At a time when US is considering ways to withdraw from Iraq, there is no end to the disputes keeping parties engaged in endless debates. One such issue is the oil bill, the other is the fate of Kirkuk.

After lengthy negotiations the draft oil bill which had been sent in late February to the Parliament for approval ostensibly by the end of May has not yet found sufficient backing for consideration, let alone adoption at the political level. The Bill establishes a framework for the distribution of oil and gas revenues among Iraq’s 18 provinces in proportion with their populations. While objections seem to focus on the concessions to be given for the foreign oil companies, the Kurdish groups have taken issue with the provisions in the bill ceding control of the management of the oil and gas resources to a state run oil company to be established subsequently. Their hopes that the regional governments would be given control of the management of these resources coincide with their haste to finalize the fate of Kirkuk. With a Kurdish Kirkuk the oil bill would assume a different significance.

As is known, in order to determine the fate of Kirkuk, the present Iraqi constitution approved at a referandum in 2005 foresees in its Article 140 a process of normalization, taking of a reliable census and finally, as the last stage, bringing it to a referandum by the end of 2007 at the latest. Kurds claim Kirkuk to be a part of the autonomous Kurdish Regional Government. The Turkmen claim that it has historically been a Turkmen city and they have always constituted the majority of its population until Saddam’s Arabisation campaign reducing their numbers. One should remember that even the name was changed to El Tamim by the Government Decree No. 41 of 1976. The Baath regime had settled Arabs and removed many Turkmen and Kurdish families to other localities in Iraq to change the demographic character of the region. However, since US intervention, the Kurdish Regional Government has done its best to settle thousands of Kurds to reverse the situation and to have a stronger say in the forthcoming referandum. The Turkmen and some other ethnic groups insist that the referandum should be postponed until the normalization process is completed and a sound census could be taken, as well as land claims are closely scrutinized.

At this very moment when the oil bill is considered as an instrument to bring different ethnic and sectarian groups together and to solidify the territorial integrity of Iraq, the Kurds put pressure on the occupying power not to postpone the Kirkuk referandum, giving the impression that priority is to include this oil rich town within the borders of the Regional Government. Furthermore, the recent US decision to withdraw its forces from Northern Iraq and handing over the security responsibilities of this region to the Kurdish militia could well be the result of a tacit agreement over the future of Kirkuk, as well as ceding the oil rights to the Regional Government. This dreaded possibility would further complicate the situation.

           

In fact, the oil and gas resources of Iraq, considered to be factors in unifying the country, could well be factors in speeding up disintegration depending on how you allocate the revenues.As long as Kirkuk has the priority for the Kurdish aspirations, the debate over the oil bill could only be a tool to deceive those still hoping to keep the unity of state.