk region--razing 493 primary schools, 598 mosques, and 40 medical clinics” and to make it difficult for them to return the government “burned farms and orchards, confiscated cattle, blew up wells, and obliterated cemeteries” ( 2007, p. 2). The discovery of oil in Kirkuk in 1927 had initiated government sponsored Arab immigration to the region but it wasn't until Saddam took power that Kirkuk became the centre of the state’s Arabization programs particularly “after the nationalization of the petroleum industry in 1972” (Natali, 2008, p. 434). Denise Natali explains that “forced demographic changes repopulated entire districts of Kirkuk with Arab settlers from outside the region” while Kurds were thrown out of their homes, fired from administrative positions and moved to southern and central Iraq to be replaced by Arabs that were given jobs in the oil sector (2008, p. 435). The Baathist regime under Saddam also replaced names of streets and schools with Arab names and forced businesses to adapt Arab names. They even went as far as to “ rewrite Kurdish tombstone inscriptions with Arabic in order to retroactively alter the demography” (Talabany, 2007, p. 2). Kurds were only allowed to sell real estate to Arabs and weren't allowed to purchase any real estate in Kirkuk themselves. Finally, in 1996, the government passed an “identity law” to “force Kurds and other non-Arabs” to register as Arab (Talabany, 2007, p. 2). The process of Arabization included “offering financial rewards to Arabs who settled in what were traditionally Kurdish areas” (Byman, 2003, p. 68). Arabization can be seen as an attempt to extend national solidarity which, David Barash and Charles Webel argue, can “be a pretext for aggression” as it has often “been used to provide legal and political justifications that rationalize a conflict or intervention whose roots may well lie elsewhere” (2002, p. 135). The ethnic tension in Kirkuk hasn't always existed , it is “not part of any inherent hatred between Kurds, Arabs and Turcomans, or Sunni and Shi’a communities. Rather, it is rooted in a highly ethnicized historical trajectory” (Natali, 2008, p. 442) that has evolved from Saddam's policy of forced demographic changes in relation to Kirkuk's resources. The battle over Kirkuk is now, and has been, a competition over the significant amount of oil Kirkuk sits on top of; not only is it Iraq's second largest source of oil but it represents 6.4% of the world's known reserves (Smucker, 2004, p. 1). Michael Rubin writes that it appears “the Iraqi dictator...suspects Kurds and Turkmens of disloyalty and feels his country's precious oil reserves would be safer surrounded by ethnic Arabs” (2001, p. 17) leading to the extensive demographic manipulation by Saddam. In today's Kirkuk it is hard to determine which ethnic group has the majority and the authority to control Kirkuk; however, there are many claims being made. The article Kirkuk Conundrum explains that a “KRG-controlled Kirkuk would strengthen Kurdish autonomy, undermine minority group rights in the province, allow Kurds direct access to the Iraqi strategic pipeline, and encourage Kurdish independence” (Natali, 2008, p. 433) and this is exactly what Turkey is strongly opposed to. The Turkish government has not recognized the KRG as a “legitimate political entity in Iraq or the Kurdish leadership as official representatives of the Kurdistan region” (Natali, 2008, p. 437) and is adamantly against increasing Kurdistan's autonomy and the KRG achieving jurisdiction over Kirkuk and its petroleum revenues. A stronger, wealthier Kurdistan is increasingly dangerous for countries like Turkey dealing with large Kurdish populations of their own. However, the KRG has implemented a policy of redistributing lands in Kirkuk for Kurds “expelled by the former regime” and “engaging in a mass media campaign emphasizing the role of Kirkuk as the 'Jerusalem' of Kurdistan” (Natali, 2008, p. 436) which has lead to the Kurdish political leaders vowing to attain control of the Kirkuk region, by force if necessary (Smucker, 2004, p. 1). In this conflict it is easy to see the important impact a leader can have on a situation, exacerbating existing tension and creating new conflicts that have lasting repercussions. Saddam's policy of forcing demographic changes based on ethnicity and access to resources has created a lasting problem for peace in Iraq's Kirkuk region, pitting Kurds against Arabs. A trend of reverse Arabization is threatening to take over as the Kurds push back into Kirkuk and displace Arabs and ethnic minorities (HRW – On Vulnerable Ground, 2009). As part of the “normalization process, the KRG has engaged in a policy of redistributing lands in Kirkuk for Kurds expelled by the former regime” (Natali, 2008, p. 437). The future of Kirkuk remains in dispute. --------------------- - BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic: Battle For Kirkuk Roma Parhad - Sunday, February 28 2010, 21:00:49 (CET) The Above... atheist - 03/01 15:21

Content-length: 10968 Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio... Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate Accept-language: es Cache-control: no-cache Connection: Keep-Alive Cookie: *hidded* Host: www.insideassyria.com Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?.Fehx. User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; InfoPath.2)

Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9