KURDISTAN: THE OTHER IRAQ
By Anna Fifield

FT
November 11 2008 20:08

On the march: Kurd peshmerga forces bearing Iraqi and Kurdish flags

Inside Kurdistan

In one of the oldest tea houses in Irbil, a cavernous room of hissing
kettles that spills into the spice and shampoo shops of the souq, Ali
and his friend Mohammad personify the Kurdish dilemma. Ali, a Kurd with
a plush moustache dressed in the region’s traditional baggy open suit,
sits on a bench drinking tea with Mohammad, an Arab electrical goods
merchant who has driven from Baghdad in search of cheaper supplies.

Audio slideshow: The Kurdish share their stories and concerns with
the FT’s Anna Fifield

"Kirkuk is Kurdish – the population is Kurdish, so Kirkuk is Kurdish,"
says Ali, referring to the oil-rich city that lies just outside the
northern Iraqi province but was historically part of Kurdistan.

Asked his opinion, Mohammad looks around warily as the half-dozen
tea-drinking Kurds stop their conservations to listen in and simply
says: "I think our leaders know better than I do."

This diplomatic answer belies the potential of Kirkuk to become the
next big flashpoint in Iraq. For while sectarian violence has dropped
sharply this year, stemming the slide into civil war and relieving
pressure on the US military, the dispute over Kirkuk underlines
the fragility of the country and the challenge that Barack Obama,
the president-elect, will face in Iraq.

Below: A long search for statehood

Whether Mr Obama will be able to fulfil his campaign promise of
bringing US troops home within 16 months of taking office will partly
depend on what happens in the oil-rich city – and therefore on the
ability of the US to mediate a lasting compromise over Kirkuk’s status.

Below: Tehran strengthens economic ties

But tensions are rising over whether the city belongs in the
semi-autonomous Kurdish region or in Iraq proper. "For many Kurds,
it has become a rallying point for an autonomous Kurdistan and for
the rights of Kurdish people inside Iraq. And for many Arabs, it has
become a rallying cry for the unity of the country," says a senior
US official in Baghdad. "The challenge is to get both sides to calm
down and have a rational discussion."

This will become a pressing foreign policy concern for the next US
administration not just because the Kirkuk dispute has the potential
to pit Arab against Kurd and provoke intervention from neighbouring
states. It could also harm Washington’s relations with its closest
allies in Iraq – the Kurdish authorities.

AMERICAN PRESENCE:

Battle against time over forces’ status

The outgoing US administration of President George W.â~@~IBush is
in a fight against time to agree a "status of forces" agreement with
Iraq to set out new rules for American troops in the country and lay
out a timetable for drawing down their numbers, writes Daniel Dombey.

According to recent drafts under negotiation, US combat troops
would leave Iraqi cities by mid-2009 and exit Iraq altogether in
2011. The Bush administration insists that such a schedule should be
"conditions-based" rather than setting dates in stone.

Washington had wanted to conclude the deal in July. If the two sides
fail to reach agreement by the end of this month, the US could be
forced to look instead for a renewed United Nations authorisation
for the troops it has present in the country. The current UN mandate
expires on December 31.

But the context has changed following last week’s US presidential
election, with many Iraqi officials expressing sympathy with US
Democratic demands for a speedier drawdown.

Barack Obama, the US president-elect, campaigned on the promise that
he would pull out combat troops from Iraq over 16 months. But he has
emphasised he would consult his military commanders over the process.

Mr Obama has also allowed himself wriggle room by stressing that a
"residual" force would remain in Iraq even after the 16-month drawdown
is complete.

John Podesta, the co-chair of his presidential transition team,
said at the weekend that such a residual force would be needed to
carry out duties including counter-terrorism missions and training –
activities that could leave many thousands of troops in the country.

Any agreement needs backing within the Iraqi government as well as
in the Baghdad parliament. Democrats in the US Congress have also
called for a vote on the matter.

Kirkuk, together with other nearby oil towns, was "Arabised" by Saddam
Hussein, who forced Kurds to leave and moved in Arabs from Iraq’s
south in an effort to change the demographics. Now Kurdistan, whose
people were killed by the thousands under Saddam, wants the cities
back. "For us it’s not about the oil – the oil revenue will go back to
the Iraqi people – it’s symbolic, it’s about the injustices that have
been done to us," says Fuad Hussein, chief of staff to Masoud Barzani,
the Kurdish president. "When we think about the situation of Kirkuk,
we all feel Kirkuki."

Kurdistan, a fertile, rocky region where Iraq meets Iran and Turkey,
already has several big oil deposits but several more lie just
outside its current borders. The Kirkuk field is thought to have a
production capacity of about 1m barrels a day. Under the constitution’s
revenue-sharing formula, Kurdistan receives 17 per cent of all Iraqi
oil revenue, but many Kurds think their economy deserves more. Some
Arab politicians, meanwhile, are calling for the Kurds’ share to be
reduced to 12 per cent.

The Kurdistan regional government is pushing for a vote to allow
Kirkuk residents to decide whether they become part of the northern
region. But the disputed territory has become so sensitive that
Kirkuk will be excluded from nationwide provincial polls due to be
held before January 31 as an Iraqi parliamentary commission examines
the demographic changes that have taken place there. It is due to
report back by March.

Rochdi Younsi, Middle East analyst at the Eurasia Group think-tank,
says the electoral delay benefits the Kurds, who will retain
control over the disputed areas during the deadlock. "Unless there
is a concrete international effort to address the Kirkuk question,
the risk of instability in the northern part of Iraq will heighten
and the dispute among various sectarian groups claiming historical
ownership of the city will erupt again," Mr Younsi wrote recently.

The disputes have stoked ethnic tensions in northern Iraq. Kurdish
troops, known as peshmerga, have reportedly moved beyond the boundaries
of the Kurdistan region and into ethnically mixed areas, erecting
Kurdish flags at checkpoints in acts that worry Arab residents of
these areas.

Some diplomats in Irbil question suggestions of any land grab, saying
peshmerga have been patrolling outside the region’s boundaries for some
time. Mr Hussein, the president’s aide, says that Kurds simply serve
in the national security forces. He characterises the common view as:
"When a Kurd is in the police, he is a peshmerga, but when an Arab
is there, he is an Iraqi soldier."

The United Nations has suggested giving 32 per cent of the Kirkuk
council to Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen, leaving 4 per cent for
Christians. Kurdish factions would also get the first pick for
governor, deputy governor, and head of the provincial council.

But Kurds oppose any power-sharing arrangement that would not
reflect what they believe is their majority. Kurdish officials are
acutely aware of the issue’s potential to explode. "We have made
a lot of concessions for the sake of greater Iraq but now, instead
of supporting us, some people are trying to blame the Kurds for the
problem remaining unsolved," says Falah Mustafa, head of the department
of foreign relations.

Kurdish leaders have long held up their region as a role model
for the rest of Iraq. It has functioning democratic institutions,
the government is relatively secular and its economy is ticking
over. Irbil became a partner in the US-backed central government in
Baghdad following the 2003 invasion of Iraq – the national president,
Jalal Talabani, is Kurdish – and the US wanted to champion Kurdistan as
an example of how democracy could be made to work in the Middle East.

But, five years after the invasion, Kurds are feeling short-changed
by the Bush administration, which they say has not sufficiently
rewarded them for their support. "They have done nothing for us,"
says one senior Kurdish official, calling for Washington to encourage
American companies to invest. "We are the success story of the US in
Iraq. All of Iraq could be like us."

Washington cites a lack of democratic development and endemic
corruption as threats for the future of Kurdistan. "A lot of
people in Baghdad are looking at Kurdistan not as a model for the
future but for the mistakes they have to avoid," says one senior
American official in Baghdad. The Kurds, he adds, are "without a
doubtâ~@~I.â~@~I.â~@~I.â~@~I in the best position in their history. The
big question among Kurds right now is, what next for us?"

Massoud Barzani (left) with Jalal Talabani

The way that Irbil exercised its authority in Kirkuk has not been
encouraging. Analysts say that the Kurdish government was given an
opportunity to prove its ability to govern when the US in effect
handed them control of the city in 2003. But the Kurdish authorities
sidelined the Arab and Turkmen minorities rather than bringing them
into the fold.

The extent of corruption has undermined confidence in the Kurdish
parties ruling the north. Ordinary Kurds privately complain that, to
succeed, they must belong to one of the "two circles" – that revolving
around the Talabani family and their Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or
that associated with the Barzanis and the Kurdistan Democratic party.

The two families largely control business and politics in the region,
offering preferential treatment for their relatives and allies. "Some
people are living the high life but other people are so desperate,"
Ali says in the tea shop. "Kurds don’t like it but what can we do
about it?"

So sensitive has the issue become, even foreigners know where the red
lines are. One British businessman working in Irbil becomes visibly
angry when asked about corruption. "Why do you ask such questions?" he
asks, his voice rising several decibels. "These kinds of questions
can create a lot of problems for us."

The government says it will introduce laws and educational programmes
to tackle the problem. But Karam Rahim, editor of Hawlati, the region’s
biggest independent paper, suggests the US could have an influence when
provincial and regional parliamentary elections are due to be held.

"We thought that the Americans would make our government more
democratic and more transparent," says Mr Rahim. "The US must choose
between two options – they can support Talabani and Barzani, or they
can support the Kurdish people."

TEHRAN STRENGTHENS ECONOMIC TIES

By backing Shia groups, Iran has long exerted influence over Iraqi
politics.

But the parties of Iraqi Kurdistan have also been allies of Tehran,
whose reach is growing. "There is a lot of concern about Iran and
Iran’s interests in Kurdistan," says one US official.

Of the $7bn (£4.5bn, â~B¬5.6bn) in goods that Iran sent to Iraq
last year, about $1.2bn-worth was destined for Kurdistan, according
to Iran’s Fars News Agency. The figure is projected to rise to $3bn
this year. Two of the three transit routes between Iran and Iraq are
in Iraqi Kurdistan. Flights between Irbil and Urumia, capital of the
Iranian province of Western Azerbaijan, are set to begin soon.

The US accuses Tehran of sending arms into Iraq, which Iran
denies. Kurdish officials say they welcome the right involvement. "If
they can help the people of Iraq, then that’s one issue," says Falah
Mustafa, head of the department for foreign relations. "But if they
meddle in Iraqi affairs, we don’t believe that is in keeping with
our policies of non-interference."

A LONG SEARCH FOR STATEHOOD

â-~O An estimated 15m to 20m Kurds, a largely Sunni Muslim people,
live in the area straddling Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Armenia.

â-~O Iraqi Kurdistan – slightly larger than the Netherlands and with
a population of 4m – enjoys relative economic stability, helped by
investment in construction and oil.

â-~O Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds in
retaliation for their support of Iran during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

â-~O After the 1991 Gulf war, Iraqi Kurds gained significant autonomy;
this was later formalised under Iraq’s 2005 constitution.

â-~O Rivalry between the Kurdish Democratic party and the Patriotic
Union of Kurdistan led to civil war in the mid-1990s. In 1998 the
two sides came to a power-sharing agreement.

â-~O Kurdistan is a cause of friction between Iraq and Turkey, which
has carried out military raids on northern Iraq against the separatist
Kurdish Workers’ party (PKK).

–Boundary_(ID_qnXbnUGcAspEHLf094/Rrw)–