Interesting article.

Kirkuk's Arabs paid to pack up

By James Bays in Baghdad

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/11/6/1_232607_1_9.jpg
With its huge reserves of oil, Kirkuk's future is more than just a local issue

It is a volatile city, but one that is vital to Iraq's future, and Kirkuk is now facing its toughest test yet.

Just weeks before a scheduled referendum on the city's future, Arab residents are being paid to pack up and leave.

It is a controversial scheme, tied up in the struggle over which community should have control of Kirkuk and its huge oilfields.

The so-called jewel of the north lies around 250km northeast of the Iraqi capital, and has always been a valuable prize.

Oil production

Oilfields in Kirkuk and its surrounding region account for up to 40 per cent of Iraq's total production.

But it is in the city's demographic make-up that the problems start: The Kurdish, Arab and Turkmen communities all lay claim to Kirkuk.

Decades of tinkering with the population means nobody's sure which families are originally from the city.

A referendum is due by the 31st of December, where residents must decide who should be in control.

The Iraqi government has however, begun pursuing a controversial policy of changing the town's make up it calls "normalisation".

Arab families in the ethnically divided city, mostly resettled from the south of Iraq years ago by Saddam Hussein, are getting paid to abandon their homes and go back.

Ali Isaeid Hadeed told Al Jazeera that he was paid $16,000.

Hadeed said: "I've been here for more than 20 years. No one is forcing me, I'm returning of my own will.

"My children have lived here and they don't know their relatives."

Reversing Saddam

The historic city of Kirkuk is the place the Kurds would like as their regional capital. But the Turkmen community claim they are the majority in the city.

A census has not been held for years.

"We will not leave even if they want to slaughter us. We will stay here and let them come to us if they have anything"

With a referendum due at the end of the year, Rizgar Ali, head of the city council, said Saddam's policies must be reversed first.

"The defunct Baath regime implemented inhumane and wrong policies especially in Kirkuk," he said.

"It was ethnic cleansing, mass killings and the Anfal campaign. Eighty per cent of that campaign was targeted at Kirkuk.''

The Arab families started moving here over 25 years ago. It means a sizeable proportion of the Arab community were born in the city.

One butcher told Al Jazeera that he would not leave the city, no matter what sum he is paid.

''Where would I go? I was born here in Kirkuk. What would I do with 20 million dinar? I will be robbed on the road.

"We will not leave even if they want to slaughter us. We will stay here and let them come to us if they have anything."

The future of Kirkuk is not just a local issue, it also matters greatly to politicians in the capital.

It is key in the ongoing debate about the extent of federalism in the country, and who will control its substantial reserves of oil.

bump :wink:

I thought this was an interesting article...not opinion piece as such...the facts speak for themselves.

That the 'Iraq' government is willing to pay Arab families to move out of Kirkuk speaks volumes about the 'future' of a united Iraq, the Kurdish issue...and about a possible coming struggle for the oil wealth both in Kirkuk and elsewhere - the 500 lbs gorilla in the corner?

bump :wink:

I thought this was an interesting article...not opinion piece as such...the facts speak for themselves.

That the 'Iraq' government is willing to pay Arab families to move out of Kirkuk speaks volumes about the 'future' of a united Iraq, the Kurdish issue...and about a possible coming struggle for the oil wealth both in Kirkuk and elsewhere.

Whutcha think it sez?

Whutcha think it sez?

For someone so recently enthusing the benefits of the surge you seem awfully disinterested in the finer details...

...or the 500lbs gorillas??

For someone so recently enthusing the benefits of the surge you seem awfully disinterested in the finer details...

...or the 500lbs gorillas??

I'm not sure what conclusions you are drawing from that article. It seems most of the people this effects were forced to move there by Saddam and now they are being offered an opportunity to return and the money to allow them to move and set up. There are any number of dark intents that can be reached from it but it could be a simple act of atonement. As I see it, it really isn't important where each ethnic group lives or where the oil is concentrated. What is critical is how the government develops, how they work out an equitable distribution of the oil proceeds and whether they can live together in some kind manner without murdering one another.

I don't think I have been "enthusing the benefits of the surge" rather I have acknowledged that it seems to be having a positive effect. Everything else will depend on the political end of the spectrum and the actual outcome is long term, not next week. It could all certainly go to hell in a handbasket but I am willing to accept better possibilities as well. Ain't that our big difference?

As I see it, it really isn't important where each ethnic group lives or where the oil is concentrated.

On the contrary the 'segregation' of different ethnic groups gives more political power to those who seek the break up of 'Iraq'...which will lead to 'ethnic control' of the oil wealth...and do you think the 'have not' ethnic groups/factions will stand by peacefully as their meal ticket is snatched away??

On the contrary the 'segregation' of different ethnic groups gives more political power to those who seek the break up of 'Iraq'...which will lead to 'ethnic control' of the oil wealth...and do you think the 'have not' ethnic groups/factions will stand by peacefully as their meal ticket is snatched away??

What ethnicity is the majority in Kirkuk?

What ethnicity is the majority in Kirkuk?

Find out yourself...don't expect me to do your legwork...

...or are you trying to draw a fallacious conclusion with a rhetorical question?

Find out yourself...don't expect me to do your legwork...

...or are you trying to draw a fallacious conclusion with a rhetorical question?

I'm telling you that you ain't makin' sense about this one.

I'm telling you that you ain't makin' sense about this one.

On what grounds?

You are evidence-lite as usual.

On what grounds?

You are evidence-lite as usual.

If you read your own post, this is an action by the Iraqi government which is mostly made up of Shia Arabs. They are now paying Arabs to leave a city that has been traditionally Kurdish in population. I understand the oil being important, I don't understand what motives the Arab govt of Iraq would have in abandoning the city in order to...........what?

I haven't read anything other than what you posted on this, I don't understand your conclusions. It seems to me if they wanted to claim this city for the Shia majority, they would be paying Arabs to move there rather than clear out.

If you read your own post, this is an action by the Iraqi government which is mostly made up of Shia Arabs. They are now paying Arabs to leave a city that has been traditionally Kurdish in population. I understand the oil being important, I don't understand what motives the Arab govt of Iraq would have in abandoning the city in order to...........what?

I haven't read anything other than what you posted on this, I don't understand your conclusions. It seems to me if they wanted to claim this city for the Shia majority, they would be paying Arabs to move there rather than clear out.

I understand that this means that Iraq is not going to be an Iraq for all Iraqi's, that the government is attempting to diffuse a tinderbox in Kirkuk, but that this will probably lead to the inclusion of Kirkuk in the Kurdish semi-autonomous region...once the referendum occurs...and eventually to the break up of Iraq...and then there is no reason why an 'Arab Iraq' should not try and 'claim back' the oil.

The strengthening and emboldening of the Kurds...which the Kirkuk oil wealth will necessarily bring...is likely to cause more trouble with Turkey who are anxiously trying to back the Turkmen minority (was a majority once) in Kirkuk, and defeat the Kurdish separatists at war with the Turkish state in Turkeys east.

I do not believe for a moment that the 'Iraq government'...which you have fallaciously called the 'Shia' government in an attempt to beg a question which I will ignore anyway...does represent anyone in any meaningful way, being barricaded into the Green zone, virtually lacking support from the Shia militias of Al Sadr (for example)...who have the real power in Bahgdad...once the US quits anyway.

I understand that this means that Iraq is not going to be an Iraq for all Iraqi's, that the government is attempting to diffuse a tinderbox in Kirkuk, but that this will probably lead to the inclusion of Kirkuk in the Kurdish semi-autonomous region...once the referendum occurs...and eventually to the break up of Iraq...and then there is no reason why an 'Arab Iraq' should not try and 'claim back' the oil.

The strengthening and emboldening of the Kurds...which the Kirkuk oil wealth will necessarily bring...is likely to cause more trouble with Turkey who are anxiously trying to back the Turkmen minority (was a majority once) in Kirkuk, and defeat the Kurdish separatists at war with the Turkish state in Turkeys east.

I do not believe for a moment that the 'Iraq government'...which you have fallaciously called the 'Shia' government in an attempt to beg a question which I will ignore anyway...does represent anyone in any meaningful way, being barricaded into the Green zone, virtually lacking support from the Shia militias of Al Sadr (for example)...who have the real power in Bahgdad...once the US quits anyway.

The government of Iraq is largely Shia, that's not questioned that I know of. You seem to be stringing a lot of things together trying to reach a conclusion that is a reach on it's own and really unclear. For your idea to have merit, the government would have to be abandoning much of the wealth of the country and I'm not sure what they stand to gain there. I would say that there are things at work here that you aren't prepared to accept or understand because they don't fit with your hard held ideas about the region, the people or the possibilities.

The government of Iraq is largely Shia, that's not questioned that I know of. You seem to be stringing a lot of things together trying to reach a conclusion that is a reach on it's own and really unclear. For your idea to have merit, the government would have to be abandoning much of the wealth of the country and I'm not sure what they stand to gain there. I would say that there are things at work here that you aren't prepared to accept or understand because they don't fit with your hard held ideas about the region, the people or the possibilities.

I made this post in order to initiate a discussion, contrary to your false belief that I am approaching this with an agenda.

I find that if things are discussed then useful conclusions can be arrived at, and my own (and maybe other peoples) knowledge and beliefs can be expanded. It short maybe we can get a little closer to the truth with debate.

I have found recently on here that when either certain things are brought up, or when threads go in a certain direction, that certain posters...of which you are a prime example... seek to kill the debate by either being unnecessarily facetious or by 'leaving the table' prematurely.

I am sorry you see 'Iraq' in that way...a political game...with this administrations policies to either be spun beneficially, or reflexively defended...irrespective of their merit...with a proverbial shield (I admit you are quite accomplished at this latter technique) when questioned.

/just saying that is all.

I made this post in order to initiate a discussion, contrary to your false belief that I am approaching this with an agenda.

I find that if things are discussed then useful conclusions can be arrived at, and my own (and maybe other peoples) knowledge and beliefs can be expanded. It short maybe we can get a little closer to the truth with debate.

I have found recently on here that when either certain things are brought up, or when threads go in a certain direction, that certain posters...of which you are a prime example... seek to kill the debate by either being unnecessarily facetious or by 'leaving the table' prematurely.

I am sorry you see 'Iraq' in that way...a political game...with this administrations policies to either be spun beneficially, or reflexively defended...irrespective of their merit...with a proverbial shield (I admit you are quite accomplished at this latter technique) when questioned.

/just saying that is all.

I seem to be the only one discussing this one with you and I am honestly confused as to what the hell we're discussing. I think you are too.

what is happening is a govtsupported creation of ethnic zones. These zones will not lead to a unified Iraq or an equal distribution of its wealth. If the minority groups feel they are getting the ramrod, they'll fight
ergo: splitting Iraq = more war

please Snake, since you have a hard time understanding when we speak about it, just read a bunch of Cheney's speeches from the 90s. You won't have a mental bloc when it comes from one of your own

maybe some cognitive dissonance...