Kirkuk, Iraq's Next War: What Options Does Turkey Have?

• Author: Ali, Othman
• Position: COMMENTARY - Essay

The Building of Tension in Kirkuk

Tensions in the oil-rich Kirkuk region, where the political ambitions, historical claims and economic interests of the principal communities--Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen and Chaldo-Assyrians--clash, have been escalating since U.S. forces toppled the Baathist regime in April 2003. Since the formation of the modern Iraqi state in 1921, Kirkuk has been an essential part of the constant and endemic crisis between Baghdad and the Kurdish movement. Before the 1970s, Kirkuk had only two principal communities: the Kurds and Turkmen. The contestant claims of Kurds and Turkmen on the city were manipulated by consecutive governments in Baghdad. The conservative and nationalist forces who were in a power struggle with the Qasim regime, which had a leftist tendency, manipulated the ethnic tension in 1959 to destabilize the Qasim regime. This culminated in the July massacre of 1959 in Kirkuk in which tens of Turkmen notables were killed and houses and shops were looted by the Kurdish communist paramilitary units. (1) After the implementation of the Arabization policy during the last decades of the 20th century, by the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Arabs became an important ingredient of the city's cultural identity too. Therefore, the crisis in Kirkuk is complex and it has multi-ethnic and multi-regional dimensions.

On the occasion of the Nawruz holiday in Iraq on March 21, 2017, the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government's (KRG) flag was officially raised, alongside the Iraqi flag, by the provincial government of Kirkuk. In justifying his action, Najmaldin Karim, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)-appointed governor, stated that the "KRG flag is not only the flag of the Kurds. It is the flag of all the ethnic components of Kirkuk. We tell those who want to instigate chaos: this flag is that of the Arabs and Turkmen, as well as the Kurds. It is the flag of Kurdistan which is a place for everyone." The governor also warned against any attempt to defy his orders. (2) This incident has given rise to great controversy among the various communities in the Kirkuk province and it added a new deteriorating factor to the already strained relations between the central government and KRG. United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI) felt the necessity to make a statement about the issue. It would be valid to argue that the reasons behind this fait accompli for the controversy are: the non-implementation and complex nature of Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution which addresses the question of Kirkuk, the Kirkuk governor's souring relations with Baghdad and the Kurds' desire to achieve their historical ambitions in Kirkuk. Unless the status of Kirkuk is politically and legally addressed in the post-Mosul operation era, it has the potential to turn into a full scale and intensive conflict where the Turkmen community may suffer the most. This will consequently enhance the power of the pro-Iranian Shia militia and the central government may move to reinstall its control in Kirkuk.

Governor Karim thinks Kirkuk falls within the jurisdiction of Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution. Therefore, the province should be run jointly between Baghdad and Erbil. Consequently, Karim speculated, KRG is entitled to use its authority to raise the Kurdish flag on governmental buildings. Kurdish parties were unanimous in defending Karim's action and accused the central government of deliberate procrastination in the implementation of Article 140. In addition, the governor accused the central government of denying Kirkuk its due share from petro-dollars and using Kirkuk's oil revenues to finance the Shia militia and spend on other provinces of Iraq. (3)

However, the Iraqi Prime Minister's office is of the opinion that the Kirkuk governor does not have the authority to raise the Kurdish flag. Saad Hadisi, Spokesperson for the Prime Minister's office, told Rudaw on March 19, 2017 "The constitution has clearly stipulated the powers of provincial governments and those of the federal government in Baghdad. Kirkuk is one of these governorates; hence, in places outside the Kurdistan Region, no other flag should be raised on institutions other than the Iraqi flag. This is vested with the federal government alone. Kirkuk is within the framework of these governorates and it should commit to raising the Iraqi flag only." Zaineb al-Khazriji, a law-maker from the powerful Iraqi National Shiite Alliance, on her part regarded the raising of KRG flag as a violation of the Iraqi constitution. She added that "Kirkuk is an Arab city" and called upon the government to take action against it. (4)

On April 1, 2017, Kurdish members of the Iraqi parliament left a parliamentary session while it was discussing a decision against raising the Kurdistan flag on state buildings in Kirkuk province. The Iraqi parliament approved the decision on the same day to ban the Kurdistan flag in Kirkuk, stating that only the Iraqi flag should be raised over the government institutions across the city. The parliament has also decided that only the central government in Baghdad is authorized to deal with Kirkuk's oil. Kurdish factions threatened to boycott Iraqi Parliament sessions as long as this decision is in existence. The Spokesperson for the boycotting Kurdish groups stated that the decision of the parliament is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of consensus which post-Saddam Iraq was built upon. (5) On the same day, the KRG Presidency office also issued a strongly worded response to the Parliament's decision which said "KRG is not bound by the decision and call upon Baghdad officials to accept it as reality on the ground." (6)

In a further clear sign of defiance to the central government, the Kurdish dominated Kirkuk Provincial Council issued an announcement rejecting the Parliament's decision on Kirkuk. This rejection was based on the grounds that the Parliament's decision was unconstitutional because it violated Article 115 of the Iraqi constitution which prohibits federal authorities, especially the parliament, to legislate on matters which fall within the jurisdiction of provincial authorities. "The issue of which flag to be raised in Kirkuk is fully within the provincial authority," stated Rebwar Talabani, the acting head of Kirkuk Provincial Council. Furthermore, the decision violated the principle of consensus which has been clearly stated in the preamble of the constitution and all Iraqi groups have agreed in the past to adhere to it. The Kirkuk Council called upon Fuad Masoum, the Kurdish President of Iraq, not to sign the decision of the Iraqi parliament. (7) According to the constitution, laws passed by the Iraqi parliament will automatically become a law after 15 days. The President's signature is not technically mandatory. But the President may resort to the use of his powers granted to him in Articles 60, 67, and 68 to delay the implementation of any law passed by the parliament. It is expected that President Masoum will try to help parties to find a compromise. He will be under a tremendous amount of pressure to defend Kurdish interests. Should Baghdad politicians exert pressure on him or refuse his request to address Kurdish concerns, he will probably resign and this will put Iraq in a serious political and legal crisis. The Turkmen and Arab population of Kirkuk were equally disgruntled and infuriated by the Kirkuk governor's action to raise the KRG flag in Kirkuk. In an announcement issued by all Turkmen parties, they stated that they considered the action in violation of the Iraqi constitution and called upon UNAMI to convey their serious concern to the UN. Hasan...