According to U.S. government officials, the greatest potential threat to Iraq’s stability is not extremist groups but the prospect of Arab-Kurdish conflict over oil-rich Kirkuk and other disputed territories. This report attempts to demystify and disaggregate the often poorly defined disputed territories by drawing upon two data sets: the political preferences expressed in these territories during Iraq’s three postconstitution elections and archival records detailing these areas’ respective administrative histories.

peaceworks

News Release: "U.S. Institute of Peace Publishes New Report on the Disputed Territories in Iraq" (Englishالعربية)

Summary

  • The alternation of military conflict and negotiation over what areas of Iraq are Kurdish and what autonomy Kurds should exercise in these areas has been an episodic feature of modern Iraq’s history. The net result is a tangled web of administrative and security arrangements between the Iraqi government and Kurdish regional authorities that sit atop poorly defined internal boundaries amid a toxic legacy of mistrust.
  • According to U.S. government officials, the greatest potential threat to Iraq’s stability is not extremist groups but the prospect of Arab-Kurdish conflict over oil-rich Kirkuk and other disputed territories. This is especially the case when the vacuum caused by the lack of an agreed political and constitutional framework for Iraqis to address competing claims to these strategic lands is combined with the impending withdrawal of what are effectively U.S. peacekeeping forces in northern Iraq.
  • This report attempts to demystify and disaggregate the often poorly defined disputed territories by drawing upon two data sets: the political preferences expressed in these territories during Iraq’s three postconstitution elections and archival records detailing these areas’ respective administrative histories. These data sets have definite limitations but taken together offer a valuable entry point for defining the contours of the dispute.
  • Clearly, sovereign Iraqi authorities must, and will, decide the shape of any territorial compromise and the overall nature of the relationship between the Kurdistan region and the federal government. Nevertheless, the parties to the dispute consistently display a “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” mentality, indicating that possible tradeoffs can only be considered in the context of a comprehensive territorial agreement.
  • While it is likely to prove controversial, the evidence in this report hopefully can provide an informal, low-risk, but detailed view of what possible negotiated solutions to the disputed territories might look like and thereby begin to illustrate the potential parameters and compromises involved in reaching a comprehensive agreement.
  • In such a deal, past suffering makes an eloquent case that the Kurds are owed selfgovernment within Iraq and the enhanced security that would come from clarity on the Kurdistan region’s internal boundaries. In return, the Kurds would need to demonstrate not only their commitment to the territorial integrity of Iraq, but also a commitment to an Iraq that works by allowing for the emergence of a constitutional basis for an appropriately empowered national government outside of the Kurdistan region. Both Baghdad and Erbil would also need to be prepared to make territorial concessions and to accept a compromise status for Kirkuk that has no outright winner or loser.
  • The U.S. government has an important role in clarifying this picture and should clearly communicate the rewards that the United States would be willing to provide to both parties for reaching a comprehensive agreement, particularly as it relates to security and diplomatic cooperation.
  • While it is unlikely that an Arab-Kurdish deal can be reached by the scheduled U.S. troop withdrawal date of December 2011, the United States should now make it a priority to work with the new Iraqi government to determine whether the space can be created to launch a negotiating process to peacefully resolve what might be the greatest threat to Iraq’s stability.

Back to top

Read commentary on the report by senior Iraqi figures:


Dr. Iyad Al-Sammarrae
Member of the Iraqi Parliament
Former Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament
Former Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Drafting Committee 

Dr. Mahmoud Othman
Member of the Iraqi Parliament
Former Member of the Iraq Interim Governing Council
Chief Negotiator for Mullah Mustafa Barzani on the 1970 Autonomy Accord 

Hassan Toran
Member of the Turkoman Justice Party
Chair of the Kirkuk Provincial Council

Back to top

About the Report

The views expressed in this report are those of the author alone.  They do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace.

This report could not have been conceived of, much less written, without the factual information and primary evidence gathered over the space of several years of painstaking effort by dozens of former and current staff members at the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq. The author wishes to salute their exceptional work in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. He would also like to thank several individuals at the United States Institute of Peace and in the United States government for reviewing this report and providing thoughtful and insightful feedback.

The analytical judgments contained in the document, as well as any remaining errors or inaccuracies, are solely the author’s responsibility. The author realizes the sensitivity and emotion attached to the territorial disputes in Iraq and the legacies of conflict and discrimination addressed in this report. The annexes summarize the evidence used for the analysis in the main text so that readers are free to examine the relevant data for themselves, consider differing conclusions, or argue that alternative factors should have been used to imagine what a negotiated solution to the disputed territories might look like. The report’s ultimate aim is to stimulate a concrete discussion on how this long-running and often tragic dispute can be resolved peacefully. 

Give us your thoughts at iraqs_disputed_territories_report@usip.org.

 Back to top

Explore Further

Related Publications

In Iraq, Advocates Aim to Reform Education to Build Collective Identity

In Iraq, Advocates Aim to Reform Education to Build Collective Identity

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

By: Joshua Levkowitz; Salah Abdulrahman

Vida Hanna, a director for public relations at Catholic University in Erbil, recalled the first week of her first-grade year when a classmate called her a kafir, or an infidel, upon learning that she was Christian. “He told me I would burn in hell,” said Hanna, a former member of USIP’s Iraq team, still shaken by the experience 22 years ago. Hanna’s experience is a microcosm of the ignorance and negative thinking that exist among segments of Iraqi society, which can exacerbate intercommunal tensions.

Type: Blog

Education & Training; Reconciliation

A Year After Soleimani Strike, Iraq Bears the Brunt of U.S.-Iran Tensions

A Year After Soleimani Strike, Iraq Bears the Brunt of U.S.-Iran Tensions

Wednesday, January 6, 2021

By: Dr. Elie Abouaoun; Sarhang Hamasaeed

The January 3, 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed powerful Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani on Iraqi soil marked an escalation in already simmering U.S.-Iran tensions. For Iraqi leaders, the Soleimani strike exacerbated an already challenging balancing act in maintaining Baghdad’s relationships with the United States and Iran, with whom it shares a long border and religious and social ties. During the past tumultuous year for Iraq, U.S. forces and Iranian-allied armed groups engaged in tit-for-tat attacks in Iraq. USIP’s Elie Abouaoun and Sarhang Hamasaeed look at how U.S.-Iran tensions played out last year in Iraq and the region and if the incoming U.S. administration, and its desire to reengage in nuclear talks with Iran, could help allay the impact on Iraq.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

What Will Become of Iraqis in Al-Hol?

What Will Become of Iraqis in Al-Hol?

Thursday, November 19, 2020

By: Sarhang Hamasaeed

The al-Hol camp in northeast Syria—which holds tens of thousands who were living among ISIS before its territorial defeat—has presented the region and international community with a host of thorny challenges. What to do with the camp’s residents has particularly bedeviled the Kurdish authorities who run the camp as well as the governments of countries where residents came from. On October 5, Kurdish authorities said they would release the Syrians in the camp, where conditions have become increasingly unsustainable. But, nearly half of the camps’ 65,000 residents are Iraqis, and their prospect for return remains deeply uncertain. USIP’s Sarhang Hamasaeed discusses the situation facing Iraqis in al-Hol and the challenges ahead if they indeed return.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Violent Extremism; Reconciliation

Amid Iraq’s Turmoil, Tal Afar Builds Peace

Amid Iraq’s Turmoil, Tal Afar Builds Peace

Thursday, November 5, 2020

By: USIP Staff

In a year of Iraqi turmoil, including protests that ousted a government and rivalry between Iran and Turkey, Iraqi tribal and community leaders are strengthening a new peace agreement in a locale that has seen some of the worst brutality of recent years—the northern city of Tal Afar. Civic, tribal and government leaders recently agreed to a pact that can open a path for more than 60,000 displaced residents to return home and rebuild following the war with ISIS. The accord also will help curb ISIS’ effort to revive. And in a startling change, it was negotiated in part by women.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes; Gender

View All Publications