PDA

View Full Version : An interesting, although not unexpected development in Iraq



JohnnyMack
7/11/2009, 10:52 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/middleeast/10kurds.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper


Kurds Defy Baghdad, Laying Claim to Land and Oil

BAGHDAD — With little notice and almost no public debate, Iraq’s Kurdish leaders are pushing ahead with a new constitution for their semiautonomous region, a step that has alarmed Iraqi and American officials who fear that the move poses a new threat to the country’s unity.

The new constitution, approved by Kurdistan’s parliament two weeks ago and scheduled for a referendum this year, underscores the level of mistrust and bad faith between the region and the central government in Baghdad. And it raises the question of whether a peaceful resolution of disputes between the two is possible, despite intensive cajoling by the United States.

The proposed constitution enshrines Kurdish claims to territories and the oil and gas beneath them. But these claims are disputed by both the federal government in Baghdad and ethnic groups on the ground, and were supposed to be resolved in talks begun quietly last month between the Iraqi and Kurdish governments, sponsored by the United Nations and backed by the United States. Instead, the Kurdish parliament pushed ahead and passed the constitution, partly as a message that it would resist pressure from the American and Iraqi governments to make concessions.

The disputed areas, in northern Iraq, are already volatile: There have been several tense confrontations between Kurdish and federal security forces, as well as frequent attacks aimed at inflaming sectarian and ethnic passions there.

The Obama administration, which is gradually withdrawing American troops from Iraq, was surprised and troubled by the Kurdish move. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., sent to Iraq on July 2 for three days, criticized it in diplomatic and indirect, though unmistakably strong, language as “not helpful” to the administration’s goal of reconciling Iraq’s Arabs and Kurds, in an interview with ABC News.

Mr. Biden said he wanted to discuss the proposed constitution with the Kurdish leadership in person but could not fly to Kurdistan because of sandstorms. Instead he spoke to Kurdish leaders by telephone on Tuesday, and Christopher R. Hill, the new ambassador in Baghdad, met with them in Kurdistan on Wednesday.

American diplomatic and military officials have said the potential for a confrontation with the Kurds has emerged as a threat as worrisome to Iraq’s fate as the remnants of the insurgency.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is already not on speaking terms with the Kurdish region’s president, Massoud Barzani. Iraqi political leaders have vociferously denounced the constitution as a step toward splintering Iraq.

“This lays the foundation for a separate state — it is not a constitution for a region,” said Osama al-Nujaifi, a Sunni Arab member of the national Parliament. “It is a declaration of hostile intent and confrontation. Of course it will lead to escalation.”

Kurdish officials defended their efforts to adopt a new constitution that defines the Kurdistan region as comprising their three provinces and also tries to add all of hotly contested and oil-rich Kirkuk Province, as well as other disputed areas in Nineveh and Diyala Provinces. Iraq’s federal Constitution allows the Kurds the right to their own constitution, referring any conflicts to Iraq’s highest court.

Susan Shihab, a member of Kurdistan’s parliament, said she no longer had faith that the rights of Kurds under the federal constitution from 2005 would be respected.

“What is missing the most in the new Iraq is confidence,” she said.

At the same time, though, some Kurds acknowledge that they have grown frustrated with the halting talks to resolve territorial disputes and other issues involving Kurds’ political power in Iraq.

“This is a punch in the face. We are fed up with them,” said a senior Kurdish official, referring to the government in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of his role in the United Nations negotiations.

The dispute started when the term of Kurdistan’s parliament ended June 4, before local presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for July 25. But the parliament, which is firmly in the grips of the two parties that have ruled the region for nearly 20 years, approved an extension and overwhelmingly passed a new draft of the constitution on June 24.

The Kurdish government announced that it wanted the document put to a referendum during the July elections, a vastly accelerated timetable given that most people in Kurdistan say they have not even heard of the constitution.

Iraq’s electoral commission, which oversees elections nationwide, said Monday that the earliest it could hold the referendum was Aug. 11.

The regional parliament said Thursday that it did not oppose a postponement but that it stood by the constitution and was “determined to hold a referendum” by September, according to its spokesman, Tariq Jawhar.

Most expect that the new constitution will be approved. The Kurdish ruling parties — the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan — control all levers of power in the area and maintain legions of loyal followers through jobs and patronage.

But many people in Kurdistan are deeply troubled by how the constitution was hastily passed and the extraordinary powers it gives the president, without meaningful checks and balances.

A group of civil society organizations in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniya began a campaign last month opposing the constitution. Namo Sharif, an activist involved in the effort, said a Kurdish government official called him a “traitor.”

Kwestan Mohammed, a member of the regional parliament who joined a new coalition running against the two ruling parties in the July elections, said that Kurdistan needed its own constitution but that the document in its current form planted the seeds of endless conflict with the central government and made the region’s president an “absolute” ruler.

“It turns all the other powers, including parliament, into cardboard figures,” Ms. Mohammed said.

Gareth Stansfield, an associate fellow at Chatham House in London, a nonprofit organization that focuses on international issues, who is an expert on Kurdish politics, said the Kurds’ insistence on a separate constitution was an unequivocal message to the central government that they were serious about their claims, especially as the clock ticks on America’s presence in Iraq.

“They are not backing down anymore,” Mr. Stansfield said. “They are being very forceful.”

I know we've declared "victory" in this country a few times now and have said the surge worked and are on our way towards pulling our troops out, but I still say that this country isn't going to last as a "democracy" and/or maintain its same borders.

yermom
7/11/2009, 11:19 PM
what really unifies the Kurds and the Arabs into being Iraq?

before it was just Saddam's threats, right?

Crucifax Autumn
7/11/2009, 11:21 PM
I'm not shocked considering that all the Al Quada training camps were in Kurdish territory prior to our invasion and regardless of the horrors imposed on them by Hussein they have been relentlessly screwing with the Turks and the Iraqis for 30 years trying to lay claim to that territory.

this is, of course, a byproduct of the really goofy borders laid out by the US, Britain and Soviets post WWII, but that's another debate but one worthy of having since full on genocides and wars have been going on around those borders in Europe, Africa, and western Asia since.

SicEmBaylor
7/12/2009, 12:46 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/middleeast/10kurds.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper



I know we've declared "victory" in this country a few times now and have said the surge worked and are on our way towards pulling our troops out, but I still say that this country isn't going to last as a "democracy" and/or maintain its same borders.

100% Agreed. It doesn't matter if we left 500,000 troops in that country for the next 50 years. As soon as our military presence has dwindled enough it's going to collapse like a deck of cards. You know that saying that some horses just can't be rode? Some places just can't be civilized.

I can see some merit in removing Saddam (though just some), but attempting to nation build was a gigantic cluster**** of a mistake.

SicEmBaylor
7/12/2009, 12:50 AM
I'm not shocked considering that all the Al Quada training camps were in Kurdish territory prior to our invasion and regardless of the horrors imposed on them by Hussein they have been relentlessly screwing with the Turks and the Iraqis for 30 years trying to lay claim to that territory.

this is, of course, a byproduct of the really goofy borders laid out by the US, Britain and Soviets post WWII, but that's another debate but one worthy of having since full on genocides and wars have been going on around those borders in Europe, Africa, and western Asia since.

Exactly. It's mostly the fault of the British but that is indeed a debate for another day. This, however, is the kind of ****ed up **** that happens when you create a new country out of thin air and draw arbitrary borders that include multiple ethnic groups that lay claim to the same area.

The middle east is just a gigantic mess and the sooner we can cut our dependency from the region and disengage financially, militarily, and to some extent diplomatically the better off we'll be.

[/30's era America First rant]

SicEmBaylor
7/12/2009, 12:53 AM
Let me also say this, I'm not anti-Israeli but our almost unconditional support for them really does create resentment that breeds radical anti-American groups and terroirists. I wish nothing but the best for Israel, and my heart is with them but at some point they are going to have to learn to stand on their own two feet without having their big-brother fight their international diplomatic battles for them and provide a rubber stamp veto in the UN Security Council. We pour billions of dollars in money, military equipment, and aid into that nation to prop up its security, leadership, and economy. At some point enough has to be enough and we have to act in our own self-interest and stop playing interference for the Israelis.

StoopTroup
7/12/2009, 03:21 PM
We should probably just keep Iraq and rape it for the oil then?

yermom
7/12/2009, 03:48 PM
or maybe we should back the Kurds and tell the rest of Iraq to **** off ;)

StoopTroup
7/12/2009, 04:15 PM
What about the whey?

You can't have Kurds without whey!

SoonerStormchaser
7/12/2009, 04:41 PM
I don't know why people just can't understand that it's TRIBAL WARFARE in that part of the world...and that's the way it's gonna stay.

yermom
7/12/2009, 04:53 PM
so we shouldn't have wasted the last 6 years there?

JohnnyMack
7/12/2009, 05:17 PM
I don't know why people just can't understand that it's TRIBAL WARFARE in that part of the world...and that's the way it's gonna stay.

You would think someone would have told W that a few years back.

StoopTroup
7/12/2009, 06:14 PM
I don't know why people just can't understand that it's TRIBAL WARFARE in that part of the world...and that's the way it's gonna stay.

I think many of us understood that very well....it's why so many of us were opposed to going there in the first place.

Fraggle145
7/12/2009, 10:57 PM
so we shouldn't have wasted the last 6 years there?

This.

MR2-Sooner86
7/13/2009, 01:54 PM
I say we nuke the entire country and kill em all and let Allah sort em out. We then set up shop and create lots of gas stations with cheap 25 cent a gallon gas. We'll put in condos, Big Mac's, and a Walmart super center at every corner! We'll make Iraq our 51st state and we'll call it...

New Iraq

And it'll also give us the perfect position to do some slant drilling and steal those Saudi's oil!

Who's with me!?

Half a Hundred
7/13/2009, 02:05 PM
what really unifies the Kurds and the Arabs into being Iraq?

before it was just Saddam's threats, right?

The end game, I think, is figuring out how to unite the Iraqi and Iranian Kurds (or letting them do it themselves) into establishing their own country, scoring a big hit for the Iranian dissension and likely sparking a civil war. After letting that whole business settle itself out while dealing with Turkey who will be completely flipping s*** over the whole business, it will be much easier to deal with the region.

Of course, that's assuming we don't want things destabilized for our own purposes in the first place.

JohnnyMack
7/13/2009, 02:14 PM
Yeah, get back to me in a thousand or so years when that happens.

OklahomaTuba
7/14/2009, 09:05 AM
Let me also say this, I'm not anti-Israeli but our almost unconditional support for them really does create resentment that breeds radical anti-American groups and terroirists.

We give Hamas tons of support, even though they continue to wage a war of terror on Israel, and they still hate us, and always will.

We could let them drive them joos into the sea and slaughter them all and it won't do a damn thing to change how anti-American groups and "terroirists" feels about us.