Countries oppressing Kurds are afraid they'll want freedom

[Anthea]

Whose city is Kirkuk?

After Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) decided to hold a referendum on south Kurdistan’s independence, Kirkuk is once again under international and regionals power’s attention.

Throughout the history Kirkuk has always been one of the most important cities in both political and economic aspects. After Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) decided to hold a referendum on south Kurdistan’s independence, Kirkuk is once again under international and regionals power’s attention.

Now while the future of the city is at stake one question is asked more than ever: Whose city is Kirkuk?

Kirkuk was the centre of international attention during the First World War as it’s today. The city’s fate is afflicted by its rich underground sources, especially oil. The city became an operation field for international actors led by Turkey, Iran and Iraq after the referendum decision.

KIRKUK’S HISTORY

The city was founded by Sumerians in 3rd millennium BC. It was inhabited by Hurri’s, whom some sources define as proto-Kurds, in 1000 BC and became an important centre in times of Babel Empire. There are numerous stories about where Kirkuk’s name come from. Some sources say Kirkuk comes from the word “Karkük” which means “a job well done” in Sumerian language.

According to Iraqi historian Tofiq Wehbi, Assyrians named the city Ker (castle) – huk (tilted) in Assyrian language, while writer Muhtesam Salayi says that Kirkuk was named as “Kerxa” by Nasira (Beytelleheem) king.

Kirkuk was named ‘Erbaxa’ which means “the city of gods” and ‘Ilani’ by Hurri’s in 1000 BC. At the time the city center was ‘Nûzî’ area near today’s Leylan town. Under Guti rule the city centre was located near today’s Arefe neighbourhood, named Erbexa.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND KIRKUK

According to Iraqi historian Selayi, during the campaign to the land of Babel Alexander the Great passed through Kirkuk in 321 BC. Presence of oil fields in the region was mentioned by the Macedonian historians at that time. It is said that Alexander named burning gas seeps as “gurgur”.

WHAT DOES THE MEMORY OF PEOPLE SAY?

The oral history says that “gurgur” is a traditional name for burning gas seeps. Most elders say that Zoroastrians named gas seeps as “Bawe Gurgur”. In Zoroastrian language the word Bawe is used for places that have religious significance. Oral history tells us that the gas seeps are considered sacred and people used to pray there to make their wishes come true.

KIRKUK IN LAUSANNE TREATY

Before the declaration of the new republic in 1923, Turkey declared its national borders – Misak-I Milli-. These borders included Mosul and Kirkuk. But the British controlled Iraq helped Turkey supress the Sheikh Said Rebellion in Kurdistan. Turkey left the control Mosul and Kirkuk to the British in exchange. In return for helping suppress the Sheikh Said Rebellion in Kurdistan, Turkey left the control Mosul and Kirkuk to the British administration in Iraq.

First oil was drilled in Kirkuk right after this development. The area has one of the highest quality oil in the world. But oil, commonly referred as the “black pearl” didn’t bring any good to the peoples of the region; only pain and suffering.

KIRKUK BECAME THE OIL SUPPLY FOR SADDAM’S WAR

During the conflict between Southern Kurdistan and Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s regime showed enormous determination to defend Kirkuk. Because the oil that Kirkuk provided was the fuel that Saddam needed to run his campaign against Kurds and other peoples of Iraq.

After the fall of Saddam in 2003, the 2005 Iraqi Constitution legitimized the federal structure of Southern Kurdistan but Kirkuk was left out. The only positive thing at this time was the article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution. The article 140 opened the way for Kurds who had been forcibly removed from Kirkuk to change the demographics of the city, to return to their homes. Iraqi government and Kurdish administration agreed to hold a referendum after two years.

THE HISTORY OF ARABIZATION POLITICS IN KIRKUK

Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein changed the demographics of Kirkuk and forcibly removed Kurdish population from Kirkuk, surrounding towns and villages to further north. In 1957 census the population of Kirkuk was 48.2 percent Kurdish (187,593), 28.2 percent Arab (109,620), 21.4 Turkmen (83,371) and 0.4 percent Assyrian (1,605).

After the Arabization politics of Saddam regime 1977 census showed a significant decrease in Kurdish and Turkmen population. In 1977 Kirkuk was 45 percent Arab (218,755), 38 percent Kurdish (184,875) and 17 percent Turkmen (80,347).

After 20 years in 1977 the majority of the population in Kirkuk was Arab. The 1977 census showed that the city is 72 percent Arab (544,596), 21 percent Kurdish (155,861) and 7 percent Turkmen (50,099).

The administrative structure in Kirkuk was also changed. The districts of Kirkuk were connected to other cities. For example Xaneqin declared a city of Anbar state. Xurmatu became a district of Salahaddin province and Chamchamal became a district of Sulaymaniyah. Kirkuk has now eight districts; Dubiz, Dakuk, Altinkopru, Pirde and Hawice, and Karaincir, Leylan, Reşad subdistricts.

CURRENT STATE OF KIRKUK’S POPULATION

There is no data for Kirkuk’s population after 1997 census. The elections of 2014 show that Kurds make up 53 percent of Kirkuk’s population. Remaining 47 percent are Arab and Turkmen. Kurdish parties won 8 seats out of 12 in general elections while Arabs and Turkomans won 2 each.

KIRKUK’S NEIGHBOURHOODS

After the ISIS invasion Kirkuk’s population has now exceeded 1,400.000. Kurds are mainly living in 14 neighbourhoods (Rehimava, Azadî, Mamostayan, Şorice, İskan, Bilax, Koriyeşkew, Hesîreka, Tepê Mele Ebdulah, Derwazê Bakûr, Îmam Qasim, Şorax and Ehmed Axa). Musala, Muelimîn, Bağdat yolu, Kasaphane and Elmas are Turkmen neighbourhoods while there are 11 neighbourhoods which are mainly Arab: Baghdad Road, 1 June, Wehde, Hurriye, İştirakiye, Mendude, 7 April, Hey Baas, Nesrû Uribe, Qadisiye, Xirnate. There are three neighbourhoods - Şatirlû, Erefe and Elmas- which are home to Chaldeans and Assyrians.

ARMED FORCES IN KIRKUK

The security forces consist of the peshmergas of Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Iraqi army. After the ISIS invasion of Hawija the city is protected by PUK and KDP peshmergas, People’s Defence Forces (HPG) and YJA-STAR guerrillas, Iraqi Federal Police and Hashd al-Shaabi milita. There are claims over the presence of a Iraq Turkmen Front military wing supported by Turkish intelligence agency.

A district of Kirkuk, Hawija, is still under ISIS invasion.

GUERRILLAS WERE A PART OF DEFENCE OF KIRKUK

In 2014 ISIS wanted to take control of Kirkuk because of its underground resources, especially oil. After ISIS captured and attacked the Kakai villages Iraqi army withdrew from Kirkuk. PUK peshmergas were left alone in the fight against ISIS. When ISIS threat grew, PKK guerrillas headed to the city and joined its active defence on many fronts. KDP deployed its forces to defend Bay Hasan area near Dubiz district. Kirkuk’s most important oil wells are in Bay Hasan area.

OIL FIELDS

There are thousands of oil wells in Bay Hasan, Havana, Baba Gurgur and Gaz Shimal areas. KDP forces control Bay Hasan area while PUK and KDP control Havana area together. PUK also share the control of Gaz Simal and Baba Gurgur with Iraqi central government.

OIL PRODUCTION

According to the data provided by Iraqi Ministry of Oil, Kirkuk produces 530 thousand barrels of oil per day. The oil is sold via Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline to Turkey by KDP. The details of KDP’s agreements with Turkey were never disclosed.

The oil drilled from Gaz Shimal is sent to refineries inside Iraq and sold to the world mostly via Port of Basra.

PEOPLE OF KIRKUK ONLY GET ONLY THE SMOKE OF OIL

According to the Kirkuk state law, for every barrel of oil drilled in Kirkuk the central government should pay 1 USD to the Kirkuk administration. By a quick estimate it can be said that Kirkuk administration should have an income of 530 thousand USD daily and more than 15 million monthly.

Still, there is no infrastructure in Kirkuk. When you look at its water, sewerage system, electric lines and roads it’s more like a village. Kirkuk administration says they don’t have the budget. In other words, people of Kirkuk get only the smoke of oil, inhaling the smoky air that’s caused by the refineries.

THEY CARE ABOUT THOSE UNDER THE GROUND, NOT THOSE ABOVE IT

In Kirkuk Kurdish, Arab, Turkmen population is living in poverty in one of the richest regions in the world. The streets are full of garbage, the sewage flows through the streets and the air is filled with oil smoke. To those who control the underground resources, those under the ground have always been of greater importance than those above it.

[Anthea]

As Kirkuk boils, Kurdistan about to hurl Iraq into turmoil over ‘independence’ referendum

Kurdistan’s President Massoud Barzani’s rushed plan for the region will only wreak havoc. A fresh Kirkuk conflict which pits Kurdish forces against Iraqi militias may result in a new Kurdistan which could exclude the president from office just as quickly

‘Ethnic cleansing’ is the term a CIA officer coined when writing a report about the former Yugoslavia. Yet the chilling phrase is about to feature in the annals of modern history in Kurdistan, Iraq. This time from hurried, frantic political jostling from its own leadership and not from the barrel of a gun held by a terrorist.

Once again, minorities are being threatened in Kurdistan’s bid to become independent from greater Iraq. Set for an unprecedented referendum to be held on September 25th, all eyes are on the multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk.

Although President Barzani has been calling for independence from Baghdad for a number of years, few leaders in the region thought he would actually plow ahead with the ruse, which, on the face of it, appears to only spell conflict for both troubled Iraq and even the region.

“Illogical to continue”

It’s easy to see why Barzani has chosen now to move. Now the campaign to rid the region of ISIS is more or less over, and Iraq itself is at peace, he may well believe that regional powers are tired of conflict. Also, there is an argument that Kurdistan’s own army fought harder than Iraqi forces and should be given the spoils of war – the cities taken by ISIS within Kurdistan, which were taken back by the infamous Peshmerga fighters cannot be handed back to Baghdad, Barzani would argue.

To complicate matters, the present boundaries which were drawn up by the British and French – the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 which drew the border lines of the entire Middle East - seem more than ever outdated and irrelevant. Barzani believes now is the time for an entirely new arrangement with Baghdad which, since 2014, had begrudgingly agreed to Kurdistan being a semi-autonomous state, controlling its own oil exports is one pivotal example.

But there are other reasons, which are darker and less obvious to Western pundits.

The Kurds historically have been persecuted for decades by Baghdad and see little distinction between Saddam Hussein’s chemical slaughter of them in 1988, which killed 5,000 civilians (probably 4 times that number) and the more recent terrorist phenomenon ISIS, which in Iraq was made up of many of Saddam’s henchmen. And the Shia-led Baghdad government is trusted even less, despite giving the Kurds a number of concessions to become ‘semi-autonomous.'

According to The Guardian, Barzani said regional and global powers now needed to enshrine a new pact that would “protect communities in Iraq and Syria, where divisions have become entrenched on socio-religious and sectarian lines.”

“There must be a [new] agreement, it is important to see what type of agreement it is, what mechanism it can bring and rely on to formalize things, and what will be its status. When the formalization of that agreement will be is not known yet. It’s illogical to continue or insist on repeating a wrong experiment that was repeated for 100 years and is leading nowhere.”

“Right now, Iraq is divided” the Kurdish leader argues. “We are not responsible for it. On the contrary, we have done our best to preserve Iraqi unity and a democratic Iraq. In 1991, we went to Iraq and negotiated with those criminals that were responsible with the chemical bombardment, the Anfal campaign [launched by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds]."

Put bluntly, not only is there little faith in Iraq’s new geopolitical alignment toward Iran, but the Kurds want to now break all political and economic ties as they feel more distant than ever from Baghdad – a stunt which has enraged the establishment in the Iraqi capital.

And there is no better example which will exemplify that impasse than Kirkuk, which most regional analysts tell me is really only what the referendum is about.

The oil-rich, multiethnic city is technically part of Kurdistan, but Baghdad argues that because of its cultural mix, should be considered part of ‘Iraq proper.' That goes for oil revenues as well, which is at the heart of the entire matter. Both Barzani and the Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi have issued stern threats in recent days over the city, which, Barazani has stated quite clearly will be taken as part of Kurdistan’s independence – and Abadi has responded with a declaration of “military intervention” for the city itself.

“The Kurds have to realize they are opening the gates to regional intervention,” warned Abadi in an interview.

Baghdad firing the Kirkuk governor has also raised tensions and resulted in more armed forces moving into the city which has Arabs, Christians, Turkmans and – notably – Shia communities, the latter ready to fight a KRG takeover.

The stakes seem so high that one has to wonder whether Barzani has taken leave of his senses. To enter into a war over Kirkuk with Iraqi Shia militias and possibly even draw Iran into the conflict could be considered a sort of suicide pact for himself and an auto-destruct lever which will be plunged for Kurdistan itself.

Is Barzani bluffing?

The line of countries in the region who are opposing it is long. And these countries will be the new neighbors in a new Kurdistan which already those same countries are talking about isolating by closing borders. If Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran closed its borders with Kurdistan, wouldn’t the ‘independence’ ruse be self-defeating? How would essential oil be exported if an Independent Kurdistan is isolated and its borders are closed?

Or is Barzani bluffing and is really looking to cajole the US into brokering a better deal for Erbil with its ‘arrangement’ with Baghdad? And certainly such a new deal would probably give the lion’s share of oil revenues from Kirkuk to Erbil.

Barzani may be bluffing, but he has a lot to bluff with in his hand. Being isolated not only doesn’t work for a post-independence Kurdistan, but it also has grave implications for other countries. To destabilize Iraq is worrying enough (Iraq is already destablised) but Iran is concerned that its own Kurdish minorities would also aspire to an independence bid, while Turkey – who once supported the move – has since argued that it can only embolden the Kurds in Northern Syria whose PKK contingent would threaten Turkey’s stability. Or is he hoping that a deal with Turkey could be struck to allow the oil exports, while in turn, agreeing to resolve the vexing, ever-present worry of PKK ambitions both in Syria and in Turkey? It’s a long shot as the PKK doesn’t respect Barzani or recognize his authority.

Yet, certainly Ankara has a lot to say and is sending enough messages through its pro-Erdogan broadsheets, which argue that Barzani is “inexperienced” - which explains his haste and that he is threatening to invite an Iranian-backed takeover of his entire country, not only Kirkuk, which might even ultimately unseat him from power.

Turkey has asked Barzani to “cancel” the referendum, not merely postpone it, such is its disdain for the beleaguered plan. But Ankara also sympathizes with the Kurdish leader and seems to be indicating that it is reaching out. Certainly striking a deal with Turkey and perhaps asking President Erdogan to intervene as a broker might be a sage decision post-referendum, as Rex Tillerson doesn’t understand the nuances and can’t offer guarantees to Barzani, although other reports merely point out that the US has enough on its plate with North Korea, Iran and Russia and would prefer the Kurdistan leader postponed the vote until after Iraqi elections in April 2018.

Barzani’s relations with Erdogan is critical, given that Turkey is the only viable oil lifeline. Yet Barzani has not heeded the warnings from Ankara which has provoked the Turks to threaten to block the oil transit.

The question is though whether the regional players, as well as Washington, would even take Erdogan seriously, as recently the Turkish leader was not treated with the reverence that perhaps he believes he deserves.

Indeed, Turkey’s shift toward Russia’s influence may be the very crux of why Washington now wouldn’t take Erdogan’s calls over the Kurds’ imminent need to take what they feel is rightfully theirs – a misunderstood ethnic group which even say “the only friends the Kurds have are the hills.”

Martin Jay is based in Beirut and can be followed on @MartinRJay

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/404215-kirku ... ependence/