A historic plea for Kirkuk and a national cry for Iraq

PUKMEDIA

Mohammed Sheikh Othman

Written by Mohammed Sheikh Othman

It was not just a defense of Kirkuk, but a defense of the very idea of Iraq

Not all speeches delivered at pivotal moments are historic in the deepest sense of the word. Historicity is not granted to speeches, interventions, and statements merely because they are issued at a sensitive time. Rather, it is acquired when politics is formulated as knowledge, and positions are supported by documentation, maps, and sources, and when the discourse is transformed from a political emotion into an argument based on undeniable facts.

In this sense, the late President Mam Jalal’s plea before the Iraqi Governing Council on February 9, 2004, was a historical plea that was complete in its pillars, not only because it was a defense of the Kurdish cause, but also because it redefined the foundations of building the Iraqi state itself, and linked the unity of Iraq to respecting the conditions of its establishment, not to ignoring them.

The circumstances in which the plea was delivered are no less important than its content. In the post-2003 period, there were clear understandings within the Iraqi opposition conferences, from Vienna to Salah al-Din and London, that acknowledged the Kurdish orientation of choosing federalism within the borders of the Iraqi state and its sovereignty, as well as the existence of a historical injustice inflicted on Kirkuk and the Kurdish regions that were subjected to policies of Arabization and forced displacement. They also emphasized the need to correct the abnormal conditions imposed by the previous regime. However, these understandings began to be subjected to retreat and procrastination within the Governing Council, with the rise of a discourse that called for freezing sensitive files in the name of stability. This is what Mam Jalal saw as a real danger, not only to Kurdish rights, but to the very logic of national partnership. Hence, the plea came as a corrective intervention at a pivotal moment.

-A case of right, not annexation-

One of the most common misconceptions about the appeal is that it was a call to annex Kirkuk to the Kurdistan Region. In reality, Mam Jalal was extremely clear and responsible, emphasizing that he was not demanding the annexation of Kirkuk at that stage, but rather the correction of the consequences of documented authoritarian policies. He then precisely outlined the path to a solution:

- Returning the Kurds and Turkmen who were forcibly displaced.

- Returning the expatriates who were settled as part of the Arabization process to their original regions.

- Normalizing and correcting the borders of the governorate and others that have been altered as part of national and sectarian cleansing policies.

 -Conducting a professional population census.

- Organizing a free referendum in which the residents of Kirkuk determine the fate of their city.

With this approach, Mam Jalal transformed the Kirkuk issue from a matter of national polarization into a model of transitional justice, and a national solution that prevents division and does not establish it.

When the document speaks and geography decides

The real strength of the argument was not in the language, but in the evidence. Mam Jalal presented to the Governing Council League of Nations documents, official Ottoman maps, and authoritative books on geography and history, such as The Mosul Problem and the Dictionary of Names, to confirm a number of essential facts:

• The historical borders of Iraq did not extend beyond the Hamrin Mountains

• Kurdistan begins geographically and politically north of this line.

• The province of Mosul was not part of the Iraqi state when it was established in 1920.

• The annexation of southern Kurdistan to Iraq in 1925 was by a conditional international decision Among the most important points raised in the argument was the citation of statements by Edmonds, Britain’s representative to the League of Nations committee, who affirmed that tampering with the Kurdish identity of Kirkuk constitutes a clear violation of international commitments, and that this undermines the legal basis under which the Mosul province was annexed to Iraq.

From Kurdish advocacy to national outcry

A thorough reading of the plea reveals that it was not a narrow Kurdish cry, but a responsible national cry. President Mam Jalal did not defend Kurdistan at the expense of Iraq, but rather defended Iraq by respecting Kurdistan.

His speech was directed at his partners in government when he clearly stated that the unity of Iraq is not preserved by coercion or denial, but by recognizing rights and implementing the commitments upon which the state was founded.

He reminded them of a fundamental fact: that Kurdistan chose to join Iraq, not Turkey, and this choice was conditional on respecting its national, administrative and cultural distinctiveness.

The Foundations of the Iraqi State

The argument went beyond the Kirkuk issue to reach the core of the modern Iraqi state, where Mam Jalal reiterated that:

• The Treaty of Sèvres, in its articles 62, 63 and 64, recognized the right of the Kurds to self-determination.

• In 1922, the Iraqi and British governments officially recognized the Kurds’ right to establish a Kurdish government within the borders of Iraq.

• King Faisal’s correspondence with Churchill defined the borders of the Iraqi state at the Hamrin Mountains.

• The Kurdish language was recognized as an official language in Kurdish regions under international resolutions.

Hence came his pivotal statement that summarized the essence of the argument: After 82 years of the right to independence, you are discussing federalism with us today?

Regarding the immediate necessities of pleading

The importance of this plea today does not lie in remembering it as a historical event, but in dealing with it as a neglected foundational document. It presents a model for how to manage national diversity within the state, and it clarifies that Iraq’s current crises are not fate, but rather a direct result of repeated denial of rights and chronic breach of commitments.

Today, the new generation of politicians and decision-makers is in dire need of returning to this document, not out of emotion, but to understand the beginnings upon which this country was built, and the conditions for its continuity and stability.

Mam Jalal's plea was not just a defense of Kirkuk, but a defense of the very idea of Iraq: an Iraq that is not afraid of its diversity, does not run away from its history, and is not built on the ruins of injustice.

More than two decades later, that argument still stands, unassailable, a testament to the fact that a truthful document is stronger than all fleeting speeches.

And to this day, this argument remains a valuable opportunity in the path of building the Iraqi state, and rereading it today is not an intellectual luxury, but a political necessity to correct the course, and to build a state based on mutual recognition, respect for history, and transforming pluralism from a source of crisis into an element of stability.