« A weird experience | HomePage | Thanksgiving Unities »

Sunday, November 25, 20071195997638

Fake State of Iraq v. Kurdistan

Karim, A. (2007). Iraq nullifies Kurdish oil deals. AFP. 24 November, 2007. Available online: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071124/wl_mideast_afp/iraqoilkurds (from Democratic Underground).

Even discounting the blood and treasure we spill, there are real costs to keeping the fake state of Iraq around. This is one of them:

Iraq's oil ministry has declared all crude contracts signed by the Kurdish regional authorities with foreign companies null and void, a government official said on Saturday.

"The ministry has nullified all contracts signed by the Kurdistan Regional Government," the official told AFP, asking not to be named. "They will not be recognised."

The government in Iraq's northern autonomous Kurdish region has signed 15 exploration and exportation contracts with 20 international companies since it passed its own oil law in August, infuriating the Baghdad government.

Oil Minister Hussein Shahristani has in recent weeks angrily denounced the Kurdish authorities for signing the contracts before the national parliament approves a new oil and gas law, declaring them "illegal"


Keeping Iraq as a unified state means the functioning Kurdish north is yoked to the Gappish Shia south, and the Gappish Shia south is tied to the Tony Soprano v. Osama bin Laden funland of the Sunni Arab west.

Iraq should be broken apart as quickly as practical, allowing three very different nations to speed ahead, or fall back, at the rate that is natural for them in this world.

07:33 Posted in Iraq, Oil | Permalink | Comments (6) | Tags: kurdistan

Comments

"Iraq should be broken apart as quickly as practical, allowing three very different nations to speed ahead, or fall back, at the rate that is natural for them in this world"

I couldn't possibly agree more.

Posted by: Jay@Soob | Sunday, November 25, 2007

Who should do the breaking, though? Do we have sufficient knowledge and wisdom to do it ourselves? The Iraqis might have more of that, but do they have the courage to give up oil revenues from the rich areas or to risk the blood bath from a poorly thought out division?

My vote is, we deal with whoever has the power to do what needs done in a given situation (be they federal or local), discourage out-and-out massacres, help refugees find new homes whenever we can. . . but otherwise let them muddle through to their own conclusion. It may be partition. It may be federation (ideally with the current states, or smaller). It isn't really our business which.

Posted by: Michael | Sunday, November 25, 2007

Jay,

Thanks!

Michael,

As we seem to have abandoned the democratic process in Iraq as a legitimate means of change (our threats of supporting a coup, etc), the best way to split Iraq would be a continuation of the Petraeus strategy: while we know empower only tribes against Baghdad, we should start doing the same for provinces or provincial federations.

Alternatively, merely supporting the de facto independence of Anbar and Kurdistan would leave the rump Iraq state an overwhelmingly Shia state.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, November 26, 2007

If you support this strategy then you should read up on the population transfers that accompanied the end of the Ottoman empire - for instance that between Greece and Turkey in 1923. Massive and organized population transfers would be necessary if Iraq broke into three states.

Posted by: Adrian | Monday, November 26, 2007

Yup.

With the conditions that much of the hard work is already done, and "open source organization" would doubtless be implemented.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, November 26, 2007

well i like your post . .the information in your post is quite good;) . .nice work .. Thanks a lot keep sharing:)

Posted by: Dissertations Writing | Friday, October 08, 2010

Post a comment