Major Differences Persist in Talks with Baghdad, Kurdish Officials Say
11/01/2013 04:08:00By HEVIDAR AHMAD


ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – Major differences persist in talks between Baghdad and Erbil on resolving tense territorial differences that have ignited a military stand-off for weeks between the Shiite central government and the autonomous Kurdistan Region in the north, Kurdish officials said.

They said Baghdad wants to limit talks on the vast tracts of disputed territories claimed by both sides only to Kirkuk province, it still does not agree on who should maintain security there and no longer wants American representatives present during the bilateral negotiations.

“In general, the response from Baghdad to the Kurdish demands was good this time,” but there are still major disagreements on both sides, said Halgurd Hikmat, spokesman of the Peshmarga ministry in the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), who has been part of the delegation negotiating with Baghdad over the past several months.

He said that in the third round of talks on Wednesday, the military delegation from Baghdad had presented a plan in which Kirkuk was indicated as the only disputed province. He said the Kurdish side had reiterated that the disputed territories range from Khanaqin to Zumar.

Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution, which outlines steps that would ultimately determine whether a local administration or Baghdad governs vast tracts of disputed lands, has been the core issue between the KRG and the central government, with the Kurds insisting that 43 percent of Iraqi Kurdistan falls under the disputed territories.

In an interview with Al Sumaria news last week Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, whose Shia-led government is locked in the military stand-off with the Kurds on the one hand and is grappling with mass protests by Sunnis complaining of neglect and discrimination on the other, said that the constitutional article makes no mention of any disputed territories except Kirkuk.

“It is true the article says Kirkuk and other disputed territories, but no other place has been named so no one has the right to decide which place is disputed territory,” Maliki said in the interview.

Hassan Jihad, an MP from the Kurdistan Alliance bloc in the Iraqi parliament, accused Maliki of creating confusion over Article 140.

“Maliki is making a fool of himself by saying Kirkuk is the only place mentioned in Article 140, because there are designated offices for Article 140 in every city that fall under the article,” he said.

Jabar Yawar, another Peshmarga official who was part of the Kurdish delegation at the talks, told reporters that at their last meeting Baghdad had suggested a plan for the withdrawal of Peshmarga forces in the disputed territories, but had also insisted on the authority of Baghdad’s own Dijla forces there.

The simmering dispute between the two sides flared after Maliki sent in the controversial Dijla forces to take charge of security in Kirkuk, and the KRG countered in November by deploying thousands of Peshmarga fighters.

Hikmat said that during the meeting the Kurds had rejected borders, drawn by the Iraqi delegation in disputed territories, where the Peshmarga could not trespass.

“We are currently studying their suggestions in order to prepare an answer for the next meeting” on Sunday, he added.

“The Iraqi delegation demanded the withdrawal of Peshmarga forces in Hamrin as well, but the Kurdish delegation replied that Iraqi troops must first withdraw, then Peshmarga will do so,” said Hikmat.

Jihad, the MP, expressed doubt that the meetings would end with any solutions.

“An agreement is not easy to reach, because the Kurds demand the dissolution of the Dijla Operations Command, whereas Baghdad demands the withdrawal of Peshmarga forces in the disputed territories. None of these demands is easy to implement by either side,” he said.

Another disagreement has been over whether representatives from the United States, whose forces set up a joint security mechanism in the disputed territories before pulling out at the end of 2011, should continue to attend the Baghdad-Erbil talks.

“Due to the Kurdish request Americans participated in the latest meeting,” Hikmat said, adding that the presence of the US was important as an impartial party that offered useful suggestions.

https://www.rudaw.net/english/kurds/5644.html