Oil and the Constitution: Kurdistan vs. Baghdad

Jan 5, 2018 | Biner Aziz
View Original

There is an argument that natural resource abundance is associated with slow growth, greater inequality, and poverty for a majority of a country’s population. Therefore, natural resource wealth has a two-way path: it can lead to economic growth and development, or it can drop the country into a pitfall, known as a ‘resource curse’. Which path a country will follow relies on the historical, cultural, ethnic, economic, and institutional development before and after resource exploitation. To live blissfully, such natural resources should be regulated in a legal framework, especially when the country consists of many diverse communities, as is the case in Iraq. Iraq in Saddam’s time was known for having a strong central government. The government in Baghdad would dispute the existence of a specific sect’s culture and identity in favor of another, which sowed serious distrust by Iraqi Kurds toward Iraqi Arabs, given Saddam’s past practices. In the name of a unified and strong Iraq, Saddam carried out bloody and often deadly campaigns of oppression against various Iraqi sects. With the help of the U.S. government in 2003, Iraq’s new constitution guarantees the unification of the country based on the distribution of power and wealth. As outlined in the constitution, the Kurds attained more power in the northern Kurdistan Region, which includes the three governorates of Erbil, Sulaimanyia and Duhok, and newly added Halabja city.