Repairing the failed state
Barham Salih talks to Al-Ahram Weekly about the Fundamental Law due to be signed by 28 February, what the Kurds mean by a federal Iraq and the fraught issue of disputed areas like Kirkuk
Barham Salih is the prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) government that controls half of the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq (the other half is controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Party government). Since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, he has emerged as one of the most eloquent exponents of the Kurdish cause in Iraq and is being touted as Iraq's next ambassador to the United Nations. He was interviewed by Graham Usher in Suleimaniya
What are the Kurds seeking in the Fundamental Law?
Many of our neighbours and some in the West say the Kurds are demanding too much in the new Iraq. The irony is we are actually demanding less. For the last 12 years we've been almost fully independent in northern Iraq. But we are now willing to give up some of this power in order to integrate into a federal democratic Iraq.
We are saying that foreign policy, national monetary policy and national defence policy should be with the central government in Baghdad -- with the proviso that will allow the Kurdish region to maintain a degree of its own self- defence forces as part of an overall Iraqi command. The Kurds have a terrible legacy with the Iraqi military. The Iraqi state, or those claiming to represent the Iraqi state, committed genocide against my people. I could not easily justify to my people a decision that would allow the Iraqi army to re-deploy again in Halabja [where 5,000 Kurds were killed by poison gas by the Iraqi army in 1988].
We are seeking a formula where the Kurdish people will benefit from the natural resources of Kurdistan, resources that were squandered by Saddam Hussein to build weapons of mass destruction and engage in wars of aggression against the Kurds and Iraq's neighbours. We are willing to give up some of the natural resources of Kurdistan in exchange for assurances that we will receive more than we did in the past.
Above all the Kurdish region has to be recognised as an entity within the new Iraqi federal state. And from the various drafts I have seen of the transitional law this formulation is being developed; there is now reference to the special status of Iraqi Kurdistan, one that will enable us to deal with the reality of the situation.
You have to understand the discussion on federalism in Iraq is a first in the Middle East -- well, not as such, since the United Arab Emirates has a federal structure. But in the context of Iraqi history, the discussion on federalism we are now having on the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) is unprecedented.
It's true I would have liked the concept of federalism to have been accepted more readily by my compatriots. But I genuinely feel that among those engaged in the debate -- the real players at least -- there is an understanding that the old political order in Iraq is over and done with, that we have to move beyond politics as usual in Iraq. Because, for Kurds, politics as usual in Iraq meant a centralised, authoritarian and Arab-dominated Iraq. And after 80 years, that kind of politics failed miserably to assimilate Kurdish identity and Kurdish rights. It failed not only in terms of the terrible human suffering it inflicted on the Kurdish people but also in terms of the wider political situation in Iraq. As a result Iraq failed as a state.
Could you further explain charges by certain Kurdish leaders regarding certain parties within the IGC trying to resurrect that failed state?
Certain parties on the IGC tried to offer us less than the 1970 Autonomy Agreement we signed with Saddam Hussein. They wanted us to accept a notion of federalism based on Iraq's old governorates rather than viewing the existing Kurdish region as one unit. We told them this form of federalism was offered us in 1963 and 1967. It was rejected then and is not acceptable now. We also reminded them that in the 1970 agreement Saddam Hussein accepted an "autonomous region" of Kurdistan in Iraq.
There is particular anger at the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), saying that some Kurds have reneged on commitments regarding federalism?
We have a written agreement with SCIRI -- signed by the late Mohammed Baqir Al-Hakim [killed in a bomb attack in Najaf in August 2003] -- affirming the right of the Kurdish people to self-determination within a united Iraq. I expect SCIRI to live up to that commitment. With Hakim we saw tolerance and a real recognition of the need for fundamental change in Iraq, not only towards the Kurds but also to all its constituents, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. I expect the same kind of tolerance from his brother and successor Abdel Aziz Al-Hakim.
Have you received it?
I expect the present leader of SCIRI to be true to the legacy of the founder of SCIRI.
Many Iraqis believe the most explosive issue of the transition is going to be the status of Kirkuk. The Kurds believe it is an integral part of Iraqi Kurdistan. Many Iraqi Arabs and Turkomans say it must stay under the central government. Will the Fundamental Law address Kirkuk?
Whether it will be stated in the Fundamental Law that Kirkuk is part of Kurdistan will be subject to negotiations. The Kurdish position is clear: we believe that historically, geographically and demographically Kirkuk is an integral part of Kurdistan, that Kirkuk is a city inhabited by Kurds, Turkomans, Assyrians and those indigenous Arabs who lived there prior to the Arabisation campaign through which Saddam Hussein instituted a policy of ethnic cleansing. We believe Kirkuk should be restored to the Kurdish region.
But we are prepared to make a big compromise on Kirkuk. We are essentially saying if the transitional law cannot resolve the fate of Kirkuk and the other so called "disputed areas" in Kurdistan, we are prepared to wait until the political process culminates in a constitution that will allow redress in these areas. But our condition is that such a process must start now, so that the consequences of the Arabisation campaign can be reversed, the original people of Kirkuk can return to their homes and Arabs brought in by Saddam Hussein can return to theirs. It will then be left to the original inhabitants of Kirkuk to decide its fate.
What no Kurdish leader will accept is the present status of Kirkuk in which the legacy of ethnic cleansing remains intact. That injustice cannot stand. Nor can the majority the Arab community in Iraq decide the fate of places like Kirkuk. Neither can the Kurds in the heartland of Kurdistan. It must be left to the original inhabitants to decide through a referendum or census whether Kirkuk belongs to Kurdistan or somewhere else.
