Kurds on Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council are proposing that a future, federal Iraqi government grant broad autonomy to the northern zone, with Kirkuk as its capital, and a say over other areas with large Kurdish populations. That plan is bitterly opposed by Turkmens and Arabs in Kirkuk, some 20,000 of whom took to the streets Wednesday, chanting "No to federalism! Kirkuk is Iraqi!."
This is the aftereffects of Saddam Hussein's efforts to "Arabize" the Kirkuk region. The city became a powderkeg of ethnic tensions when the "Kurds took Kirkuk":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000354.php in April and almost immediately began "Kurdishizing" the area by driving out Arab families that had been settled there. In August, "three Turkmen were killed":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000445.php#000445 in ethnic violence in Kirkuk. (If you want to see some of what the Kurds are looking for, I wrote about the proposed constitutions "here":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000046.php#000046.) I'm working on an essay about the political maneuverings among the Kurds, the Iraqi Governing Council and even Turkey, so I'm not going to say much more than this. But, as during the war, some of the most interesting -- and far-reaching -- events are bubbling in the north while most of the obvious bang-bang action is around Baghdad. While the southern events are important -- people are dying, for God's sake -- the Kurds could be the match that lights a larger fire.



I think the current Kurdish demands are very unreasonable especially given Kirkuk is a mixed ethnic city. They need to be way more shrewd than this if they want to better their circumstances without falling into the pitfalls their neighbouring Arab political factions are so prone to. Even my Kurdish friends from Sulamaniyah think this is a mistake and he at one time was earlier advocating complete independence.
for your info the kurds have a right to take back kirkuk as it was there’s already in the first place. there is 40 million kurds in kurdistan and i think they have the right to ask for independence, look at the kurds in turkey they have no right at all.
I can’t wait for the larger essay.
I can’t wait for the larger essay.
I can’t wait for the larger essay.
Actually, Rozh, Kirkuk was primarily Turkmen, not Kurdish, with a high Arab and even a Christian population. The Kurds may have the right to an independant Kurdistan, but they have no right to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. Claiming their ownership of Kirkuk is just an economic move, sure to further political tensions between the vast range of ethnic groups within Iraq.
I can’t wait for the larger essay
Kirkuk was and is a Kurdistan city.
Kirkuk is een Kurdish city and it will stay Kurdish. Kurds will do every thing for Kurdishness of Kirkuk. If Kirkuk was a Turkomani city, why did Saddam Hussein arabize Kirkuk. Do you know why. Because it is e kurdish city.