24 August 2003
KurdishMedia.com - By Dr Nouri Talabany
The establishing of the University of Kirkuk some years ago by the Ba’athist regime must be regarded with suspicion, for it was founded by a regime which, for the previous 35 years, had systematically practised a policy of ethnic cleansing in this city and its environs which was contrary to all human principles. It was not from a desire to create a seat of learning or to develop the region of Kirkuk that the university was founded, but from a determination to extend and enforce its policy of ethnic cleansing there.
The first Faculty to be opened was that of Law. We all know that the one thing, above all else, for which that regime had no respect, was the law. This Faculty was staffed by so-called professors of law who were all Baa’athists, as were most, if not all, of the students. Its obvious purpose was to act as an instrument of propaganda for Ba’athist ideology in the region and to create a framework for Ba’athist operations there.
Normally, no university anywhere in the world is opened until a detailed study has been made of the city or area of its proposed location. Such a study takes into consideration every aspect of the life of the area, especially the social, economic and cultural aspects, and the role of the university is to develop all of these. But the Ba’athist regime, especially in the Kirkuk region where it had pursued a policy of ethnic cleansing for decades, saw the founding of the university as a means of intensifying this policy. We should question why a Faculty of Law should take priority over one that would serve the purposes of the oil industry. Kirkuk is, after all, the main city of the oil industry and needs such a Faculty. The same question could be asked about a Faculty of Agriculture. The area boasts hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile land between the Lower Zab and the Sirwan rivers and the agricultural industry there needs to be developed and modernised. The city and region of Kirkuk was in far greater need of Faculties to serve the oil and agriculture industries than of a Faculty of Law which was only created for ideological purposes.
As a Professor of Law I was, naturally, delighted to find a Faculty of Law in my city. However, I could accept neither the reasons for its founding nor the way in which it was staffed by Ba’athists. I constantly criticized the universities of Iraqi Kurdistan for opening many Faculties without properly qualified, specialist professors and technicians, and without adequate laboratories. Since 1991, I have also opposed the opening of a private Faculty of Law in liberated Iraqi Kurdistan as the Ba’athists had done elsewhere. The one existing Faculty of Law at the University of Salahadin in Arbil was already under-staffed. When two more universities were founded in Sulaimani and Dohuk, some Faculties were opened with insufficient staff. Sadly, the reason for the rapid founding of all these Faculties was the conflict between the two main political parties who were dividing the liberated part of Iraqi Kurdistan.
I believe it to be vital that, following the unification of the two Kurdish administrations, a special committee be set up to examine all these Faculties and to try to make Kurdish the language of instruction in the Faculties of Law. In the Faculties of the Human Sciences, e.g. medicine, pharmacy, engineering, etc. English must continue to be used.
For this reason, I propose that no new students should be accepted into the Faculty of Law of the University of Kirkuk and that existing students should be diverted to other such Faculties. This was done at the University of Basra when its Faculty of Law was closed at the beginning of the seventies. In the future, when we have properly qualified professors of law to staff it, it may be possible to open a new Faculty of Law that will produce highly qualified professionals.
While proposing the creation of two new Faculties in Kirkuk University for the oil industry through all its stages of production, and for agriculture, in which English will be the language of instruction, I propose, also, the setting up of a Faculty of Languages. We are all aware that the city of Kirkuk is home to communities of Kurds, Turkmans, Arabs and Assyrio/Chaldeans. The children of these communities have the right to receive a proper education in their own languages. In my opinion, the Faculty of Languages should include Departments for the study of all these tongues so as to prepare teachers for their schools. It must also include a Department of English, as it will be taught as a foreign language in the schools.
Perhaps I may remind you that, after the uprising of March 1991 in Iraqi Kurdistan, in a written proposal to the ‘Kurdistan Front’, which was the umbrella for all the political parties in Iraqi Kurdistan, I made the following suggestions:
1. The name of the University of Salahadin in Arbil, which was the only university in Iraqi Kurdistan at that time, should be changed to the University of Kurdistan and all faculties concerned with pure science should remain there.
2. All the Faculties of Human Science, such as Literature, Law, Economics and Administration at the University of Salahadin should be transferred to the city of Sulaimani to form the basis for a new university specialising in the Human Sciences. Throughout history, Sulaimani has been a centre of Kurdish culture with a reputation for the correct use of the Kurdish language. Basing these Faculties there would encourage the proper use of Kurdish as the main language of instruction. At present, in every university in Iraqi Kurdistan, teaching in most Faculties of Human Science is still conducted in Arabic.
3. The Faculty of Agriculture at Salahadin University, which was closed by the Ba’athist regime, should be re-opened and should form the basis of a new university in the city of Dohuk specialising in agriculture, forestry, irrigation and the tobacco industry. Tobacco is one of the main products of Iraqi Kurdistan.
4. On the liberation of Kirkuk city, a new Technical University should be established there, as Kirkuk is the centre of the oil industry. In 1991, even though Kirkuk was still controlled by the Ba’athist regime, was not a part of the Safe Haven and was still subject to the Ba’athist’s policy of ethnic cleansing, I dreamt of a time when it would be liberated.
We do not need another university in Kirkuk, which operates in exactly the same way as the other Iraqi universities. As Kirkuk is the centre of the oil industry, it needs a university with Faculties specialising mainly in oil and agriculture.
The development of Iraqi Kurdistan requires such specialised universities, able to undertake intensive research into the economic, social, cultural and scientific aspects of life there and to form links with universities in more developed countries, especially in the west. These universities should make contact with Kurdish academics in the outside world who could return, either permanently, or for visits, and contribute to the development of the universities of Iraqi Kurdistan. They have a great deal of knowledge and expertise to offer and could forge links between the Kurdish universities and their own universities or academic establishments.
It is to be hoped that the reconstructing of the University of Kirkuk on a new basis and the use of English as the language of instruction will make a major contribution to the reconstruction of the Kirkuk region that is now the most under-developed part of Iraqi Kurdistan. We hope, also, that the new university will contribute to establishing a new relationship between all the communities of Kirkuk.
* An extract from this article was published, in Kurdish, in the newspaper ‘Kurdistani Nwe’ on 18th June 2003.
Sunday 24 August 2003
Thursday 24 April 2003
Observations on the proposal to establish a property claims commission in the Kirkuk region
24 April 2003
By Dr Nouri Talabany
Thank you for your invitation to the meeting on establishing a ‘Property Claims Commission in Kirkuk’. I think that we must make a distinction between the city of Kirkuk and the rural areas, especially the area around the Saddam Irrigation Project.
Under the Agrarian Reform Act of 1958, landowners were allowed a maximum of 2000 donums. Any land they possessed over and above this was taken from them and reserved for distribution to farmers who had no land in the area. From 1969 onwards, agent such as Ali Daham al Ubaidi and others, working on behalf of the regime, forced landowners to sell their land to them. Most of these previously arid lands were irrigated by a government project established in the end of 1970 and then distributed to Arab tribes brought from central and southern Iraq. These settlers were also armed whilst Kurds in neighbouring villages were not allowed to carry so much as a knife. In this way, Kurdish farmers in the area were unable to acquire any land and many were obliged to make a living as tenant farmers on land that they had previously owned. These farmers now hope to return to reclaim such land as the government gave, illegally, to Arab settlers in large parts of Dubz, Daquk and Duz-Khurmatu districts. In 1963, more land in the Dubz district and in the villages around the city of Kirkuk was confiscated by the Iraqi regime. In about 44 villages – all mentioned in my book ‘Arabization of the Kirkuk Region”, page 51 – landowners and farmers were prevented from cultivating their land and it was given to Arab settlers. My own family village near Kirkuk, called ‘Sona-Goli’, was taken from us and we were not even allowed to go near it.
In the city of Kirkuk, the regime built a great number of houses for Arab settlers and gave these districts Arab names. It also gave some settlers plots of land and money from the Real Estate Bank to enable them to build houses. Almost all of this land was owned by Kurds or by the state. Other property, owned by Kurds and Turkmans, was confiscated for a variety of reasons; for example, a member of the family was outside Iraq, was in prison for political reasons, had been hanged for some political crime - or supposed crime. The majority of the owners were forced to leave the city. Since the regime confiscated most of the documents from those expelled, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to produce their deeds.
Since 1970, the regime has continued to distribute plots of land inside the city to military personnel, members of the Secret Services and Security Service, the Ba’ath party and the Popular Army, employees of the IPC and of all government sectors. All these people were Arab settlers who have been assisted financially by the regime and, as a result, have been nicknamed ‘the 10,000 dinars’ because, in the beginning, they were given that amount plus a plot of land and a job. At that time a dinar was worth three dollars.
In the north and east of Kirkuk province, the regime encountered difficulties in settling Arab tribes from fear of the Peshmarga, so it razed all the villages and small towns. Farms, orchards, wells and even cemeteries were destroyed and most of the inhabitants forced into concentration camps outside Kirkuk province. In 1988, these areas were the target of the Anfal operations. Being at too great a distance form the Turkish and Iranian borders to be able to escape, the population was forced to go to the area controlled by the regime where they were captured and sent into the desert. I am sure that almost none of these people will possess the deeds to their properties as they lost everything, but each group is known to have belonged to their own particular village.
Many people still have the deeds to their property in the city or to their farms in the villages. However, for those whose deeds were destroyed when they were expelled by the regime, their only proof will be the testimony of people who lived in the same city or district.
The regime forbade Kurds to buy property in the city or province of Kirkuk. No Kurd was allowed to sell his property to anyone other than an Arab. They were also denied permission to repair their properties and so some were forced to sell their homes and go elsewhere. Very wide streets were bulldozed through other districts of the city, demolishing many Kurdish properties, so that yet more people were forced to leave.
In recent years, since the regime was not applying the system so rigorously to Turkmans, some Kurds sold their homes to Turkmans with whom they had a good relationship, in the hope that they would be able to re-register these properties in their own names when the regime had fallen. For these people, we will have to search for the name of the owner prior to 1970. In general, unless the registers prior to 1970 were falsified, they will provide evidence of the genuine owners of many properties in Kirkuk. Most of the new, Arab named districts in the city were built for the new settlers – all of them Arabs – with the express purpose of changing the ethnic composition of the city and province.
Most members of the various institutions in Kirkuk are Ba’athists as, from the early 1970s, the regime practiced a policy of ‘Ba’athisization’ as well as Arabization. Most of them were brought from other parts of Iraq. Others are Turkmans, or even some Kurds, and this includes most of the civil servants and judges. For this reason, we cannot rely on them to make decisions. We must set up a new body to examine claims impartially.
Most Kurdish civil servants were forcible expelled to other parts of Iraq and, even after retirement, were not allowed to return to Kirkuk. This was my own experience when I was compulsorily retired from my post as Professor of Law at Baghdad University in 1982. I wanted to return to my city but I was forbidden to do so and was obliged to go to Arbil instead. All these Kurdish civil servants should be allowed to go back to Kirkuk and to claim the properties which they, or their parents, owned in the city and province.
The Arabs knew, when they settled in Kirkuk, that they were occupying properties which belonged to others. As I said, some among them were given plots of land which were owned by Kurds or by the state and were also given financial assistance to build houses. Today, they see themselves as the legitimate owners of these properties but, if you check the pre-1970 registers, you will find that most of them were not there then. They were settled there later by the regime as part of its plan to change the ethnic composition of the city and province which, since 1972, has gone under the Arabic name of ‘Al Ta’Amim’, which means ‘nationalization.
Everything which the regime has done in Kirkuk province violates the UN Charter of Human Rights which forbids the removal of anyone from his property against his will. The ethnic cleansing of the Kirkuk Region has echoes of the policies of Stalin and Hitler and is like that practiced in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor. All the acts of the Iraqi regime are illegal and contrary to international law.
Those Arabs settled in the region of Kirkuk were well aware that their purpose in being there was to change its ethnic composition. They were a part of the regime and served in the Security Services, the army, the Ba’ath party and Ba’athist organizations. They should now return to their places of origin in central and southern Iraq. If you ask any one of them where he or his father lived before 1970 he will tell you where he came from. Not one of them was registered in Kirkuk according to the 1957 Census, which is only one considered valid. All the displaced Kurds must be permitted to return to reclaim their rightful homes in their own cities. They have suffered for decades, losing their properties and jobs. Their children have lost their future. A new Iraqi government must now compensate them for their physical and mental suffering.
The policies of Arabization and ethnic cleansing were devised by the higher echelons of the regime and were implemented by all government departments and by the Secret Service. Most of the governors of Kirkuk were appointed from among the upper echelons of the Ba’ath party. As yet we are unaware of any secret documents regarding these policies but, should any come to light, they will facilitate the decision making on restitution.
My proposal is that a High Commission of five to seven members should be established. These members should be legal professionals and other experts in land registration in the Kirkuk Region. If you wish I will propose certain individuals who are all from the Kirkuk region though some were expelled from Kirkuk and are presently living in Arbil and Sulaimani.
* Observations presented to a meeting organized in Washington by ‘US Institute for Peace’ on 22nd April 2003, to establish a ‘Property Claims Commission in the Kirkuk Region’.
** Professor of Law, Director of the Kirkuk Trust for Research & Studies
By Dr Nouri Talabany
Thank you for your invitation to the meeting on establishing a ‘Property Claims Commission in Kirkuk’. I think that we must make a distinction between the city of Kirkuk and the rural areas, especially the area around the Saddam Irrigation Project.
Under the Agrarian Reform Act of 1958, landowners were allowed a maximum of 2000 donums. Any land they possessed over and above this was taken from them and reserved for distribution to farmers who had no land in the area. From 1969 onwards, agent such as Ali Daham al Ubaidi and others, working on behalf of the regime, forced landowners to sell their land to them. Most of these previously arid lands were irrigated by a government project established in the end of 1970 and then distributed to Arab tribes brought from central and southern Iraq. These settlers were also armed whilst Kurds in neighbouring villages were not allowed to carry so much as a knife. In this way, Kurdish farmers in the area were unable to acquire any land and many were obliged to make a living as tenant farmers on land that they had previously owned. These farmers now hope to return to reclaim such land as the government gave, illegally, to Arab settlers in large parts of Dubz, Daquk and Duz-Khurmatu districts. In 1963, more land in the Dubz district and in the villages around the city of Kirkuk was confiscated by the Iraqi regime. In about 44 villages – all mentioned in my book ‘Arabization of the Kirkuk Region”, page 51 – landowners and farmers were prevented from cultivating their land and it was given to Arab settlers. My own family village near Kirkuk, called ‘Sona-Goli’, was taken from us and we were not even allowed to go near it.
In the city of Kirkuk, the regime built a great number of houses for Arab settlers and gave these districts Arab names. It also gave some settlers plots of land and money from the Real Estate Bank to enable them to build houses. Almost all of this land was owned by Kurds or by the state. Other property, owned by Kurds and Turkmans, was confiscated for a variety of reasons; for example, a member of the family was outside Iraq, was in prison for political reasons, had been hanged for some political crime - or supposed crime. The majority of the owners were forced to leave the city. Since the regime confiscated most of the documents from those expelled, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to produce their deeds.
Since 1970, the regime has continued to distribute plots of land inside the city to military personnel, members of the Secret Services and Security Service, the Ba’ath party and the Popular Army, employees of the IPC and of all government sectors. All these people were Arab settlers who have been assisted financially by the regime and, as a result, have been nicknamed ‘the 10,000 dinars’ because, in the beginning, they were given that amount plus a plot of land and a job. At that time a dinar was worth three dollars.
In the north and east of Kirkuk province, the regime encountered difficulties in settling Arab tribes from fear of the Peshmarga, so it razed all the villages and small towns. Farms, orchards, wells and even cemeteries were destroyed and most of the inhabitants forced into concentration camps outside Kirkuk province. In 1988, these areas were the target of the Anfal operations. Being at too great a distance form the Turkish and Iranian borders to be able to escape, the population was forced to go to the area controlled by the regime where they were captured and sent into the desert. I am sure that almost none of these people will possess the deeds to their properties as they lost everything, but each group is known to have belonged to their own particular village.
Many people still have the deeds to their property in the city or to their farms in the villages. However, for those whose deeds were destroyed when they were expelled by the regime, their only proof will be the testimony of people who lived in the same city or district.
The regime forbade Kurds to buy property in the city or province of Kirkuk. No Kurd was allowed to sell his property to anyone other than an Arab. They were also denied permission to repair their properties and so some were forced to sell their homes and go elsewhere. Very wide streets were bulldozed through other districts of the city, demolishing many Kurdish properties, so that yet more people were forced to leave.
In recent years, since the regime was not applying the system so rigorously to Turkmans, some Kurds sold their homes to Turkmans with whom they had a good relationship, in the hope that they would be able to re-register these properties in their own names when the regime had fallen. For these people, we will have to search for the name of the owner prior to 1970. In general, unless the registers prior to 1970 were falsified, they will provide evidence of the genuine owners of many properties in Kirkuk. Most of the new, Arab named districts in the city were built for the new settlers – all of them Arabs – with the express purpose of changing the ethnic composition of the city and province.
Most members of the various institutions in Kirkuk are Ba’athists as, from the early 1970s, the regime practiced a policy of ‘Ba’athisization’ as well as Arabization. Most of them were brought from other parts of Iraq. Others are Turkmans, or even some Kurds, and this includes most of the civil servants and judges. For this reason, we cannot rely on them to make decisions. We must set up a new body to examine claims impartially.
Most Kurdish civil servants were forcible expelled to other parts of Iraq and, even after retirement, were not allowed to return to Kirkuk. This was my own experience when I was compulsorily retired from my post as Professor of Law at Baghdad University in 1982. I wanted to return to my city but I was forbidden to do so and was obliged to go to Arbil instead. All these Kurdish civil servants should be allowed to go back to Kirkuk and to claim the properties which they, or their parents, owned in the city and province.
The Arabs knew, when they settled in Kirkuk, that they were occupying properties which belonged to others. As I said, some among them were given plots of land which were owned by Kurds or by the state and were also given financial assistance to build houses. Today, they see themselves as the legitimate owners of these properties but, if you check the pre-1970 registers, you will find that most of them were not there then. They were settled there later by the regime as part of its plan to change the ethnic composition of the city and province which, since 1972, has gone under the Arabic name of ‘Al Ta’Amim’, which means ‘nationalization.
Everything which the regime has done in Kirkuk province violates the UN Charter of Human Rights which forbids the removal of anyone from his property against his will. The ethnic cleansing of the Kirkuk Region has echoes of the policies of Stalin and Hitler and is like that practiced in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor. All the acts of the Iraqi regime are illegal and contrary to international law.
Those Arabs settled in the region of Kirkuk were well aware that their purpose in being there was to change its ethnic composition. They were a part of the regime and served in the Security Services, the army, the Ba’ath party and Ba’athist organizations. They should now return to their places of origin in central and southern Iraq. If you ask any one of them where he or his father lived before 1970 he will tell you where he came from. Not one of them was registered in Kirkuk according to the 1957 Census, which is only one considered valid. All the displaced Kurds must be permitted to return to reclaim their rightful homes in their own cities. They have suffered for decades, losing their properties and jobs. Their children have lost their future. A new Iraqi government must now compensate them for their physical and mental suffering.
The policies of Arabization and ethnic cleansing were devised by the higher echelons of the regime and were implemented by all government departments and by the Secret Service. Most of the governors of Kirkuk were appointed from among the upper echelons of the Ba’ath party. As yet we are unaware of any secret documents regarding these policies but, should any come to light, they will facilitate the decision making on restitution.
My proposal is that a High Commission of five to seven members should be established. These members should be legal professionals and other experts in land registration in the Kirkuk Region. If you wish I will propose certain individuals who are all from the Kirkuk region though some were expelled from Kirkuk and are presently living in Arbil and Sulaimani.
* Observations presented to a meeting organized in Washington by ‘US Institute for Peace’ on 22nd April 2003, to establish a ‘Property Claims Commission in the Kirkuk Region’.
** Professor of Law, Director of the Kirkuk Trust for Research & Studies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
