MILLIYET- Columnist Sami Kohen writes on the emerging Kirkuk issue following a conference held at the American University in Washington D.C. A summary of his column is as follows:
A conference held by the American University in Washington D.C. has clearly demonstrated the place the Iraqi Kurds are planning for themselves in the political future of the country. In addition to the representatives of two main groups in northern Iraq, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Kurdistan Patriotic Union (KYB), panelists from the US and the EU also attended the conference. TESEV Director Ozdem Sanberk also gave a presentation during the conference. Even though these unofficial conferences are of a ‘brainstoming’ nature, they tend to bring forth important tendencies and as a consequence can be influential on circles orienting policies. At the conference, Kurdish representatives stated that they foresaw a federal system in Iraq’s post-Saddam era. Kurdish spokesmen have been defending the idea of a federal system all along. This is a desire Kurdish leaders in Iraq have expressed for some time. However, during this conference the content of this desire was filled out. The federal structure foreseen is based on ethnicity. That is to say, an ‘Iraqi Federal Republic’ will be formed by two sectors, one Kurdish, the other Arab. Turkomans, Christians and others will protect their status as minorities. The federal system will bring the condition of decentralization, in other words the Kurdish sector will have a broad autonomy. The KDP and KYP, which seemed to agree on these points, are preparing a draft constitution. Iraqi Kurdish representatives were not clear on the borders of the Kurdish federal region. During their presentation, they did not mention what the status of Kirkuk would be. Therefore, US congressional advisor Alan Makovsky’s question as to whether they wanted Kirkuk to be included in the Kurdish region was left unanswered. However, this notion was applauded by the Kurds following the conference. A speaker of Kurdish origin stated that in the KDP-KYP project, Kirkuk was certainly included in the Kirkuk region. Even if this is not openly expressed, the view on the issue has a long history. In a supplementary article of the autonomy agreement reached between the Iraqi government and Kurdish representatives in 1970, it was stated that the status of Kirkuk would be determined in the next four years. Later on clashes erupted, and this agreement was shelved. However, in a decision taken by the Kurdish assembly in 1992, the Kurds declared that Kirkuk belonged to them. During the conference this view was brought to the agenda, even if informally. Those who are most disturbed by this are the Turkomans and and Turkish officials. It did not take long for Turkish diplomatic sources in Washington to react to this, and they stated that oil-rich Kirkuk cannot be left in the hands of the Kurdish administration. Retired Ambassador Sanberk, speaking for TESEV, opposed the federalism concept of Kurdish representatives in general and said that efforts to divide Iraq into parts based on ethnicity would open a Pandora’s box. At a time when all attention is drawn to the abolition of death penalty, or the future of the coalition, are these developments being followed as closely as they should be?
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION