So now the Iraqi Kurds are reportedly going to be welcoming tour groups from Israel. Between that and their conclusion of a successful oil-exploration deal with Norway’s DNO oil company, the Kurdistan “regional” authority sure seems to be acting like an independent state already, doesn’t it?
Reidar Visser has a good analysis of some of the constitutional issues involved in the oil-exploration deal, here. As he notes, Article 110 of the (still by no means finalized) Iraqi constitution states that,
- “The federal and the producing regional and governorate authorities shall jointly [italics added, ma‘an in the Arabic] devise the necessary strategic policies for the development [italics added] of the oil and gas wealth in a way that achieves the highest possible benefit for the Iraqi people…” Additionally, the question of resource ownership remains unresolved altogether. The studiously ambiguous article 108 simply reads, “oil and gas are the property of the entire Iraqi population, in all the regions and governorates”.
Regarding control over borders, I am pretty near certain that the constitution still reserves that to the central government.
But what central government, you might ask?
The governments of Oregon and Washington State in the US organized tours of Japanese individuals and businessmen many times in the last 3 or 4 decades. And they didn’t even have to ask permission from the State Department to issue the invitations! It didn’t mean that they were about to secede either.
Visa issues are always resolved in the center. Apparently, the Kurds start to take it to themselves 🙁
Yeah, WarrenW. Kurdistan is just like Oregon. Are you happy now?
As I see it, this is great news! Perhaps this is the first step in a cease of hostilities and the beginning of mutual recognition! Lets hope that Israelis and Iraqis can both visit each other in all parts of both countries!
Well, at least that’s my reaction. But that’s because I put a priority on peace.
But that’s because I put a priority on peace.
Well said, Joshua.
Well gosh, Joshua, maybe you’re right. Maybe the program should be extended worldnwide. The municipality of Umm al-Fahm could invite large tour-groups of Palestinians from Lebanon to come over for extended visits to their homeland. How come no-one ever thought of that easy, straightforward way to make peace?
The idea of a central government exercizing “national sovereignty” over national borders is so terribly quaint and 20th-century, don’t you think?
Btw, I’m not sure the Kurdish people in question even like to think of themselves as “Iraqis” any more. In case you hadn’t gathered, what is at issue here is much more the question of the Kurds’ relationship with rule from Baghdad than anything to do with Israelis, as such. If you think that in the present, heavily armed situation in Iraq, the Kurds’ unilateral and anti-constitutional moves toward secession have anything to do with “peace”, then you’re much more naive than I thought.
Palestinians from the territories and elsewhere regularly visited Israel on such tours in the past, although they were not “extended visits.” I saw a great documentary on it, “The Inner Tour.” I agree that such visits should be encouraged!
This more or less ended in 2000, with the start of the second intifada. Before that (and particularly before the first intifada), it was much easier for Palestinians and others to get in, out and around Israel. A pity that the intifada put an end to that.
As for Umm al Fahm granting such permission on its own. Well, if it really wants to conduct its own foreign policy and secede, then I guess it can try to. Some people have encouraged that. But Helena, I never knew that you and Avignor Lieberman had so much in common!
In any event the primary difference at this point is that the Palestinians are engaged in hostilities with Israel and demanding territorial and other political concessions against that country. On the other hand, Israel does not oppose normalization of relations with Iraq and is not making any territorial or other political demands as a condition of ceasing (nonexistant)hostilities.
As for the Kurdish independence, I really don’t have a problem with it from a theoretical standpoint. I do recognize as a practical matter that it would be difficult to even partially undo the injustice of carving up the Kurdish homeland.
The oil deals and visa grants by Kurdistan don’t worry me anywhere near as much as the independent militias and proud boasting of having 10,000 Kurds infiltrated to the Iraqi army.
And the record number of Kurds moving to Kirkuk and the public claims to that city by Kurdistan is very troubling also.
If an honest attempt was made to undo the injustice of carving up the Palestinian homeland, then maybe the second intifada would not have happened.
Susan, that would have been virtually impossible. The “Palestinian homeland” was previously carved up into several districts in the Ottoman Empire.
Despite their faults the British did, with the assistance of the United Nations, get to the point where they proposed a bona fide independent Arab state in Palestine. They also proposed a bona fide indpendent Jewish state. This proposal allowed the national aspirations of BOTH groups to be recognized. Sadly, the Arab leadership rejected the proposal. The consequence of that rejection was devestating for the Arab population of Palestine (many would not have called themselves “Palestinian”).
Shiites and Kurds negotiating without Sunnis – this does not look good, just look at the map.
1. CSM. Jill Carroll. Shiites, Kurds forge ahead. The two groups met without Sunnis Thursday to plan a ruling coalition: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1230/p01s03-woiq.html
2. BBC. Ethnic map of Iraq: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40922000/gif/_40922084_iraq_provinces2_map416.gif
Henry James Wrote,
just look at the map.
H. James, I am Iraqi from Babylon, I grownup their I knew very well Iraq, what you stated its part of the marketing propaganda that your media tried for years to make you believen.
By showing maps to the most of people in the west think that’s Iraq is multiethnic with borders between each ethnic group this is just ” Rubbish ” all what you read and what you see its what your master planing to do on the ground for more than three years they tried hardly to restructuring of Iraq’s society by creating differences mixed with hate between the Iraqi/Muslims groups which all of them lives for more than 5000 years in peace the only suffering are from invaders who come to them destroying their state as we see now days.
I have one question to you if we would to make a map for the ethnics / groups to US or in UK or in France societies and put brooders each of them like Black Africans, South Americans, Indians and others, what the map will be? Offcourse I will believe there are differences and maps and borders and so on.
As Helena points out above, foreign policy and the management of external borders fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the central government under the Iraqi constitution adopted last October. If the Kurds act independently on tourism and immigration issues (whatever the nationality of the visitors involved) they therefore undermine the ongoing effort to find a middle-of-the-road federal formula for a new democratic Iraq – essentially a repeat of what happened in the energy sector with the Norwegian oil deal, although a more flagrant sidelining of Baghdad as this is not even a grey-zone area.
Huge numbers of Iraqis still believe federalism is merely a plot by foreign powers to weaken their country, and they will not change their minds easily if the Kurds fail to respect even those few spheres of administration reserved for the central government under the current constitution. It is important therefore that the Kurds demonstrate that they are truly committed to federalism and are not merely using it as a flag of convenience. If they are unhappy with Iraqi policies on visits by Israelis, they have a democratic remedy at their disposal: they may state their case for a revision of policy to the federal parliament in Baghdad and see if they can bring about a change in that way. Sincere federalists would certainly proceed along such lines instead of unilaterally starting to conduct their own foreign policy.
About the Alaska parallel… I just cannot help wondering: when the negotiations about Alaskan statehood took place in the 1950s, were foreign companies (say, British, French or Canadian ones) welcome to take part in the exploration activities that were going on at the time? UNOCAL, Marathon Oil and Atlantic Richfield – weren’t they all US companies?
Reidar wrote
Huge numbers of Iraqis still believe federalism is merely a plot by foreign powers to weaken their country, and they will not change their minds easily
What’s make you sure this not plotted by “foreign powers”? What’s convinced you to say this? Are you more Iraqi than Iraqis?
Its clear not just to Iraqis that the “federalism” (nothing wrong with federalism itself if truly and solely used here) but it used as a structure for demolishing the states of Iraq by creating minorities groups with hate and some power and keep the struggle of saviour part of that structure this not for Iraq I think the Big ME Plan include yet another countries in the region specially those dislike US.
There is no questions now that US/Israel working together to maintained a small tiny states like Gulf Emirates rulled by kings or Ameers so its can be easily controlled and they not have the power to be strong states that may be can control all their resources and have be aefective in world map.