Kirkuk, sitting on time bomb, seeks a way out of quagmire

"I wish there wasn't any oil in Iraq or in Kirkuk and that we could be a normal and peaceful country. Whatever had happened and is happening to us is because of oil." These words of reproach coming from a young boy in Kirkuk sum up the sentiments of many people who have been striving to survive in Kirkuk, which has for some time been described as a time bomb.
The view of Kirkuk, a city we know from our songs about it, in ruins confirms that the ordinary people living in this city see no dimension of the immense source of wealth underground other than its problems. The streets of Kirkuk, sitting atop oil riches that have been the appetite of world powers and the players in Iraq, as well the clothing of their inhabitants, remind one of the wretchedness of most third world countries.

Governor Abdurrahman M. Fatah, whom we were able to meet in his office after passing through three or four layers of security, says the funds allocated to the city from Baghdad are far less than the contribution made by the city to the budget of the central administration. The piles of garbage that we encounter on every corner in the city and the poorly maintained roads are clear proof that virtually no public service is being provided sufficiently. During the time we were there, we experienced what a power outage means in a city in the scourging heat that exceeds 50 degrees Celsius.

The limited funds for investment cannot be used for implementing projects because of heavy security implications. Public buildings are protected with an enclosure of walls 2-3 meters tall against suicide attacks. When the traffic slows down, our experienced local driver gets uneasy because every grouping of people is a potential target for violent attacks. It is the security considerations that urge us to leave the car that we used to come to the city, but go on with another one with a Kirkuk license plate. Our experienced driver says: “We do not stay more than half an hour when we go to some place for a report. It is very risky to be noticeable as a foreigner. Ransom people may hunt for you.”

Indeed, the rally organized by Kurdish groups in order to protest the local election law passed by the Iraqi Parliament on July 22 which provided for equal distribution of powers among Kurdish, Turkmen and Arab groups in Kirkuk provided a good occasion for the latest, biggest terrorist attack in the city. In the explosion caused by a suicide attack, tens of people died and hundreds more were injured. This attack and the subsequent events clearly demonstrate the city’s dangerous atmosphere. After the explosion, several Kurdish protesters held Turkmens responsible for the explosion and attacked the buildings of Türkmeneli TV, the Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITC) and the Türkmeneli Party. ITC President Saddettin Ergeç, whom we could not meet as he was in Turkey, declared that the attacking protesters wanted to kill him.

However this is how the incident is related by Turkmens. When you talk with Kurdish people, they tell a different story. They say that people scattered around in the panic caused by the suicide attack and that several people ran toward the Turkmen buildings, but the Turkmen guards opened fire on these people, killing 11 protesters.

So which is true? Can there be so many different scenarios about the same incident? Isn’t it possible to illuminate the incident by performing a ballistic examination of the weapons used by the ITC’s guards? The answer given by the governor of Kirkuk shows potential danger. He says that the incident is being prosecuted and the investigation is under way, but nothing has been clarified yet. But the Kurdish officials in Kirkuk tend to present their view of the incident as truth.

In the same connection, Hasan Turan, of Turkmen origin and a member of the Kirkuk Provincial Council, says that by looking at the distance between the place where it is claimed 11 Kurds were shot to death and the ITC building, one can easily understand that the Kurdish thesis is wrong and that a serious investigation should remove unfair claims. But he proposes that this investigation should be done not by the authorities in Kirkuk, who are predominately Kurdish, but by an independent delegation from Baghdad. He asserts that this will be much more objective and reliable for Turkmens.

Kurds’ changing mood

Actually, there is a clear connection between the increase in Turkmens’ trust in Baghdad and their demanding a delegation from Baghdad for investigation and the Iraqi Parliament’s resolution about Kirkuk dated July 22. The Iraqi Parliament, where Shiites and Kurds form a majority, passed a bill that provided for equal sharing of powers and authorities in Kirkuk among three ethnic groups, creating much cheer among Turkmens and disappointment among Kurds. As is known, the local election law adopted by 127 members of the Iraqi Parliament in a secret ballot gives equal shares of 32 percent to Kurds, Turkmens and Arabs, while the remaining 4 percent forms the share of Christians. The Kurdish administration, which has been trying to annex the oil rich city of Kirkuk to the Kurdistan Regional Administration, thinks that their Shiite partners have betrayed them.

In the 257-seat Iraq Parliament, there are 58 Kurdish deputies while there are 83 members of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), a Shiite party. Before the voting, everyone thought that this article in the draft text would not be adopted, but when the voting was conducted in secret session, the Kurdish-Shiite alliance disagreed on such a critical issue. Upon becoming aware of the situation, Kurdish deputies went outside in order to prevent quorum from being reached, but they failed. The only thing that could be done to prevent the law was its being vetoed by President Jalal Talabani, the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and Shiite Deputy President Adi Abdulmehdi, from the SIIC, and Sunni Deputy President Tariq Hashimi. Indeed, Talabani, who was initially warm to the idea of equal sharing, vetoed the bill. Hashimi had come to Turkey after the bill’s adoption. When the talks and negotiations were not productive, the parliamentary intermission started. This issue will be discussed in the Parliament on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, in protest of the law, 22 Kurdish members of the Kirkuk Provincial Council, a 41-seat body including the governor, decided to accede to the Kurdistan Regional Administration. The decision made in the session protested by Turkmens and Arabs was also supported by two Turkmen members and one Christian member. Apparently disappointed by the Iraqi Parliament’s Kirkuk decision, Massoud Barzani paid a visit to the city and declared that they would annex the city if Baghdad’s decision was finalized.

As the president, Talabani may send the bill back to Parliament twice. Yet the bloody incident in Kirkuk that occurred amid escalating tensions adds to the concerns that Kirkuk is a time bomb and has the potential of exploding the partial stability in Iraq.

What Safeen M. Dizayee, in charge of foreign affairs for the Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) told us in Arbil reflects well the mood of the Kurdish administration. When I asked him whether Parliament’s decision was a surprise to them, he said that it came not as a surprise but as a betrayal. Then, he listed the reasons for their disappointment: First, the secret ballot of this article in Parliament was unconstitutional. Moreover, despite the fact that Article 140 of the Constitution stipulates that the future of Kirkuk be determined in a referendum, the attempt to pass such a law was not reasonable. Furthermore this decision was not democratic, as it specifies certain percentages for the provincial council without conducting an election. What’s more, the previous regime’s historical mistake of separating Kirkuk from the Kurdish region and removing Kurds from Kirkuk could not be repeated in fait accompli. Weren’t the Nazis still paying compensation for the wrong they did to Jews?

The response we got from Turan when we conveyed Dizayee’s words to him implied that things were becoming more and more intricate. The Turkmen member had his justifiable reasons. For Turan, the secret ballot was not unconstitutional. Otherwise, Kurds would take it to the Constitutional Court. Noting that they are against the return of Kurds forced to migrate from Kirkuk, Turan stressed that they objected to building an election system based on such a demographically modified structure. He pointed out that although the population of Kirkuk was 800,000 according to the UN food records before the war, it rose to 1.4 million despite the migration of 100,000 Arabs from the city, and this has no normal explanation. As a solution, he suggested that a delegation from Baghdad including international observers confirm whether those who returned to the city are true inhabitants of the city, and that voter lists be drawn accordingly. Only in this way could a fair election be held.

Potential for a civil war?

Now can we say that this picture is portent of a civil war in Kirkuk? Will the Kurdish administration take its declared unilateral step? The Kirkuk governor’s response to the first question was optimistic. For the governor who administers this chaotic city, the time bomb warning issued by the UN, the International Crisis Group and other international organizations for Kirkuk was overestimated. In his view, there is no tension among the groups in Kirkuk. The inhabitants of the city are living side by side in the streets and in the markets. He maintains that the groups in Kirkuk have intermingled so closely that one cannot find 10 families that do not have such kinship relations. The governor seems to be considerably relaxed despite the stress in the city, and when we are surprised to see that he speaks Turkmen although he is of Kurdish origin, he asserts that this, too, lends support to his thesis. He says: “Every Kirkuk resident knows three languages -- Arabic, Kurdish and Turkish.” The Kirkuk governor regards the Provincial Council’s decision on accession as legitimate, noting that it is a conditional decision and can be implemented if the issue is not solved in Baghdad.

Seeing such profound differences of opinion and big disappointments, it is not easy to predict the future of Kirkuk. However the fact that Shiite and Sunni groups have converged on the idea of protecting Iraq’s territorial integrity and giving equal share of say to three groups has weakened the possibility of a unilateral fait accompli. Some observers argue that while Kurdish leaders are ready to discuss a reasonable consensus about Kirkuk, they want to keep Kirkuk as a trump card.

As a matter of fact, the geographical, historical and cultural conditions are forcing Kurds and Turkmens in Kirkuk not to engage in fraternal feud, but to cooperate for a common future. It is obvious that a single-sided step to be taken by one of the groups in Iraq despite the neighboring countries and the delicate demographical balance will trigger unending conflicts. If, as victims of the Saddam era, Kurds and Turkmens try to find a solution that will be acceptable to both sides, and if Turkey lends support to such a solution, will this not be correct thing to do? This is what is expected from Turkey as the positive power of the region, trying to make peace between Israel and Syria as well as Jews and Palestinians and extending an olive branch to Armenia.