3-28-05, 8:46 am
Iraqi Communist Party leader: Kirkuk issue requires a responsible and serious approach
The UAE daily newspaper “Al-Bayan” (February 2005) published an interview with comrade Hamid Majeed Mousa, the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Iraqi Communist Party, focussing on the problem of Kirkuk, in his capacity as the head of the Higher Committee charged with this issue.
The following are extensive excerpts of this interview:
You have been appointed to head the Committee responsible for normalizing the situation in Kirkuk. What is the composition of this Committee, what are its tasks, and what has it achieved till now?
-- The Committee is the outcome of an agreement between the government, represented by the Prime Minister, with the approval of the Presidency, and also the multinational forces and the Kurdistan parties, with the aim of tackling the tension that took place before the elections. No real measures were taken since the promulgation of the Transitional Administrative Law that called for a resolution of Kirkuk problem. The situation did not change until the elections date was near and the Kurdistan forces decided to boycott at least the local elections for the city of Kirkuk. The problem, from their point of view, had not been resolved by the return of forcibly deported Kurdish and Turkoman residents of the province to their jobs, homes, farms and villages. As a result, the Kurdistan forces thought that this would give the impression of endorsing the status quo, i.e. maintaining the outcome of the demographic change carried out by the previous regime.
These are just perceptions. What did actually take place on the ground?
-- The perceptions were caused by the inaction. The Kurds therefore made several proposals, including that the province council should remain as it was, with the existing distribution of posts (on ethnic basis), otherwise the (deported) residents of the city should return and be give the right to vote, until the other issue are resolved (e.g., handing back their possessions, homes, land, etc.). When no measures were taken, an escalation took place by the Kurdish parties that hinted that if no attention is paid to resolving these problems, even at the minimum level, can lead to refusal to participate even in the general elections. Hence, a new political crisis was about to happen. Various interventions took place in order to convince them that what happen is not an endorsement of status quo, rather the issue would continue to be vital, that what the relevant clause in Transitional Administrative Law would maintain its force, and its clauses would be implemented later on. Thus the settlement was reached, to set up a Committee, and everybody pledged to activate what was stipulated by the Transitional Administrative Law.
How is the Transitional Administrative Law being activated?
-- The Prime Minister was charged with the task of nominating the head of the Higher Committee for normalizing the situation in Kirkuk, specifying its tasks, and ensuring that it enjoys financial and administrative independence to fulfil its job. Hamid Majeed Mousa was nominated as head of the Committee, and was given the task of presenting a list of candidates for the Higher Committee.
How would the candidates for this Committee be selected?
-- I have said that the decision to set up the Committee was a political decision, according to which the Kurds participated in the elections. On the practical level, however, there has to be a government in place for the Committee to be formed and start operating. The new cabinet must be formed so that some of its members are chosen to join the Higher Committee. The same applies to the two Kurdistan local administrations, as there will be changes in both, or be integrated, after convening the elected Kurdistan National Council. As soon as this normal legal action is finished, steps will be taken to lay the basis and embark on concrete work to implement and achieve what was stipulated in Clause 58 of the Iraqi Transitional Administrative Law.
What about the Kurdish conditions, concerning the determination of the “Kurdistan identity of Kirkuk”, for participation in the forthcoming stage of the political process? -- There are no conditions, and I think that there is a kind of clouding or confusion about what the Kurdistan parties are putting forward, because the Kirkuk issue is not new. The issue of benefiting from the state oil revenues and allocating a share for Kurdistan is not new, and also re-drawing the geographic-political administration map for the region is not new. These are matters that have been stipulated in Transitional Administrative Law, including Clause 58 which calls for the return of deportees, eliminating the legacy of deliberate Arabization and ethnic cleansing. The Kurds are raising up these matters in order to stress the new government’s commitment to their implementation, because the past experience gave the impression - as pointed out earlier - that it is not enough just to have clauses referring to them without any implementation. And also federalism. They want adherence to the Transitional Administrative Law, especially that we will be drafting the permanent constitution. I think that there is a difference in the formulation of issues under discussion, but they are basically clauses that were stipulated in the Transitional Administrative Law which was unanimously endorsed. They, and we too, consider them to be aimed at restoring justice, but not at the expense of others as some statements suggest.
Why do the Kurdish parties insist on the “Kurdistan identity” of Kirkuk? Is it one of their conditions, or is it, as an idea, open to discussion and settlement?
-- I personally have not heard that they are imposing forcefully their view that Kirkuk is of “Kurdistani identity”, but this is their conviction. What is now needed is to return matters to normal, and to seek the opinion of Kirkuk residents through a referendum, for example, in accordance with a proper and lawful census. The truth will emerge through this process. The forcibly deported people, not those who voluntarily left, would be returned to their original places, and they would be given back their rights, on the basis on proven facts.
This is an elastic matter .. There are many of Basra (in the south) residents who live in Baghdad, and of Kirkuk residents living in Nasseriyya (in the south) .. Would Kirkuk people be registered on the basis of their birthplace or their real place of residence?
-- We have, in fact, many regulations. I am, for example, from Hilla (south of Baghdad) and my place of residence, work and ration card are in Baghdad. How would I be considered? When we talk about the return of Kirkuk people to their homes, we mean those who had been really resident in Kirkuk and were forcibly deported as part of ethnic cleansing. When we talk about the return of Arabs who were settled by the previous regime in Kirkuk, we mean those who were settled with the aim of “Arabization” and not for job purposes, or those who had resided in Kirkuk for the purposes of work, business, etc. I therefore stress the need to return those forcibly deported. As for the Arabs who had been settled in Kirkuk, their problem cannot be resolved by expulsion, but rather through amicable agreement, proper compensation and finding suitable place .. This problem, as you can see, requires a consideration of each case on its merits, distinguishing between those who had left voluntarily and the deportees, as well as distinguishing between the residents and those who had been settled or forced to settle.. There are clearly defined clauses with regard to this subject that can be used as a basis. The humanitarian aspect must also be taken into consideration in all the cases, without resorting to repression, and employing the principle of mutual agreement in the cases of dispute.
What is the major obstacle in the face of normalization in Kirkuk?
-- Since being appointed to head the Committee, I have met with experts and advisers, Iraqis and non-Iraqis, who are acquainted with the issue, and have looked at many cases. I believe that leaving this problem without solution is like a dynamite that would explode the whole political process. The solution, however, must not be a reaction to a repressive act, but rather a responsible and serious remedy that respects the rights of citizens, with priorities that are endorsed by secular and religious laws and legislations. Those who had their possessions looted or confiscated must have them returned, on legal rather than haphazard basis. We are awaiting the National Assembly to be convened, and a government to be set up, so that members from the Iraqi federal and regional Kurdish sides are chosen, and bodies and settlement committees are set up .. And we hope that it does not take long to achieve that.
