Printer-friendly VersionBy Azad Aslan
Globe Editorial
The report, which was the result of more than a year's work by a team of diplomats, academics, negotiators and constitutional experts, included separate studies of 15 disputed districts, including the whole of Kirkuk province. According to the UN statement the studies were more analytical than prescriptive. 'The UN Assistance Mission in Iraq has not made any suggestions at this time regarding the future administrative jurisdiction of these areas.' However, «On the other hand, recommendations on specific localized confidence building measures have been included in each assessment.»
De Mistura stated that «Our strong hope in presenting these very thorough and objective reports, which analyze these highly complex disputed areas in ways that nobody has ever done before, is that the parties will use them to start a process of concrete dialogue. We are all too aware that tensions have recently risen in parts of the disputed areas, and also that there are more issues than just the territorial ones that divide the parties.» De Mistura optimistically put forward that «That is why we have done the work in the way we have, and that is why we are hoping that sustained and serious dialogue will now follow.»
The UN said its team had come up with four options for the province's future, all of which «deal with Kirkuk as a single entity.» All of these options would "use the constitution of Iraq as the starting point for handling Kirkuk, require a political agreement among the parties and then some form of a confirmatory referendum.» The UN said it had «worked closely with various Iraqi authorities at national, regional, governorate (provincial) and local levels to try to help them develop processes which could facilitate resolution of the disputed internal boundaries.»
There are no further details of the report for the proposed four options. It is very doubtful that the UN has any power or sincerity to solve the question of Kirkuk. The head of UN special mission to Iraq de Mistura promised the Kurdistan Parliament at the end of 2007 that the UN role will be to help Iraq technically to carry out referendum in 6 months time. Instead of assisting and convincing Iraqi government to implement the processes of article 140 the UN engaged with so many fact finding missions and reports that most of them were not in touch with reality such as the UN early report on Akre district, a region that has long been administered by Kurdistan Regional Government.
Kirkuk question is a political question and not an administrative one. The players active in this question are not only the Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmens but regional powers as well. It is a question about sovereignty and sharing power. It is a question about changing old habits with new ones. It is a question of undoing historical injustices while constructing new set of values. At the root of the problem lies the fact that our Arab partners fail to understand that the Kurds are their equal sovereign partners. Arabs must learn to share sovereignty and power with Kurds and respect their territory and rights should they wish to live together in peace.
The UN has no positive role in solving Kirkuk question but rather plays an implicit role of covering the delay for the implementation of referendum and in that sense strengthens the hands of Arab nationalism.
The road map of Kirkuk question had already been set out by the Iraqi constitution and this constitution has approval by 80% of the whole Iraqi population. Instead of forcing and providing necessary technical and political assistance to the central government to implement the article 140 the UN wasted one and half years with reports and studies of which none were prescriptive or binding.
Kurdistan Parliament must be given special authority to deal with the question of Kirkuk and other disputed areas. Further delays will make the question more complicated and the time is not ticking in the best interest of the Kurds. The issue must have been solved long ago but the insistence of Kurdish political actors to deal with it within the democratic and legal framework with their Arab counterparts seems to be fruitless.
Kirkuk is the heart of Kurdistan and there will be no bargaining on this or other disputed territories. Either through a democratic process the article 140 is implemented - as conditioned by the Iraqi charter - or the Kurdistan Parliament must take the initiative and provide other alternative options.