Saturday, 07 May 2011, 08:59 GMT
Why Kirkuk is so important to Kurds and Kurdistan
The Kurdish Globe
By A. Daudy
Through the years, Kirkuk has been a focal point in the struggle of
Kurds in Iraq. It witnessed many revolts and opportunities to settle
the Kurdish question, but Kirkuk was always an obstacle to permanent
settlement.
No single Kurdish leader ever dared to think about giving it up for
broader Kurdish rights inside Iraq. It is also deeply rooted in the
Kurdish political mind and struggle for a Kurdish homeland. Regional
and Western powers have denied this Kurdish wish for political
strategy and because of its oil. The lack of knowledge about the issue
by the Kurds themselves made them impressively weak in explaining
their justification for Kirkuk and the struggle for it, let alone
non-Kurds who cannot understand the “pathetic” clinging to the city.
So, why is Kirkuk so important to the Kurds?
Kirkuk’s history
The Hurrians, the main ancestors of Kurds, established Nuzi and
Arappha, modern-day Kirkuk. Historians agree Kurds are an
autochthonous race which is the result of mainly the Caucasian race
(Hurrians that populated large parts of Middle East), which was
Aryanized by different Indo-European tribes, the last one being the
Medes. Many tribal names designated to different kingdoms in ancient
Kurdistan were part of the Hurrian race, including Lulus, Subartus,
Gutians, Urartus, Manneans and Khaldis. In addition to the
Indo-European tribes that Aryanized ancient Kurdistan, many ancient
kingdoms ruled under their tribal names like Mitannis, Kassites,
Hittites, Scythians, Sagartians, and the last, most well-known group,
the Medes. The Median tribes united Kurdistan culturally and
geographically, and the Median Kurdish Empire was the last state that
united all parts of Kurdistan and went far beyond to the east to
Bactria (Afghanistan) and west Aegean Sea (western Turkey). After
that, ancient Kurds had different kingdoms and vassal states in
different parts of Kurdistan, under various empires.
The Kurdish tribes around Kirkuk still hold their ancient Hurrian
names, like Zangna, Talabani and Jabbari, which are mentioned in the
tablets of ancient Hurrian city of Arappha (Kirkuk). Later, many
empires and states invaded Kirkuk and the rest of Kurdistan. The
sources of Aramaic Christian priests mention the region of Beth Garma
(Garmian region) which is part of Ba-Qerdi (House of Kurds or land of
Kurds). Arab and Turkish Ottoman sources reiterate this. Mosul Wilayet
of the Ottoman state was a Kurdish state under the British occupation
of Iraq, and incorporated it into the country to make it a viable
state using Kirkuk’s oil, to link it to the rest of its territory in
the Middle East. The British conducted a census between 1918 and the
early 1920s in Kirkuk province, and it clearly indicates a Kurdish
majority in the province.
Britain, Kirkuk demography and oil
Kirkuk’s oil has been a curse on the Kurdish nation since its
discovery at the beginning of the 20th century. At that time, the
British Empire was at war with the Ottoman Empire and competing with
the Russians and Germans for territories and, of course, the Middle
East’s oil, which was needed for the machinery of war. This was
essential in gaining an advantage on the competing powers, and to
secure the oil supply for the rest of British troops around the world.
This became especially apparent after losing Baku (Azerbaijan) to the
Russians. For Britain, the Kurds were just a hurdle to integrate
Kirkuk and Mosul to a larger Hashemite Arab Kingdom of Jordan and
Iraq, connecting Kirkuk’s oil to Palestine’s Haifa. Besides, the
Kurdish tribes were a factor of instability, especially because the
Ottomans were using religion to sway the tribes’ allegiance. This
could have jeopardized the integration.
In the 1990s, the demographics changed again. Arab, Turkoman and even
Western politicians and organizations make exaggerated accusations
that Kurds repatriated 450,000 Kurds, but those deported in the 1990s
were fewer than 200,000. Still, many Kirkuki Kurds do not want to go
back to Kirkuk. The city is in an appalling state, and the ones who
have lived in Erbil and Suleimaniya are not motivated to go back,
despite calls and pressure from Kurdistan Regional Government. It
seems the figures are inaccurate, even from some respected think tanks
like International Crisis Group. Or, is it simply propaganda against
the Kurdish reclamation?
Another accusation is that Kurds want Kirkuk merely for its oil to
secure their future independent state. Kurds already secured their
position in the region and in the world, by the proven oil and gas
reserves, which are around 70 billion barrels of oil and a 112-200
trillion cm of gas, according to Ashti Hawrami’s figures. When taking
current reserves into account, the oil is seven times more and the gas
45 times more than that of Kirkuk. The gas reserves, which will supply
Europe through the Nabucco pipeline, are already a declaration of
independence, given Azerbaijan’s unstable supply. Kurdistan is already
on the map as a player in the global oil market. Even the stance of
Kurds greatest opponent, Turkey, has weakened following these
discoveries and the enormous benefits for the economy. More
discoveries are being made. Besides, Kirkuk’s oil is of a lesser
quality because it is mixed with water. If Kurds want Kirkuk for its
oil, they firmly believe they have the right to own it and use it to
benefit the people and the city. Saddam Hussein traded the income of
Kirkuk’s oil for weapons to exterminate the Iraqi population,
including the Kurds.
Gradually, neighboring states and opposition communities are realizing
the inevitable emergence of a Kurdish entity with rich resources,
which may eventually declare independence — with or without Kirkuk.
Turkmen and political irrationalism
The Turkmen history starts in the region in the 12th and 13th
centuries with the Mongol invasion of the Islamic state of the
Abbasids. The allied Turkic tribes established kingdoms in several
parts of Mesopotamia, as well as Anatolia. Modern Turkmen don’t share
much with those invaders. The most common theory is they assimilated
with the local population. The modern Turkmen, linguistically and
tribally, show a common background with Turkic Azeris of Iran and
Azerbaijan and have a lesser similarity with Turks of Turkey. These
Turkmen came to the region at the height of the struggle between the
Ottoman and Safavid empires and were settled in different areas of the
empire to secure its stability; this is not only visible in Iraq, but
also in Syria.
Today’s Turkmen are bitter following the fall of Saddam. They had been
the ruling class from the Ottoman occupation until the end of Sunni
dominance in 2003 in those designated pockets. They have always allied
themselves with the ruling Sunni powers of the Iraqi state. Since
2003, the Turkmen are still unable to come to grips with the power
shift after accepting Arab supremacy for a century. Today, the Turkmen
political parties take an irrational political course and set
unrealistic demands.
The Turkmen are represented by Iraqi Turkmen Front, which was set up
by Turkish intelligence services (MIT). This process started in 1994
at the time of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) rule, which was a
proponent of the military elite, and before the rise of Justice and
Development Party of Turkey (AKP) and its new course, simply to thwart
Kurdish demands. Turkmen had also their share from Saddam’s
Arabization policy, but Turkey never mentioned or addressed this with
Saddam until Kurds had their own protectorate in 1991. After AKP came
to power, things started to change, and Turkey’s foreign policy
started to take a more pragmatic approach, which led MIT to withdraw
the Turkmen card. This is also due to the quarrels and the weakening
support of ITF among the Turkmen themselves. ITF went even further,
asking for help from Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. In Turkmenistan,
they were welcomed but could not find any logic for their demands to
establish a Turkmen entity in Iraq. Moreover, the former head of
Azerbaijan’s intelligence agency, who is now the president of the
country, did not respond to their demands or provide assistance. In
addition, Shiite Iran, which is mainly dominated by Azeri Turkish
clerics, provides no support. Turkey plays the Turkmen card once in a
while, just to pressure the Kurds. A recent shift in Turkmen politics
occurred when Hassan Torhan was elected president of Kirkuk’s
provincial council. This was a gesture by Kurdish politicians, as well
as Turkey’s pressure to cooperate more with the Kurds, taking the
future economic benefits into consideration.
Arabs of Kirkuk
As previously mentioned, the British rule in Iraq suggested
incorporating Kurdistan, including Kirkuk, into Iraq to make Iraq a
viable state through its oil and secure the supply to Haifa. Since
then, waves of Arab migrants and tribes settled in Kirkuk and its
surrounding areas. The largest deportations of Kurds and settlement of
Arabs were during the 1970s and 1980s under Saddam’s Baathist regime.
Arabs were encouraged to occupy the area and loot Kurdish properties
in the infamous campaign of Anfal. Many poor Arabs from the south
moved to Kirkuk during this time.
In a recent survey, Arabs of Kirkuk admitted their role in looting
Kurdish properties in the 1980s and acknowledged that Kurds could have
done the same in 2003, but were restrained by their leadership to
ensure a peaceful long-term coexistence. When asked whether they want
to incorporate their region with Salahaddin governorate, most Kirkuk
Arabs are against it, and want to stay part of Kirkuk due to disputes
and a difficult relationship with the Arabs of Tikrit and Samara.
Despite this, they do not want to be part of Kurdistan Region.
While the Kurds are accused of wanting Kirkuk for its oil, the same
holds true for Sunni Arabs. Recently, some Sunni and Arab nationalists
made it clear they want to incorporate Kirkuk and its oil into a Sunni
region, to include Anbar, Nineveh and Salahaddin. This region is
relatively poor in resources compared to the Shiite south and the
Kurdistan Region. They also fear the Kurds will break away from Iraq,
motivating the Shia to do the same in the south, leaving the Sunnis
with the desert.
Arabs, as well as Turkmen, are aiming for a power-sharing structure
and to make Kirkuk a region of its own. Still, many Kurds feel
reversing Saddam’s policy is the least the new Iraqi government can
do. Neighboring countries have no legitimacy to intervene or meddle in
the question of Kirkuk. Kurds and Shia find it almost impossible to
share a country with the Arab Sunnis, due to the differences in
perspective and language of dialogue. Many prominent Sunni politicians
still hail Saddam, the Arab glory and use the same offensive language
against the other communities, refusing to accept the new realities on
the ground.
Kirkuk symbols and identity
Why is Kirkuk of such importance to Kurds? The Kurdish tribes were
living until the outskirts of Modern Baghdad (Ctesiphon), further than
the shores of Tigris, before the arrival of Arab conquerors, armed by
Islam, in the seventh century. The Arabs began converting the local
population to Islam under the threat of the sword and unbeliever taxes
(jeziah). This also assimilated neighboring nations into the new
religion and its language, including Aramaics in Iraq; Phoenicians,
Hebrews and Canaanites in the Levant; Copts in Egypt; the Amazigh
Berbers of North Africa, from Libya to Morocco; and the inhabitants of
the Horn of Africa.
For the Kurds, this process Arabized the Kurdish lowlanders of Diyala
province, Kut province, Baghdad’s Pahlavi Kurds and Jazeera region,
especially Mosul and Aleppo.
The Kurdish people struggle to preserve their identity, language and
culture amid three larger nations: Arabs, Turks and Persians. The
Kurdish heritage has lost many of its historical and cultural areas to
the occupying nations. So, “Kirkuk symbolizes 13 centuries of ongoing
struggle to preserve Kurds from Arab ambitions to assimilate them.”
The struggle for Kirkuk is the struggle for Kurdish identity. Kirkuk
is an emotional issue for the Kurds; no single generation will give up
on the city’s identity, and no major power can convince the Kurds to
give it up. Any scenario to strip that right will ignite violent
retaliation by the Kurdish population, even against Western powers.
Still, Kurds are willing to have a reasonable and peaceful solution
for the settled Arabs, and include them in the Kurdistan Region
minorities and assure their place in the decision-making process.
From: A. Papazian
http://www.kurdishglobe.net/display-article.html?id1F4CDECDE45C378FAE8E8613D6FCA2