Kurds Going To Secede?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The World, War
And why shouldn’t they? They’ve got their act together and no other faction really does.
From Wash Post:
SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq — With violence bloodying Iraq, Kurds in the peaceful north have been showing signs of going their own way, raising their own flag and even hinting they could secede in a dispute over oil wealth _ moves that have alarmed Shiites and Sunnis.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Kurdistan on Friday underlined American worries that Kurds may be pushing too hard too soon for autonomy powers at a time of increasing sectarian tensions.
Kurds insist they are only using the autonomous powers given to them by the constitution passed last year that laid down a federal system in Iraq. But many of those powers _ particularly the division of oil wealth _ remain vague.
Perhaps this is the way out. After all, the article says that Shiites want their own region too. So why not just split the region into thirds, create three separate countries and then call it a day?
Of course, it’s never that easy. After all, there are massive amounts of money involved…
Kurdish oil deals have also raised concerns in Baghdad. The Kurdistan government signed a series of agreements with foreign companies to develop new oil fields this year. Over the summer, a Canadian-Turkish consortium drilled a test well in the area of Taq Taq, between Sulaimaniyah and Irbil. [...]But the constitution remains vague on sharing oil wealth. It calls for a fair distribution, but also gives regions a hand in developing new oil fields. Parliament has been debating legislation on dividing oil wealth, but has yet to pass a law.
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Saturday, October 7th, 2006 and is filed under The World, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 7th, 2006 at 11:03 am
The one word answer to your question (”Why shouldn’t they?”): Turkey. The Turks are sufficiently twitchy about their own Kurdish population that they would likely invade to stop Kurdistan separating from Iraq. Actually, they are extremely unhappy with the just current situation. And Iran (and Syria) aren’t real thrilled either.
To have any chance at all, a Kurdish country would have to commit to two things:
1) suppressing the Turkish Kurdish-independence fighters who currently conduct operations back and forth across the border. And convince the Turks that they would deliver — which probably means delivering before they set up independently.
2) renouncing any claim to a “Greater Kurdistan” involving the Kurdish parts of Turkey. Or Iran either. The Syrian military is probably weak enough that the Kurds wouldn’t have to promise not to expand that way on their account . . . except that expansion in any direction would probably set the Turks off.
And that’s all independent of whatever the rest of Iraq might have to say on the matter. Militarily, the Kurds can deal with the Iraqi Arabs. But there is, as you note, a lot of money involved. And a lot of it is tied up in deals with US companies (many of them, as has been coming out lately, very close to the current administration); and since US backing would be vital . . . .
I’d look for the Kurds to bide their time for another couple of years. Not happily, perhaps, but pragmatic considerations win out. And during that time, build internal acceptance of the fact that cross-border activity by “freedom fighters” into Turkey has to be stopped. Then, if they can work with the Turks to stop it, they might have a chance.
October 7th, 2006 at 11:29 am
In addition to those complications, dividing the country into thirds would leave an impoverished, land-locked Sunni state in the middle - hardly a formula for peaceful coexistence.
This kind of slice and dice exercise is always much more complex than proponents of self-rule make out. Margaret McMillan’s excellent Paris 1919 gives a lot of insight into how difficult trying to uphold that principle can be, particularly in areas of mixed populations - which is almost everywhere.
It’s a wonderful principle in theory. In practice, it’s often unworkable.
October 7th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Frankly at this point with as childishly as both the Sunnis and the Shi’ites are acting, I would welcome Kurdish independence. They’re the only people in the region whose brains aren’t poisoned by radical Islam, and shouldn’t be dragged down by other people’s ignorance and intolerance.
However, all of the points mentioned above are valid - they are a semi-sane people surrounded by militant fanatics - until and unless they get significant support from someone from the outside (like us) they’d be doomed. However, we’re too afraid of losing our oil supplies from fanatical Islamic countries to do anything but kiss the asses of repressive and intolerant regimes, no matter who they stomp on.
In my opinion, a separate unified Kurdistan makes a lot of sense, but I’m doubtful that it can happen at all, and certainly not peacefully.
October 7th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Because that would mean a declaration of outright war between the Sunnis and Shia. Hint: guess which parts of the country have oil?
October 8th, 2006 at 4:56 am
Turkey is the only thing stopping the Kurds declaring independence, well that and US pressure on the Kurds to acqueisce. The reality is that every day in Iraq (by this I don’t mean the Kurdish Regional Government controlled areas of the north as the people there (Kurds not Arabs don’t you know!) and the situation there is so far removed from the violence of the country) it is getting worse. Death stalks every corner. Kurds are targetted and massacred in all areas where Arabs are a majority. Kurdistan is peaceful and Arabs are not targetted though it would be too easy to do so. It just isn’t in the Kurds’ character. Yet the Kurd killing goes on as it did for decades under Saddam’s rule and his predecessors. The Arabs have never apologised for or even accepted their bloody history. How then are the Kurds ever to form a union with them. These people in denial. It is frankly impossible. If the US supported the Kurds and just said firmly ‘Turkey back off’ that would be the end of the matter. Turkey would then have to accept the new order. But the US is still enjoying playing power politics, pitting the Turks against Kurds and Arabs, the usual divide and rule policy of colonial masters. Until the US adopts an honesty policy with its allies it will have little real influence in the region other than through brute force. Postcript: The Turkish allegations about the PKK using Iraq as a base for attacks on Turkey are a smokescreen. The reality is the vast bulk of attacks are far from the border and are acrried out by guerillas in Turkey. The camps in Iraq are only to maintain a headquarters safe from annihilation by the Turks. The Turks know that the Iraq based camps are standing idle but use this as an excuse to make threats against the Iraqi Kurds whose succesful building of civil society they see as a threat. The Turks want a power grab at Kirkuk and Mosul and are sabre rattling, hoping to get at least a cut of the pie. Some friends the Kurds have on their borders.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:23 am
Kurdistan has and always been seperate not only administratively but also in mind and hearts from Iraqi Arab state…this doesnot mean however we can not live in peace side by side with turks and arabs..and we would like others respect our rightfull right of independance and in return we extend them friendship hands.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
dario,
That the Kurds can live in peace beside their neighbors, I have no doubt. That the neighbors will have to be convinced first, however, seems to be the issue.
Is it fair that you have to convince them, rather than everybody assuming the best until and unless there is evidence otherwise? Not really. But fair or not, that looks to be how it is — at which point, the question becomes: how to go about doing that.