Nabil Al-Hadithy: The Kurds are stealing Kirkuk. The US should stop them.
[Nabil Al-Hadithy heads Berkeley's toxic management division addressing hazardous waste problems. He graduated in Geology from University of London in 1975 and obtained Master's Degree from Cranfield University in Material Science in 1977 and doctorate in Welding Technology in 1982. He joined City of Berkeley in 1993 as HazMat Inspector and then became HazMat Manager. An Iraqi, he voted in the country's elections.]
Within a year of the 1958 independence from the British monarchy, Iraq was in turmoil through a leftist revolt from Colonel Shawwaf in Mosul, the northern capital. Baghdad was ruled by nationalists, largely Arab Sunni military cliques. Commander Tabakchali, the Turkmen chief of the Second Battalion based in Kirkuk also faced an aggressive Kurdish land-grab led by Mullah Mustafa Barazani in oil-rich Kirkuk. Kirkuk City was largely a Turkmen enclave.
Barazani’s strategy was to uproot mountain Kurds living north and east of the City and force them to resettle in Kirkuk. Using the Peshmerga and strong arm tactics, Kurdish refugee camps started outside Kirkuk. The Turkmen population convened a meeting with the provincial Governor, Hadithi, and Commander Tabakchali, The Turkmen demanded an end to the obvious threat on the City by Barazani. Within weeks, the central government of Kassim summoned the Governor and the Commander to Baghdad to answer to the deterioration in the north. In a well publicized kangaroo court, Tabakchali was executed and Hadithi was put in jail until the next Sunni military coup d'état released him.
Twenty years later in exile in London, former Governor Hadithi, my father, would tell me of Barazani’s ruthless plot to secure an independent Kurdistan. The Governor and the Commander were friends, they were sympathetic to the Turkmen and were fully aware of Barazani’s plot. But they would not force tens of thousands of scared Kurdish peasants back to their burnt villages and into the guns of the Peshmerga.
Barazani’s strategy was adopted subsequently by the dictator Saddam Hussein. Many Arabs resettled in a more orderly manner in Kirkuk over the last 30 years. Since the invasion of Iraq, Kurds have resorted to ethnic cleansing of Arabs and the settlement of more Kurdish peasants in Kirkuk.
Of all the pretexts to invade Iraq, perhaps the spread of democracy, as envisioned by the Bush administration, went off the mark by the widest margin. Even though I voted in Iraqi elections, there was no semblance of the imposition of democratic principles by the occupation. Instead, it was clear that the US and Britain wanted to control the nation by imposing illegal laws and placing their puppets in power. All went wrong, their puppets were forced out of leadership positions and their laws were largely overturned. One outcome that the US wished to impose was the creation of an independent Kurdistan which would have led to the dissolution of Iraq.
There are both internal and external forces playing to dissolve Iraq. The interests of these forces converged some fifty years ago around the Kurdish separatist, Mullah Mustapha Barazani, the late father of current Kurdish regional ‘President.’ To have an independent Kurdistan, it must have oil for it is landlocked and surrounded by hostile neighbors. Barazani started the process by forcing demographic changes in Kirkuk. The elder Barazani found external support to take Kirkuk and dismember Iraq in regional powers of Iran and Israel. All three forces benefited from the dissolution of a strong, secular, nationalist, Arab Iraq for obvious reasons.
Israel’s national interest was to destroy Arab nationalism. Later, militant Islam (Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran) became their scourge. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had oil and supported Palestine. The Shah of Iran’s interest was to dominate the Persian Gulf and become the largest oil producer to eclipse Iraqi and Saudi power.
What is unusual about the costly occupation of Iraq is that the interests of the U.S. will not benefit. Iraq served U.S. interests and the interests of Arab allies of the U.S. by containing militant Islam in Iran. Yet today, the U.S. forces in Iraq pay homage to an Iranian cleric, Ayatollah Sistani, and Iranian trained militia leaders are in power (Maliki and Hakim).
The Neocons of the Bush administration who created the pretexts for the invasion of Iraq professed democratic principles but worked to cede Kirkuk to the Kurds in an undemocratic manner. The U.S. interim constitution for Iraq (Iraqi Law of Administration) gave Kurds irrevocable control of Kirkuk and its oil fields. Section 58(A)(2) of this law even required ethnic cleansing or the "resettlement" of non-Kurds out of Kirkuk. This U.S. law went on to require 2/3 of the electorate, not a mere majority, to vote Kirkuk out of Kurdish control. The inclusion of this clause is testament that Kurds never had a majority population in Kirkuk up to the time the U.S. invaded Iraq. That law was repealed by the new Iraq government but Mullah Mustapha Barazani’s son has continued the demographic manipulation of Kirkuk that his father started with quiet approval of the U.S. Few reporters wrote of this travesty. Stephen Farrell of the NY Times wrote a rare eyewitness story on December 9, 2007.
To retaliate against the central government for not ceding Kirkuk, Kurds are holding the central government hostage on all responsible new legislation. It is unlikely that Baghdad will abandon 40% of Iraq’s oil to the Kurdish separatists. Turkmen have appealed to Turkey to assist them in maintaining control of their ancestral homeland.
The U.S. is not served by the dissolution of Iraq. The U.S. should pursue its own interests in the Middle East and fulfill its legal obligations to protect the people of Iraq. The U.S. should move to avert a civil war around Kirkuk by maintaining it as an integral part of Iraq.
Within a year of the 1958 independence from the British monarchy, Iraq was in turmoil through a leftist revolt from Colonel Shawwaf in Mosul, the northern capital. Baghdad was ruled by nationalists, largely Arab Sunni military cliques. Commander Tabakchali, the Turkmen chief of the Second Battalion based in Kirkuk also faced an aggressive Kurdish land-grab led by Mullah Mustafa Barazani in oil-rich Kirkuk. Kirkuk City was largely a Turkmen enclave.
Barazani’s strategy was to uproot mountain Kurds living north and east of the City and force them to resettle in Kirkuk. Using the Peshmerga and strong arm tactics, Kurdish refugee camps started outside Kirkuk. The Turkmen population convened a meeting with the provincial Governor, Hadithi, and Commander Tabakchali, The Turkmen demanded an end to the obvious threat on the City by Barazani. Within weeks, the central government of Kassim summoned the Governor and the Commander to Baghdad to answer to the deterioration in the north. In a well publicized kangaroo court, Tabakchali was executed and Hadithi was put in jail until the next Sunni military coup d'état released him.
Twenty years later in exile in London, former Governor Hadithi, my father, would tell me of Barazani’s ruthless plot to secure an independent Kurdistan. The Governor and the Commander were friends, they were sympathetic to the Turkmen and were fully aware of Barazani’s plot. But they would not force tens of thousands of scared Kurdish peasants back to their burnt villages and into the guns of the Peshmerga.
Barazani’s strategy was adopted subsequently by the dictator Saddam Hussein. Many Arabs resettled in a more orderly manner in Kirkuk over the last 30 years. Since the invasion of Iraq, Kurds have resorted to ethnic cleansing of Arabs and the settlement of more Kurdish peasants in Kirkuk.
Of all the pretexts to invade Iraq, perhaps the spread of democracy, as envisioned by the Bush administration, went off the mark by the widest margin. Even though I voted in Iraqi elections, there was no semblance of the imposition of democratic principles by the occupation. Instead, it was clear that the US and Britain wanted to control the nation by imposing illegal laws and placing their puppets in power. All went wrong, their puppets were forced out of leadership positions and their laws were largely overturned. One outcome that the US wished to impose was the creation of an independent Kurdistan which would have led to the dissolution of Iraq.
There are both internal and external forces playing to dissolve Iraq. The interests of these forces converged some fifty years ago around the Kurdish separatist, Mullah Mustapha Barazani, the late father of current Kurdish regional ‘President.’ To have an independent Kurdistan, it must have oil for it is landlocked and surrounded by hostile neighbors. Barazani started the process by forcing demographic changes in Kirkuk. The elder Barazani found external support to take Kirkuk and dismember Iraq in regional powers of Iran and Israel. All three forces benefited from the dissolution of a strong, secular, nationalist, Arab Iraq for obvious reasons.
Israel’s national interest was to destroy Arab nationalism. Later, militant Islam (Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran) became their scourge. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had oil and supported Palestine. The Shah of Iran’s interest was to dominate the Persian Gulf and become the largest oil producer to eclipse Iraqi and Saudi power.
What is unusual about the costly occupation of Iraq is that the interests of the U.S. will not benefit. Iraq served U.S. interests and the interests of Arab allies of the U.S. by containing militant Islam in Iran. Yet today, the U.S. forces in Iraq pay homage to an Iranian cleric, Ayatollah Sistani, and Iranian trained militia leaders are in power (Maliki and Hakim).
The Neocons of the Bush administration who created the pretexts for the invasion of Iraq professed democratic principles but worked to cede Kirkuk to the Kurds in an undemocratic manner. The U.S. interim constitution for Iraq (Iraqi Law of Administration) gave Kurds irrevocable control of Kirkuk and its oil fields. Section 58(A)(2) of this law even required ethnic cleansing or the "resettlement" of non-Kurds out of Kirkuk. This U.S. law went on to require 2/3 of the electorate, not a mere majority, to vote Kirkuk out of Kurdish control. The inclusion of this clause is testament that Kurds never had a majority population in Kirkuk up to the time the U.S. invaded Iraq. That law was repealed by the new Iraq government but Mullah Mustapha Barazani’s son has continued the demographic manipulation of Kirkuk that his father started with quiet approval of the U.S. Few reporters wrote of this travesty. Stephen Farrell of the NY Times wrote a rare eyewitness story on December 9, 2007.
To retaliate against the central government for not ceding Kirkuk, Kurds are holding the central government hostage on all responsible new legislation. It is unlikely that Baghdad will abandon 40% of Iraq’s oil to the Kurdish separatists. Turkmen have appealed to Turkey to assist them in maintaining control of their ancestral homeland.
The U.S. is not served by the dissolution of Iraq. The U.S. should pursue its own interests in the Middle East and fulfill its legal obligations to protect the people of Iraq. The U.S. should move to avert a civil war around Kirkuk by maintaining it as an integral part of Iraq.