Politico
By Sally Painter
July 17, 2012
Indeed, rule of law, even Iraq’s territorial integrity, appear in danger. Maliki took advantage of the U.S. departure by almost immediately issuing an arrest warrant of his vice president — a political rival allied with the opposition Sunni bloc Iraqiya. In retaliation, Iraqiya began a government boycott, which allowed Maliki to consolidate power even more. So Iraq is witnessing the tragic irony of Sunni leaders — once the most opposed to partition or regional autonomy — now openly discussing breaking away from Baghdad. Compounding this is the growing chaos across the border in Syria, which threatens to destabilize the entire region.
It is in this context of political crisis and renewed federalism that leaders in Iraq and in the U.S. should look to Kurdistan. It is one of Iraq’s bright spots, precisely because it offers a model of stability, growth and autonomy based on remaining within Iraq rather than breaking away.
Kurds have long had a problematic, sometimes rebellious, relationship with the rest of the country. Recent relations between Erbil and Baghdad have followed this pattern. The Kurdistan Regional Government last year signed an exploration agreement with Exxon — in defiance of the central government. Erbil’s aggressive energy policy has, in the absence of national consensus, infuriated Baghdad, which argues that it holds sole authority for approving energy contracts. Maliki has personally appealed to President Barack Obama to stop Exxon’s dealings in Kurdistan, as well as threatening the corporation’s interests in southern Iraq.
What Washington and Baghdad policymakers should realize is the KRG’s impatient drive to develop its oil reserves should not be condemned. Rather, it should be viewed as a key to Iraq’s overall development. Ninety-five percent of Iraqi revenue comes from oil. At a time of rapidly rising demand, sitting on a potential output of 10 million-12 million barrels a day, as Iraq does, means the sky is the limit.
But only, that is, if the government takes advantage of that potential. Indeed, it would not be in Iraq’s interest for Kurdistan to put its energy development on hold until a national energy agreement can be reached. It would be much less in its interest to rescind Exxon’s projects in the south, and further degrade its own exporting capacity.
Nor is a deteriorating relationship with the central government in the KRG’s interest, since Baghdad operates the primary pipeline network that brings Kurdish oil to market — and $10 billion in shared oil revenue flows annually from Baghdad to the KRG.
Of course, rationality does not always prevail in political gamesmanship. So Washington should exert what “civilian power” it can muster in Baghdad and Erbil to foster a compromise that will drive development, share the benefits of oil wealth and knit the regions more closely.
Despite its military departure, the U.S. can deepen its professional, educational and personal ties with Kurdistan as well as Baghdad. Governments come and go — but programs that build friendships and collaborative business and scholarly relationships between civil societies have a lasting impact. They provide a basis of mutual trust and respect that can pay dividends long into the future.
The U.S.-Kurdistan Business Council, which builds ties between American and Kurdish business people, as well as the KRG government, are a good start. Our common ground could be extended, for example, through expanded professional and educational exchanges, in which Iraqi and U.S. scholars, students and professionals work and study collaboratively.
For many reasons, it was inevitable that the U.S. military presence in Iraq would end, and our political power there wane. We need to move forward with a strategic direction, leveraging all available avenues to help Iraq develop toward a better future.
If the U.S. is serious about leading with civilian power, a more robust engagement with Iraq’s civil society — especially with eager partners like Kurdistan — is a smart place to start.
Source: Politico
By Sally Painter
July 17, 2012
Indeed, rule of law, even Iraq’s territorial integrity, appear in danger. Maliki took advantage of the U.S. departure by almost immediately issuing an arrest warrant of his vice president — a political rival allied with the opposition Sunni bloc Iraqiya. In retaliation, Iraqiya began a government boycott, which allowed Maliki to consolidate power even more. So Iraq is witnessing the tragic irony of Sunni leaders — once the most opposed to partition or regional autonomy — now openly discussing breaking away from Baghdad. Compounding this is the growing chaos across the border in Syria, which threatens to destabilize the entire region.
It is in this context of political crisis and renewed federalism that leaders in Iraq and in the U.S. should look to Kurdistan. It is one of Iraq’s bright spots, precisely because it offers a model of stability, growth and autonomy based on remaining within Iraq rather than breaking away.
Kurds have long had a problematic, sometimes rebellious, relationship with the rest of the country. Recent relations between Erbil and Baghdad have followed this pattern. The Kurdistan Regional Government last year signed an exploration agreement with Exxon — in defiance of the central government. Erbil’s aggressive energy policy has, in the absence of national consensus, infuriated Baghdad, which argues that it holds sole authority for approving energy contracts. Maliki has personally appealed to President Barack Obama to stop Exxon’s dealings in Kurdistan, as well as threatening the corporation’s interests in southern Iraq.
What Washington and Baghdad policymakers should realize is the KRG’s impatient drive to develop its oil reserves should not be condemned. Rather, it should be viewed as a key to Iraq’s overall development. Ninety-five percent of Iraqi revenue comes from oil. At a time of rapidly rising demand, sitting on a potential output of 10 million-12 million barrels a day, as Iraq does, means the sky is the limit.
But only, that is, if the government takes advantage of that potential. Indeed, it would not be in Iraq’s interest for Kurdistan to put its energy development on hold until a national energy agreement can be reached. It would be much less in its interest to rescind Exxon’s projects in the south, and further degrade its own exporting capacity.
Nor is a deteriorating relationship with the central government in the KRG’s interest, since Baghdad operates the primary pipeline network that brings Kurdish oil to market — and $10 billion in shared oil revenue flows annually from Baghdad to the KRG.
Of course, rationality does not always prevail in political gamesmanship. So Washington should exert what “civilian power” it can muster in Baghdad and Erbil to foster a compromise that will drive development, share the benefits of oil wealth and knit the regions more closely.
Despite its military departure, the U.S. can deepen its professional, educational and personal ties with Kurdistan as well as Baghdad. Governments come and go — but programs that build friendships and collaborative business and scholarly relationships between civil societies have a lasting impact. They provide a basis of mutual trust and respect that can pay dividends long into the future.
The U.S.-Kurdistan Business Council, which builds ties between American and Kurdish business people, as well as the KRG government, are a good start. Our common ground could be extended, for example, through expanded professional and educational exchanges, in which Iraqi and U.S. scholars, students and professionals work and study collaboratively.
For many reasons, it was inevitable that the U.S. military presence in Iraq would end, and our political power there wane. We need to move forward with a strategic direction, leveraging all available avenues to help Iraq develop toward a better future.
If the U.S. is serious about leading with civilian power, a more robust engagement with Iraq’s civil society — especially with eager partners like Kurdistan — is a smart place to start.
Source: Politico
