1 Creating political space to resolve inter-communal tensions in Kirkuk, Iraq Submission to the USIP Competition “Case Studies in Peacebuilding” Craig Collins, Initiative on Quiet Diplomacy ccollins@iqdiplomacy.org | www.iqdiplomacy.org Stefan Wolff, University of Birmingham stefan@stefanwolff.com | www.stefanwolff.com| @stefwolff Introduction Kirkuk Governorate has been a focal point of significant tensions in Iraq since the 2003 US-led intervention. Substantial oil reserves, strained relations between Kirkuk’s Arab, Kurdish, Turkoman and Chaldo-Assyrian communities, and the broader power struggle between Arabs and Kurds over Kirkuk’s future status place Kirkuk at the intersection of larger interests both inside and outside of the country. Kirkuk has nevertheless been largely neglected by the international community. At the time of the engagement described in the following case study, there had been little or no dialogue between the principal communities since 2003, and divisions (including violence) had caused them not to meet, trust to wane, and the stresses and risks of the situation to mount. It was deemed important in this context to seek to create safe political space for parties to convene, establish contacts and confidence, and bridge differences, as well as to assist leaders to orient themselves to peaceful co-existence. A small, independent group of outside experts accordingly agreed to design and facilitate in 2008-09 a consultative dialogue between political representatives of the four communities, focused not on the difficult topic of Kirkuk’s status, but instead on matters of governance building from shared experience and common interests. Though initiated and facilitated by a non-official third party, without a formal mandate, the engagement was ‘Track I’ (according to prevailing conflict resolution typologies), involving exclusively political leaders and official decision-makers. Broadly, the case illustrates an iterative ‘process’ which effectively combined space creation, knowledge transfer, peer-learning, problem-solving around specific issues, normative development and facilitated mediation. The central question treated is whether structuring multi-party dialogue around a process of directed learning, in this case regarding policy issues and governance options, can be an effective approach to change perceptions and promote accord. Critical process challenges to be addressed include: participant selection (ensuring engagement of key parties); implementation/follow-through (setting a timetable and ‘choreography’ for implementation of potential agreements); and managing differences in expectations, interests and relative power of participants. Successful approaches include: how to identify key issues, and facilitate/mediate discussion thereon; how to create space for such discussion to evolve into actual negotiations; and how to create opportunities for peer-learning to enable parties to arrive at a common position. Background Kirkuk has been among Iraq’s most intractable problems. A diverse province and city with three main ethnic groups—Arabs, Kurds, and Turkoman—who all have different tales of suffering and entitlements to tell, Kirkuk is also beset by problems well beyond the control of its citizens and their representatives. Because of its oil and gas reserves, controlling Kirkuk, or preventing someone else from doing so, has major resource implications. Control is also symbolically important for all three of its main ethnic groups, but especially so for Kurds who have come to see Kirkuk as ‘their Jerusalem’. Politically, the future of Kirkuk is, like those of the other internally disputed territories of Iraq, tied up with the full implementation of Iraq’s 2005 constitution, which, in its Article 140, stipulates normalisation (i.e., reversal of Arabisation), a census and a referendum “in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the will of their citizens” (concerning the status of these territories, i.e., whether they are to become part of the Kurdistan region). The future status of Kirkuk has thus become a major bone of contention between Kurds and Arabs in Iraq as a whole, and has become entangled in two other disputes—over a federal hydro-carbons law and constitutional reform.