The Kurds, Kirkuk, and other complications - CIR 21 October 2004

Last week we pointed to some marginal improvements in Iraq, including the tentative disarmament of at least some al-Sadr militants in Baghdad and indications that Iraqi Sunni resistance factions might be trying to put some distance between themselves and foreign militants loyal to al-Qaida. It might not have been much, but it was something. However, a couple of developments in the past week have reinforced the essential point, namely that Iraq’s underlying complications, including the future of Kirkuk and Iranian/Shiite views on Iraq’s future diplomatic orientation, remain unaltered.

At the time of the transfer in power to the interim government in Iraq in June, the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) Jalal Talabani was noticeably conciliatory on the subject of Kirkuk during a visit to Turkey. Turkey’s Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul laid down the law, saying: "Everybody knows about Turkish sensitivities over Kirkuk. We would never allow [Kurdish domination to become] a fait accompli in Kirkuk. Everyone should have their fair share of the country’s wealth." Talabani, for his part, said: "Kirkuk is a city of brotherhood where Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen live together…We defend Turkmens’ rights and are working for this. We want to reach an agreement so that this city can become a symbol of Iraqi unity."

But, as we pointed out at the time, although Talabani was as conciliatory as he could be when in Turkey, he was also on record as demanding the restoration in Kirkuk of "the normal situation, which existed before the ethnic cleansing [Saddam’s Arabization] policy began".

There have been many similar Kurdish statements since then, and during the past week Masoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), has been in Turkey and Syria stressing the importance of Kirkuk to the Kurds. When in Damascus he said: "Kirkuk is an Iraqi city with a Kurdish identity. Neither Turkey nor any other country has the right to interfere in its affairs. Neither Turkey nor any other country can be allowed to interfere in the issue of Kirkuk."

But Turkey made it clear during Barzani’s visit to Ankara that it takes exactly the opposite position. Osman Koruturk, Turkey’s special envoy for Iraq, said specifically: "Kirkuk is not only an internal affair for Iraq; it concerns its neighbours as well."

In private meetings with Turkish officials, Barzani was told that Ankara "would not remain a bystander if tens of thousands of Turkmens flood over its border to escape potential violence in Kirkuk", and he was warned against any attempts to change the demographic structure of the city.

It should also be noted that the remarks that Barzani made in Damascus were mild compared with comments made last Thursday (14 October) by Sadun Fayli, a PUK official in Baghdad. He is reported to have said that the Kurds are ready to fight "if the Arab side insists on rejecting the Kurdishness of the oil-rich Kirkuk Province…"

He said: "The escalation of the Kurdish political stand on Kirkuk is necessary as long as there are Arab tendencies inside Iraq that oppose the federal plan and refuse to annex Kirkuk to the greater Kurdistan region that includes the provinces of Al-Sulaymaiyah, Arbil, and Dahuk." And he added: "The PUK and KDP stand on this issue is one and the same."

The other development that caught our attention this week was a broadcast by the pro-Shia Voice of the Mujahidin radio station which attacked the close ties between the Iraqi interim government and Jordan. The radio station is based in Iran and reflects the views of the Iranian regime.

Jordan remains anathema to Iran for two opposite reasons. First, because it was an ally of Saddam Hussein; and, secondly, because it has since made peace with Israel and is therefore seen by Tehran (and, in should be said, by the Palestinians - see Mideast section for details) as little more than a US-Israeli pawn.

Iran is concerned about the training of Iraqi security and police personnel and Iraqi diplomats in Jordan, and on Monday this week it voiced its concerns about the closeness of Baghdan-Amman relations when the Voice of Mujahidin broadcast the following commentary:

"Because of the fact that Jordan was a strategic ally of the tyrant Saddam, the new government should at least have refrained from resuming the same strategic relations. Jordan’s relations with the Zionist entity cause suspicion. This country is regarded as a window for the Zionist entity. Through Jordan, elements from the Zionist Mossad intelligence infiltrate and spread into neighbouring Arab countries…The new government is directing accusations against Iran, which the tyrant Saddam regime had always fought, and maintaining its close relations with countries that caused harm and injury to Iraq and the Iraqis, such as the Jordanian government."

So there are two messages from Iraq this week. First, positions on Kirkuk appear to be hardening; and, secondly, a Shia victory in the forthcoming elections will surely impact adversely on any hopes the US might have for tying Baghdad into a moderate pro-peace alliance with Jordan. Joe de Courcy, Editor.