Except for Arab-dominated Mosul, the Kurds in the rest of northern Iraq created new flags (not the Iraqi flag), a new currency, Kurdish-run television and radio stations, and a new school curriculum bereft of Iraqi content. (Recently, Kurdish entrepreneurs seized several commercial jets formerly belonging to the national Iraqi Airways carrier and are considering a Kurdish airline. Iraq’s neighbors have vowed to bar the carrier from using their airspace.)

Independence was not necessarily publicly mentioned as Kurdish leaders - PUK leader Jalal Talabani and KDP leader Masoud Barazani - sought to allay regional fears that the Kurds would declare independence. Turkey has vehemently opposed Kurdish moves towards independence fearing its Kurdish minority will express secessionist whims of their own. In fact, Turkey has vowed it will use military force to quell any such moves in northern Iraq. If Turkey, a NATO member and US ally, invades northern Iraq, the whole region will plunge into open warfare, as Syria and Iran will claim a right to invade Iraq to protect their borders. This could yet prove to be an embarrassing, if not entirely unmanageable, predicament for US forces.

Aspirations for Kurdish Independence are not illusory. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, influential Kurdish columnist Rashid Karadaghi wrote in the March 6, 2002 issue of The Kurdistan Observer that “Iraqis should not be surprised if the Kurds want not only to be free from their hateful, present rule but to have nothing to do with any kind of Iraq, democratic or not, under any circumstances. The division of Iraq would not be detrimental to anyone; in fact, it would be beneficial to both Arabs and Kurds alike…”

The above statement is very indicative of the problems facing Iraq which the US occupation may or may not have planned for. Regional experts believe the above statement is problematic; for one, it creates a division between the terms “Iraqi” and “Kurd.” It creates an exclusivity that a Kurd cannot, will not, and should not be considered Iraqi. Secondly, the statement marginalizes the ethnic composition of Iraq. Iraq is currently comprised of Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Assyrians, Turcoman, and Armenians. As for religious groups, there are Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Chaldaeans, Assyrians, Syrian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, Protestant groups, Sabaeans (Mandaeans), Jews, Bahais, Yazidis, Shebek, Sarliyah, and Ali Ilahiyah. Despite this rich fabric of Iraqi society, Karadaghi chose to marginalize nearly all and merely paint Kurdish secessionist desires as a greater conflict between Arabs and Kurds.

On April 17, The Christian Science Monitor reported that Kurdish peshmerga were forcibly evicting Arab families that had lived in Kirkuk for more than 30 years. “A Human Rights Watch team visiting the region this week said that they saw several copies of eviction notices signed by a local official for the PUK (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan), the party that now has de facto control over the Kirkuk region. The researchers say they received consistent reports from Arabs in this region that they are being threatened with force and told to leave their homes,” the paper said.

Baathist policies under Saddam affected every sector of Iraqi society, often adversely. The Kurds suffered from the so-called Arabization policies, but forcible eviction is not the solution. Eight months since US forces occupied Iraq, wholesale ethnic conflict rages in the north of Iraq, much of it unreported in US media. “So far American forces, who moved into the area only recently, have not made any attempt to stop the widespread expulsion of Arabs settled by the Ba'ath party regime on land belonging to Kurds, despite senior Kurdish leaders' long-stated intention to reverse Arabisation,” wrote The Guardian on April 24, 2003.

The question poses itself: is there a plan to reward the Kurds for opposing Saddam all these years and allow, albeit tacitly, for a Greater Kurdistan to emerge?

In the November 25 edition of The New York Times, Leslie H. Gelb - president emeritus of the Council for Foreign Affairs and a former NYT editor and columnist - called for the partition of Iraq into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish territories.

“Almost immediately, this would allow America to put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly-with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad, largely freeing American forces from fighting a costly war they might not win. American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences,” Gelb argues.

In light of Gelb’s statements and recent news that Israel is trying to resuscitate a defunct 1948 pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa, Iraqi intellectuals and former government officials believe that Israel is busily clamoring to see Iraq divided, effectively removing once and for all the greatest threat to Israel’s security - a viable, oil and mineral-rich Iraq with a powerful army and a bastion of scientific knowledge. Partitioning Iraq would ensure that 1) Oil wealth is divided among the three sections; the Kurds would get the oil fields of the North, the Shiites would have control of the southern oil fields, while the Sunnis in the middle would have to beg for handouts; and 2) the Iraqi army would cease to exist as a viable force; and finally 3) enough socio-political problems would remain to ensure that the three groups would remain in conflict with one another for some time to come.

The Kurds may have once again trapped the US into drudging along with plans for independence in Iraq’s northern territories. According to Financial Times reporter Peter Spiegel “Coalition officials who have visited Kurdish-dominated areas in recent days have expressed surprise and concern over the growing number of local Kurdish leaders voicing outspoken support for independence. One suggestion is that the main Kurdish parties may be inflaming passions in an attempt to gain constitutional concessions.”

Constitutional concessions may be the first step in a greater plan. On January 9, the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) formally, if not reluctantly, agreed to the concept of federalism for a future Iraq. Many Iraqis, as well as the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) stood opposed to the idea of federalism because it succinctly hinted at Kurdish secession somewhere down the line. Independent reports from Iraq claimed that the IGC saw much wrangling in the past weeks as Kurdish council members threatened to forcibly declare autonomy without the consent of any Iraqi authority. Civilian Administrator Paul Bremer tried to convince the Kurds to discuss matters of autonomy after a constitution was drawn up. They refused.

“Some Governing Council members asked that details about federalism be delayed until after elections and the writing of a constitution, but we the Kurds refused it and we said everything must be worked out now. When the constitution is written and elections are held, we will not agree to less than what is in the fundamental law and we may ask for more,” Kurdish council member Nur al-Din told Al Jazeerah news service.

Kurdish officials have initiated an aggressive campaign calling for Kirkuk to become the Kurdish capital of the Tamim province. The campaign has alarmed US officials as well as mobilized regional forces. On January 4, Iran’s foreign minister, Kamal Kharazzi, traveled to Damascus to discuss the question of Iraq’s territorial integrity. On January 5, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad traveled to Turkey in what was deemed the most crucial strategic move in his young presidency. Turkey and Syria discussed improvement of their somewhat strained ties, but more importantly focused on the Kurdish question in northern Iraq. Turkey and Syria both affirmed their commitment to securing Iraq’s sovereignty, effectively sending a subtle message to the Kurdish minority that they will not be allowed to create an independent state. That message was reiterated in Tehran, which Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul visited to consolidate a Syrian-Turkish-Iranian effort to ensure that the Kurds do not begin to carve Iraq up. More importantly, Kirkuk will not be allowed to fall under Kurdish hegemony.

Both Syria and Iran fear that the idea of carving up Iraq is an Israeli one which seeks to permanently defuse the Iraqi threat to the Jewish state. Furthermore, Syrian and Iranian officials believe that certain neocons in Washington, who enjoy support in Israel, are also weighing heavily on US foreign policy to allow for the partitioning of Iraq.

A January 9 New York Times editorial said: “That [federalism] should be accepted, but with conditions. The Kurds consider the oil fields of Kirkuk to be theirs. They are not. They are part of the national patrimony, and the so-called basic law that is due at the end of February has to make clear that oil will be under federal control, with Kurds getting their share of the revenue. The 50,000 Kurds under arms should be turned into a branch of a federally commanded national guard. The rights of the Turkmen and Chaldean minorities who live among the Kurds must be protected in the basic law from both federal and regional governments.”

Last week, after initial clashes in Kirkuk, US troops raided several Kurdish strongholds in the city arresting a senior Kurdish official and seizing weapons. At press time, Arabs and Kurds were locked in a bitter circle of reprisal attacks in and around Kirkuk, resulting in some 14 fatalities and numerous wounded. An attack on a Shiite mosque in the mostly Sunni town of Ba’qubah after Friday prayers resulted in the killing of five worshippers and wounding of 34 others. There has been no independent confirmation of the true identity of the perpetrators.

Alexander Gainem is a seasoned journalist who spent many years covering issues in the Middle East and Europe. He can be reached at alex_gainem@hotmail.com.