The decentralisation of security, spending and administrative power is regularly cited as a means of reducing tension in a post-Islamic State Iraq. The logic is commendable: If Sunnis and Kurds are freer to manage their own affairs, then they will have more stake in cooperation with Baghdad, and there will be less room for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) to operate along the tense, dividing lines between central Iraq and the northern and western peripheries.
Easy to say, harder to do. In decentralisation, the devil is in the detail. How much input should Baghdad versus local actors have in the recruitment of local security forces? Which spending should ministries versus provincial councils control? How much money will be sent to the local level? And who controls the oil?
These issues are being actively debated across Iraq, and strong emotions are the result. In disputed Kirkuk - claimed by Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs - the province's dynamic governor, Najmaldin Karim, has welcomed an open debate on the issue of how the province should be governed in future. [...]
As advocates of devolution say: There is probably never a "right time" to start this touchy process. But today is arguably one of the least promising moments due to the extraordinary fragility of the country and the political discord in Baghdad and the KRI.
Most international partners are unlikely to back regional formation efforts in Mosul or Kirkuk now because of their potential to derail Baghdad-KRI cooperation or exacerbate local-level tensions in liberated areas.
No comments:
Post a Comment