How the Syrian Conflict Has Intensified Regional Sectarian Rifts

By Ali Rawaf

“How could 100 million Shiites [worldwide] defeat 1.7 billion [Sunnis]? Only because [Sunni] Muslims are weak.”

These were the words of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a prominent Egyptian Sunni cleric, in a recent TV interview during which he encouraged his followers to carry arms and join the fight in Syria. He was later praised for his stance by Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, the most senior religious authority in the country.

Al-Qardawi’s statements followed a televised speech last month by the Shiite leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah where he vowed victory in Syria, "Syria is the back of the resistance, and the resistance cannot stand, arms folded while its back is broken." He told his adversaries to fight his men in Syria, not in Lebanon, Hezbolla’s home . But that’s too late. The violence had already spilled into Lebanon, where gun battles frequently rage between Shiites and Sunnis.

Lebanon is not the only neighbor being impacted by the Syrian conflict. Tensions between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq are at the highest levels since 2007. May was the bloodiest month since June of 2008 with over a thousand people killed. The violence continues to escalate as Sunnis continue their protests against the Shiite-dominated government. They accuse the government of succumbing to Iranian influence.

The Iraqi PM has charged the protests as being waged by Saudi Arabia and Qatar in their bid to contain Iran’s growing influence in the region. He also accuses them of funding Sunni rebels in Syria in their fight against Assad’s regime.

Qatar does not hide its concerns about Iran’s growing influence in the region. The Qatari government has declared Hezbollah as a terrorist group and has been leading an effort at the Gulf Cooperation Council to have its Sunni member states take a similar action. The country is also home to Al-Qardawi whose recent calls for Sunnis to fight Shiites further strained relationship between the Qatari and Iraqi governments.

Iraqi Shiite men have gone to Syria to fight along side Assad’s army and Hezbollah. It will be a matter of time before more Sunnis act on the words of Al-Qaradawi. It has become clear that the fight to win Syria is no longer a local one. It is regional. It is sectarian. And the sect that wins in Syria will win the region.

With Less Involvement in Iraq, US Interests and Iraq’s Future in Jeopardy

By Ali Rawaf

Writing about Iraqi politics has become more frustrating than starting a fire by rubbing two sticks. There are hardly any positive political developments and our politicians are stuck in debating issues that bear no substance or benefit to the people.

To remind you, as soon as the last US soldier stepped outside the Iraqi borders, things have been going downhill.  Today, Maliki's Iraq almost seems as far from democracy as it was under Saddam Hussein. The PM is on a journey to court as much power into his hands as possible. The opposition forces continue to lose ground. And the Iraqi people continue to suffer from poor quality of life.

Soon after the US left, Maliki moved to prosecute his VP for alleged terrorist activities, a move that reignited sectarian tensions and as he is being tried in absentia, Iraqis are reminded of the sectarian violence that they thought was winding down.

Last week, the Minister of Communication resigned after growing interference from the Prime Minister in moving ministry officials around with no regards to the minister, who is a member of the same political entity of the VP. Anonymous sources say that three top leaders from the same political party have given their support to Maliki, after his perpetual threats of ousting them from their positions.

Maliki is also in a major political battle with the Kurds. As Iraq’s oil revenue grows so does the fight between Baghdad and the Kurdish federal region over oil contracts that are being granted to foreign companies by the regional government. Maliki’s office says that the central government is the only one that is authorized to grant such contracts. As a result, foreign companies are growing more hesitant to do business with Iraq and the Kurds renewed their calls for secession.

The growing frustrations with Maliki’s politics lead to a meeting between the major political parties in parliament. They agreed to question Maliki within the constitutional power the parliament. A day before Maliki was going to be summoned, a military unit under his command lifted the belt of concrete blocks that fortify parliament against bomb attacks, a move that was seen as a threat.

The PM also threatened the parties that if he was going to be questioned, he would divulge embarrassing secrets about those who question him. As a result, the efforts to oust him or question him withered.

Iraqi politicians claim that Maliki seems emboldened by the US lack of interest in Iraqi affairs and an expanding Iranian support. That lack of involvement from the US and the West will not only cost Iraqis, it will cost the US interests in the region.

Iraq so far has helped lessen the effects of the US sanctions against Iran by letting local banks handle Iranian trade transactions and Iraq is also helping Iran send military supplies support the Syrian regime through Iraqi airspace.

Despite calls from Iraqi parties, regional and foreign countries, and US VP Joe Biden to halt both activities, Maliki remains defiant and those activities still go on. 

Arrest Warrant Issued for Iraqi Electoral Commission Head

By Ali Rawaf

An Iraqi court issued a warrant for the arrest of the president of the Iraqi High Electoral Commission, Faraj Al-Haidary for alleged bonuses that were awarded to some of the Commission personnel. The warrant states that he will be in custody for a 3 day-investigation.

Ever since the March 2010 election results were announced, declaring Maliki’s rival political bloc the winner, the PM and his partly started a campaign against the Electoral Commission, claiming that his president and staff collaborated with winning bloc.

Soon after securing a second term, Maliki sought an order from the High Court to enlist the Electoral Commission and other independent bodies under the authority of the PM’s office. The move infuriated several political parties and later, even though the Court ruled in the Maliki’s favor, it later clarified that no entity has authority over the independent bodies such as the Central Bank and the Electoral Commission.  The Court clarification came after there was an outrage by Parliament and the heads of political parties over what was clearly a violation of a constitutional article.

Two months later, the PM’s party in Parliament, State of Law called for the investigation of the president of the Electoral Commission and his Deputy over fraud allegations. The rest of the parliament saw how politicized the questioning was by the State of Law members and called to end the investigation. A couple of months later, the State of Law bloc returned and called for the disbanding of the current Electoral Commission and replace it with new staff.

This move along with a series of actions taken by the PM and his party are alarming. After the US withdrawal from Iraq, the PM got the High Court to issue an arrest warrant against the Sunni Vice President, Tareq Al-Hashimi and asked parliament to vote his Sunni Deputy, Salih Al-Mutlaq out of his post. While the effort to oust the latter failed, the former is currently called a fugitive VP in the news and his office staff and body guards are under arrest. Recently, the VP said three of his body guards died in prison because of torture. The moves have been regarded as reasons for the new escalation in sectarian tensions and violence in Iraq.

 I regard them as a serious threat to our fragile and diminishing democracy. 

Kurdish, Sunni Frustration Could End Iraq Government Coalition

By Ali Rawaf

Kurdish President Threatens to End Coalition

Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki (Left) and Kurdish Regional President
Masood Barazani (Right)

Masood Barazani, the president of Iraq's Kurdish region gave harsh criticism of the Shiite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, calling his party a "a small group that is hoarding all aspects of power while practicing ideological terrorism against those who criticize it."

The Kurds have been in a political conflict with Baghdad over several issues. On top of the issue is Baghdad's stubbornness to not let any oil companies enter into any contracts with the Kurdish government. Most recently, the central government threatened to exclude Exonn Mobil from future auction if the company signs any contracts directly with the Kurdish government. While the central government announced that Exon froze the contract with the Kurds, the Energy Committee in the Kurdish Parliament announced the contracts were actually still intact. 

The Kurdish regional president has also been critical of the way Baghdad has handled the case of Tareq al-Hashimi, Iraq's VP who is supposed to undergo a trial for alleged terrorism acts he oversaw. The VP's hiding has escalated the conflict between the PM Maliki and the Kurds, who view the trial as another way of intimidation to Maliki's rivals. 

Ayad Allawi (Head of the secular al-Iraqyia group), VP Tareq al-Hashimi,
and Salih al-Mutlaq (Deputy to the Prime Minister)

Iraqi Sunnis

Iraq's Sunni's have also been outraged at the authoritarian practices of Maliki's government. At the same time the US troops completed its withdrawal from the country, al-Maliki ordered the arrest of as many as 800 Sunnis ex-Baathist from Sunni provinces, accusing them of conspiring with al-Qaeda to overthrow the government.  

The PM went after his Sunni deputy, Salih al-Mutlaq, for publicly criticizing him. Maliki asked Parliament to vote him out of office but most of the parties in Parliament rejected the measure. 

The Sunni have become very dissatisfied wit the government and a few provinces have asked to form a federal state similar to the Kurdish model. The PM said it wasn't constitutional and went after the provincial councils who made the request and threatened them with legal consequences. When it turned out that the constitution required a vote of two-thirds of the provincial council or a vote of ten percent of the regional population to make a federation, Maliki said it wasn't the right time. 

Al-Iraqyia, the political entity of which both al-Hashimi and Mutlak are members, asked Maliki to step down from his post and let someone else take over. Al-Iraqyia has also been threatening to bring up internal political disputes during the Arab League meeting, which is set to take place in Baghdad at the end of March. 

Maliki Hoarding Power

Many of the decision recently made by the office of the prime minister have been alarming. After the government formation deal was cut, Maliki sent the Iraq's High Court to place under his control many independent entities such as the Electoral Commission, the Integrity Commission, and the Central bank. 

Maliki is also emphasizing on his role as the commander in chief of the armed forces, a role that is only ceremonial according to the constitution. His government has been known for establishing the Baghdad Force, a special unit that is trained by the Americans, which reports to Maliki him self. He has maintained both ministries of defense and interior under his control as acting minister, even though the government was formed long time ago. 

The PM recently announced that he is in a good position to be elected again, breaking a promise he made last election that he would push for term limits and that he wouldn't run for office again. 

'Discontent and Division'

According to a recent Gallup poll that measures a country's 'wellbeing', suffering in Iraq is the highest since 2008(before the end of the sectarian fight). The percentage of 'suffering' Iraqis is among the highest in the Middle East while the percentage of those 'thriving' is among the lowest.

The percentage of those satisfied with the living standards dropped to 32% in 2011, down from 50% in 2010. Joblessness and lack of security have also contributed to the rise negative emotions among Iraqis, particularly anger and sadness.

Looking Ahead

Iraq's fragile government coalition could be coming to an end. The Sunnis have been dissatisfied for a long time but they don't have a parliamentary majority to vote down the government and try to form their own. They need to have the Kurdish support and a couple of Shiite parties on board to actually form a different coalition. Shiite groups like al-Sadr's political wing (Which holds 40 seats in parliament) and Badr have been  in disagreement with Maliki's Dawa party over several issues. While it is unclear whether this type of political frustration could vote Maliki out of the prime minister office or call for new elections, they are good signs that there is some sort of opposition to check on the expanding powers of the PM. 

Can Iraq Abolish the Death Penalty?

Note: This piece was originally published on the Dart Society Reports. To see the piece on the Dart Society Reports, click here. 

A commentary by Ali Rawaf

In Iraq, it’s difficult to find someone who doesn’t have a ma’doom, a family member who was executed by the government. It is so common that Iraqis routinely mention it to qualify for government jobs, a pay raise, or a political post.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was condemned by international human rights organizations for excessive use of the death penalty, mostly carried out against political opponents and those who participated in the uprising in 1991. For decades, detainees were sentenced to death despite having no access to attorneys or any chance to appeal their sentences. Confessions were mostly extracted by torture, without any adequate investigation.

Citing such practices, human rights groups urged the United States to enact a moratorium on the death penalty after the invasion in early 2003. Two months after entering Baghdad, the Coalition Provisional Authority put the moratorium in place.

The moratorium was suspended in 2004, when the Iraqi interim government reinstated the death penalty for those under the age of 70. The government claimed it was a viable deterrent, in a time when terrorist attacks were on the rise and many Iraqis were still seeking punishment of Saddam Hussein and the men in his regime for their crimes against humanity.

Once the moratorium was lifted, things moved swiftly. In 2005, Parliament passed a terrorism law approving the death sentence not only for those who commit terrorist acts, but also for those who finance, provoke, plan, or enable such acts. Furthermore, the terrorism law offered amnesty and anonymity to al-mukhbir al-sirri, secret informers who report alleged terrorist activities. Those reports contributed to the detention of thousands of Iraqis. This has created a weak judicial process, where many Iraqis are detained and sentenced to death shortly after getting arrested.

By 2007, the number of executions has skyrocketed, making Iraq among the top five countries in the world for executions. In 2011 alone, at least 279 people received the death sentence and another 1,300 were on death row, according to Amnesty International.

Iraq’s government has also received criticism for televising many confessions of those who committed acts of terrorism, which it has been doing. They are heavily advertised to the public and are regularly broadcast on the state-funded TV channel. While the government says these confessions are meant to provide a sense of security and justice, it’s difficult to find out under what conditions those confessions were given. Critics say televising them highly undermines the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.

Detainees are sometimes tortured and forced to confess crimes or terrorist acts during pre-trial interrogations, confessions they later denounce in court. In the period surrounding a televised confession, key political figures, including members of Parliament or the cabinet, often make public statements that can influence the sentences handed to those detainees. In June 2011, the state broadcast confessions by members of an armed group who admitted to murdering a whole wedding party after raping several women and the bride. Members of the armed group received death sentences within a week of the televised confessions, an insufficient time for adequate investigation, proper legal representation or an appeal.

More recently, the same TV channel showed footage of confessions by bodyguards of the current vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi. They admitted to assassinating government officials and committing several other terrorist acts on his behalf. These crimes can be punishable by death sentence under the terrorism law. Only after televising the confessions did the Central Criminal Court issue an arrest warrant for the vice president.

Critics of Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki say this is an example of his abuse of the justice system, which he uses to bring down political opponents. Al-Maliki and his bloc have announced that they are looking to put al-Hashimi through a trial similar to Saddam Hussein’s.

“We provided a fair and clean trial to Saddam, the dictator of Iraq, and we will ensure and be determined to provide a fair trial to Mr. Tariq al-Hashimi,” Al-Maliki said at a news conference.

Such statements politicize the judicial process and diminish its transparency. Since the arrest warrant was issued, al-Hashimi has fled to northern Iraq, the home province of the Iraqi president who has offered al-Hashimi temporary protection.

The increasing pressure by the international community and watch groups on Iraq to abolish the death penalty might finally be working. Last October, members of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee said they had been discussing new legislation that would abolish the death penalty. Some parliament members, citing security concerns, immediately criticized the initiative.

Yet with a complete U.S. troop withdrawal at the end of last year, and a diminishing political engagement, it will be extremely tough to see those talks about ending the death penalty turn into an actual legislation.

Who Won the Iraq War?

"The visit aims to develop bilateral relations, as Iran and Iraq are two friendly countries and neighbours, who must have very close relations,"  The Iraqi armed forces chief of staff, General Babak Zebari, made the remarks during a meeting with General Mohammad Pakpour, the commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards' ground forces in Tehran earlier this week. -AFP

**This article was originally published at Good Bye and Good Luck, a newsletter at the Dept. of Government at the University of Texas. Click here to find original link.

By Ali Rawaf

Last month, President Obama announced the end of the Iraq war, saying the last few thousand troops would withdraw by Dec. 2. While polls show a majority of Americans support the president’s decision, Iraqis have become significantly concerned over increased meddling from Iran. The State Department has warned Iran against interfering in Iraqi internal affairs after the troops leave and also told the Iraqis that Iran will not be a problem in the future. The truth is that U.S. officials underestimate Iranian influence and control in Iraq and the region.

Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nuri Al-Maliki, who didn’t win the last elections, was able to form a government only because Iran, a Shiite state, pressured the Shiite groups in the country to rally around him and give him the vote of confidence. Al-Maliki, a divisive figure even amongst the Shiites, has been returning the favor to Iran ever since. He has sent the Iraqi army to crack down on Mujahidee Khalk, an Iranian opposition group that has been based in Iraq for a couple of decades. Despite calls from international human rights groups to halt the attacks on the group’s camp, Al-Maliki still periodically sends Iraqi troops to intimidate them. He has vowed to remove the group from the country at the end of the year.

Iranian influence goes well beyond Iraq. In Syria, Iran has been transferring weapons to the Assad regime and abetting Assad’s crackdown on protestors opposing the regime. Last month, California-based BlueCoat said that internet surveillance devices which were sold to the Iraqi government were later found to be used by the Syrian regime to crack down on protestors. How did that happen? The Iranian regime bought those devices for Syria under the name of the Iraqi Communications Ministry.

Al-Maliki is also returning a favor to Iran by keeping quiet about the developments in Syria. As the Syrian regime employed the army to crack down on its people, Al-Maliki hosted a group of Syrian officials and entrepreneurs to strengthen economic ties with the Syrian regime. And recently, Al-Maliki’s foreign minister said Baghdad is committed to preventing any action against Iran.

In the Palestinian territories, Iran funds Hamas, the militant group blocking Palestinian-Israeli peace, and Hezbolla, the anti-western, militant Shiite group in Lebanon. In Yemen, Iran funds extremist, militant Shiite groups.

If Iran is this influential without nuclear weapons, I can only imagine what happens when Tehran acquires such weapons.

If the U.S. follows through with a complete troop withdrawal, Iran would be the sole winner of the Iraq war. The war would have only cleared the way for Iran to exert more influence in the region. After the president’s announcement of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, an Iranian delegation visited Iraq and signed economic and political agreements with the Iraqi government, whereas there have been mere talks about such agreements between the United States and Iraq.

Iraq’s strategic location in the Middle East would have served as a good check on the encroaching Iranian regime. Now, Iraq  can’t even protect its airspace and its borders. While a prosperous and democratic Iraq would set a good example for the band of countries where people are demanding democracy, a failed one would serve as poster child for how democracy can fail in the Middle East. There is still a chance for negotiations to resume and possibly leave a couple of thousand troops in Iraq. If these negotiations fail, Iraq will be in the hands of Iran and the lost lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers would have been in vain.

Iraq Abstained as Arab League Voted on Syria Suspension

The Arab League decided to suspend Syria's membership.
Lebanon and Yemen voted against the measure. Iraq abstained from voting. 

By: Ali Rawaf

A month after Iraq’s government had cracked down on former members of the Iraq Baath regime, it abstained from voting to suspend Syria’s Baathist regime from membership in the Arab League.  

Only two countries voted against the suspension: Yemen and Lebanon. It is understandable why those two would vote as such. The Yemeni is also facing public demonstrations and protests, demanding democracy. Lebanon’s government, which used to be overwhelmed by Syrian influence, is now dominated by Hezbolla, a militant and political group funded by Iran.

Iraq, on the other hand, should have been leading the effort to suspend Syria’s membership. After all, it is the first country in the region that has experimented with democratization. The Iraqi government, which consists predominantly of Shiites and Kurdish politicians, shouldn’t forget how Saddam Hussein massacred the Shiites and the Kurds when they revolted against the government in 1991.

This is yet another alarming move by the Iraqi government. Such actions invoke only concerns amongst Iraqis. Last month, the government launched a campaign of arrests against former Baathists. More than 600 former Baathists were arrested, some of which were government employees and college professors. Why the crack down on harmless civilians but  The Iraqi Prime Minister said the Baath Party, which is banned by the constitution, was conspiring to bring down Iraq’s new democracy, a claim which Iraqis have heard too many times.

If anything, Iraq's decision seems like another favor to Iran, which has pressed the Iraqi government to support the Syrian regime. A few months ago, Prime Minister Al-Maliki hosted a group of Syrian officials and entrepreneurs  to strengthen ties with the next-door neighbor, while the rest of the world was calling on the Syrian president to step down.

Iraq’s abstention to vote to suspend the membership of Syria’s violent and authoritarian regime offers one more clue as to where Iraqi might be headed in the future.

  

Gaddafi: Born and Killed in Sirte, Libya

By: Ali Rawaf


In this video, a bunch of the rebels are dragging Gaddafi down the street, htting him, and pulling his hair. Through out the video, one can hear a couple of them yelling "Keep him alive." One of the rebels repeats to Gaddafi, "This is Misrata you dog," referring to the fact that people of city that was bombed the most by Gaddafi's forces have captured him. The camera turns and voices are heard yelling "No, no, no." Gun shots are heard then the crowd starts yelling "God is great, God is great."

It is ironic that the last words of a man who ordered the shooting of thousands of people were “Don’t shoot.” It is also ironic to see the people who revolted against him for his violent control of Lybia end up treating him so violently.


When Saddam Hussein was hung amidst a cheering crowd, telling him to go to “go to hell”, I thought that was barbaric for a country that was trying to put behind decades of violence. But the Libyan rebels took a lot further with their dictator. They shot him in the legs and the head. They dragged him down the street, while hitting him and yelling at him, “shut up you dog.” Gaddafi tried to dodge the punches and wipe his bleeding face.

Later footage shows him lying on a bed of a truck, covered in blood, surrounded by a cheering crowd. “God is great,” they chanted, probably the same word Gaddafi himself chanted when he lead a military coup on his predecessor 42 years ago.

As Gaddafi fell, the chants got louder and the crowds started shooting in the air, celebrating his death.

His son was captured without any injuries. Shortly after, it was reported that he was killed for trying to fight his captors. He wasn’t armed. He was shot four times in the back.

I am not mourning Gaddafi’s death and I am not speaking against the revolutionaries of Libya but what I am trying to say is that it doesn’t make sense to change an era of violence with such an act. On paper, Gaddafi and his son were killed without a trial. This is not a good precedent for a country that wants to build a peaceful democracy.

What Libyans and other revolting countries need to realize is that they are setting precedents. The more peaceful and civilized they are, the more they will advance their cause. It would have made a big difference if the dictator was put through trial. Now, from the beginning, the new Libyan government will have to deal with accusations of violating human rights. Putting him to trial could have been a good initiative to promote rule of law. But they didn't. Nato and the Libya’s National Transitional Council signaled that Gaddafi’s death would end the military operations. The future of Libya is just as uncertain as the way Gaddafi died (or was killed). What I’m certain about is that this is not a good way to start a peaceful democracy.

Iraqi's Dissatisfaction with Economy Hits Record High

By: Ali Rawaf

A survey conducted by Gallup Polls shows Iraqis have grown more dissatisfied with the economic conditions of the country.  Between January 2010 and early 2011, the number of Iraqis who think the economy is getting worse has significantly risen to 37 percent, up from 20 percent last year.

Survey results show more than half of Iraqis are dissatisfied with their standard of living. A third of the population struggles to pay for shelter. A UN report also shows that more than half of Iraqis live in slum conditions.

 Iraqis don't see an end in sight. Even though the country's revenue have increased, especially after the rise in oil prices and the increase in the Iraq's oil output, the government has failed to implement policies to incentivise the economy. The private sector remains weak and public sector jobs are mostly given to individuals with connections or party affiliations. 65 percent believe it is a bad time to get a job in cities where they live. 

The Iraqi political elite has failed to enact legislation to provide any form of stability to the economy. The country lacks law to protect the rights of private business and lacks any incentives for foreign entities to come in for investments. Building the infrastructure can provide people with many jobs. Reviving agriculture can provide jobs. Foreign companies can be invited to invest in the country and hire Iraqi people. These are few possible solutions. The political body can do much more to help the economy, if they put their differences aside and work on common interests of the Iraqi people.

Sources: Gallup
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149702/Economic-Negativity-Abounds-Iraq.aspx

Can Iraq Let Go of the Death Penalty?

By: Ali Rawaf

In the West, the debate over the death penalty has been heated and ongoing for a long time. Recently, the execution of Troy Davis, a former inmate in the State of Georgia in the US, has brought this subject back to the attention of the world. Different countries, religious groups, and human rights groups have protested the death sentence that was given to Troy Davis, who was convicted of killing a police officer 20 years ago but the evidence in the case wasn’t conclusive. In the Middle East, the death penalty hasn’t been as much debated as it is in the west. After all, most governments in the Middle East don’t have to follow the legal procedure to see the execution of their citizens. 

In Iraq, courts have to deal with more than just ordinary killers and criminals. They have to deal with terrorists and mass killers so the death penalty is given more often than in other countries. In one court hearing in 2005, a woman described why she wanted the capital punishment for the killers of her son, “They broke his arms. They broke his legs. They took out his eyeballs […] I want the death penalty.” This is one of hundreds of similar cases and so, hundreds of death sentences have been given since 2003.

Under the counter-terrorism laws, the government had established the “secret informer,” a guarantee from the government that if one reports a terrorist activity, the person’s identity shall remain secret. Because of the “secret informer,” many have been arrested without real offenses and many have wrongly been executed.

According to Amnesty International, Iraqi authorities justify the use of the death penalty as form of deterrence, even though officials like the former Iraqi Human Rights Minister admit that it is useless. In 2010, the organization listed in its report that 1100 prisoners are under the sentence of death and most of them have ran out of ways to appeal their sentences.

Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have called on Iraqi authorities to stop the death penalty in the country, citing high numbers of death sentences, many of which are given without fair trials or without any evidence. The Parliament has finally paid some attention to this issue. The Human Rights Committee in Parliament announced today that they will debate a legislation to stop the death penalty in the country. Parliament members said that mounting pressure from human rights groups have pushed them to consider such a measure. Other members say, given the security situation, this type of legislation will not do the country any good at this point in time.

The question to Mailki’s government is how much do they really care about promoting reconciliation in the country? If they do care one tiny bit, ending the death sentence would be a good place to start. 

Sources:

Iraq: Human Rights Briefing 2010 - Amnesty International

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE14/004/2010/en/20f0c384-7dc6-409d-a0fb-767c349ef41c/mde140042010en.html#4.3)%20Unfair%20trials|outline

Radio Sawa: Discussions About New Legislation to Stop Death Penalty

http://www.radiosawa.com/iraq/arabic_news.aspx?id=3378537&cid=2

Washington Post: Capitol Punishment Returns to Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501970.html

Iraqi Parliament is More Active

By: Ali Rawaf

Today, Nuri Al-Maliki is seen more of an authoritarian ruler than a prime minister in a newly formed democracy. He fires opponents, ignores political promises and agreements, and defies the legislative and the legal system of the country. And Parliament doesn’t exercise its power to check on the Prime Minister.

In recent move that further demonized the second term PM, Maliki pressured the Chairman of Iraq’s Integrity Commission*, Judge Raheem Al-Ugaili to resign**. The PM’s party says the Chairman wasn’t qualified for the position anyways because he was a former Baathist and therefore shouldn’t hold such an important position. Maliki asked the Chairman to investigate two corruption cases in which two of Maliki’s opponents are involved. When, the Chairman refused to do so for lack of evidence, Maliki pressured him to resign.

In Maliki’s first term, Parliament would have overlooked the resignation of the Chairman and wouldn’t have sought for ways to check the power of the PM, who obviously has overstepped his boundaries.  But not this time.  A day late, a member of the Parliament’s Integrity Committee(Different from the Integrity Commission), Sabbah Al-Saedi  issued a press release in which characterized the move as reminiscent of Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian regime and cautioned his fellow members that if this move goes unopposed, they are letting a new Saddam Hussein flourish in the country’s new democracy.

Maliki sought an arrest warrant against Al-Saedi, in which he claimed that his comments threaten the countries security. The warrant was issues, based on a law from the Saddam Hussein era under which opponents were criminalized.

In order for the arrest to go through, Parliament has to withdraw immunity from the member. A majority of the parliament stood by the member and didn’t withdraw his immunity. Further, Parliament voted for a new law for the Integrity Commission, where the Chairman is appointed and is fired by Parliament and not the PM. However, a day before the law was passed, Maliki used a law from the Coalition Administration under Paul Bremer to appoint a temporary Chairman for the Integrity Commission.  

The Iraqi parliament got its act together to vote for the law. Now, will they get their act together to appoint a new Chairman for the Integrity Commission?

*Under the Iraqi Constitution, The Integrity Commission is one of the principal independent oversight bodies like the Electoral Commission and the Central bank. The Commission investigates corruption cases in government institutions. According to the Commission's website, it had succeeded in indicting more than 2000 government employees on the basis of fraud (Bribery)  and/or providing false college degrees in their job applications.

 **Judge Rahem Al-Ugaili was born in 1966, bachelor degree in Law from university of Baghdad in 1991. After his graduation at the Judicial Institution, he was appointed as a judge in 1997. Judge Izzat Twafiq is the fourth personality to hold the presidency of Commission of Integrity which was established by CPA where Mr. Rady Al-Rady was the first commissioner.

Website of the Integrity Commission: http://www.nazaha.iq/en_default.asp

Why US Troops Should Stay in Iraq

By: Ali Rawaf

Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki and US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates discuss US withdrawal during Gates" recent visit to Iraq

US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates visited Iraq last week. In his visit, Gates asked Iraqi officials to makeup their minds about whether they want the US troops to stay in Iraq. This marks the first time the Obama Administration mentions longer US presence in Iraq.

The Iraqis are split on whether they want American soldiers to remain in the country. Spokesmen from the Ministries of Defense and Internal Affairs have said the Iraqi military and police forces are ready to take the task of protecting the country on their own. Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki has been consistent in his public comments about abiding by the State of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which outline US military withdraws by August of this year. In press conferences in March, Maliki went to the extent of saying that “Iraq is the safest country in the region,” citing the violence sweeping other Middle Eastern countries, where protests are taking place.

But these comments made by Maliki and other Iraqi officials don’t reflect the reality in Iraq. A few days ago, a group of armed men, set off a car bomb in front of the City Council building in the province of Sallahuddin. After, those men stormed into the building and took everyone in the building as hostages. Two of the hostages were members of the City Council.  A few minutes later, American soldiers arrived on the scene and were followed by the Iraqi Army. The story ends by the Iraqi army throwing grenade and killing the terrorists and everyone else in the building, including the City Council members. If this story tells anything, it is that the Iraqi military is by no means ready to handle the county’s security. This is not to mention the recent escalation in the number of car bombs, kidnapping, and assassinations.

Nevertheless, Muqtada al-Sadir, the anti-American Shiite cleric and al-Mahdi militia leader, called on his followers to go out and protest Gate’s comments and ask for complete military withdrawal. Muqtada wasn’t the only politician who denounced Gates’ comments. This diverts Iraqis’ attention from protesting against poor service and government corruption to be focused once again, against America and the West.

Iraq needs the American troops to stay. Even though Iraq is getting very slowly better, the chances of success are still high. Iraqi people now want to be part of the political process. They voted and they are asking for better policies and a better government through demonstrations and protests. More importantly, the civil society is getting more robust. It would be a waste, considering the massive number of Iraqi civilian casualties and the lost lives of American soldiers, to suddenly pull out and leave the country vulnerable to terrorism and dangerous regional influence. Wikileaks documents show that many of the Iraqi politicians also want the US troops to stay and admit the need for their presence, despite what they say publically.  

The protests in the Middle East might have shifted the American Administration’s attention to the region. For a while, the Administration is criticized for less engagement in Iraq. But Iraq’s future will have an effect on the outcomes of the transition in the Middle East. The Obama Administration might have just realized that. And Gates’ comments might be the early signs of that shifted attention.  

Iraq: Guns vs. Butter, Butter Wins

By Ali Rawaf

The American victory against Saddam Hussein's Army came mostly by air force attacks. The US outmatched Iraq's air force capabilities and was able to swipe of the Iraqi army in just a couple of weeks. The air force has also been one of Gaddafi’s main tools for devastating the rebel forces and gaining momentum once again.

Iraq’s air force stands weaker today than it’s ever had. The current aircraft capabilities don’t go farther than transportation purposes. So, if Iran was to attack us today with its overwhelming air force, it can demolish whatever Iraqi military capability in no time (if the US isn’t around anymore).

Two years ago, Iraq’s defense ministry bid for a number of fighter jets from the United States and won an unprecedented support for its bid from the latter. Iraq was able to order more than 90 F-16’s. In February, 18 of them were ready for purchase.

In February, however, Iraqis went on the streets and protested poor services, one of which was the national food program, which provides millions of Iraqis with basic food supplies such as flour, rice, and sugar. Iraq hasn’t been able to pay for these massive food subsidies partially due to the massive salaries Iraqi officials have granted themselves.

To appease the crowds, the Iraqi government diverted funds that were allocated for the purchase of the F-16’s to buy more flour, sugar, and rice. However, the pilots who traveled to the US to get training on flying the jets will continue their program. 

I wouldn’t say this is the smartest move and makes me feel quite ambivalent.

On one hand, it is a good sign. If Saddam Hussein was still in power, he wouldn’t have given a second thought to purchasing the fighter jets. For him, advancing the military would have been more important than feeding the hungry crowds. On the other hand, this kind of move leaves more space for other countries to practice regional dominance, something that isn’t in Iraq’s best interest. I think the Iraqi government could have diverted money from other programs to purchase the F-16’s, all of which will be pending until Iraq has the money to purchase them.

Note: Guns vs Butter is a symbol for the economic policy of a government insofar as spending is allocated for either military or social purposes

In Facing Protests, Iraq's Democracy Looks More Authoritarian

By: Ali Rawaf

Iraqi Forces surrounding Tahrir Square, where Iraqis protested poor services and high unemployment

Iraq, a democracy where elections were almost free and fair, didn’t treat its protestors any better than the rest of the authoritarian regimes in the region. The government took quick and violent actions to prevent Iraq’s protests from gaining momentum.

Since the inception of the protests, Maliki branded the activists who organized the protests as Baathists and member of al-Qaeda who were looking for opportunities to bring down the Iraqi government, despite repeated declarations that the protests were aimed at improving basic services and unemployment, not at removing the current government. This move, previously employed against political opponents, discouraged many people from voicing their discontent in the protests.  Another fear-mongering announcement from Maliki’s office was humorous. In it, Maliki predicted that terrorists dressed in police uniforms will beat the protestors so people should be cautious.

On the eve of the protest, a curfew was imposed by the Prime Minister’s office (The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces) until further notice. On the day of the protests, many of Iraq’s Sunni provinces had imposed curfews. Despite the curfew, people marched down the streets and expressed their anger with the current status of services and employment.

Freedom of the press, a constitutional right, was violated as well. Iraqi and foreign TV networks weren’t allowed to cover the protests live, therefore, people wouldn’t be encouraged to come join the protests after watching them on TV.

Journalists who were on the grounds of the protests were beaten, humiliated, and imprisoned by the Iraqi Army and police forces. Journalists, who were freed later, said they had seen leaders of civil society groups, actors, activists, and local civilians imprisoned and beaten by the Iraqi forces.

The protestors themselves were hosed with water cannons, beaten, and imprisoned.

The central government and Parliament found a way of diverting the blame onto local governments instead of taking responsibility for the shortcomings in their performance for the past years. Governors of two provinces had resigned and a few other governors are expected to do the same soon.  

To appease the protestors, Maliki and the parliament, cut their salaries by 20%, though originally intended to cut 50%. They also promised to give more food aid for the poor, place a halt on a newly approved import tax, and to improve basic services within a 100 days. Critics are skeptical  that such promises will be fulfilled.

If I could draw one main theme of the protests, it would be regret. Iraqis risked their lives on March 7^th 2010 to vote for a new government. A year later, that government hasn’t been formed completely, with key ministries such as the Interior and Defense still vacant. The very little faith Iraqis had that the past election cycle was going to bring about change, has been lost. The picture shows an Iraqi biting his index finger, a gesture of regret in Iraqi culture. His finger is still painted purple with voting ink.

The Iranianization of Iraq

By: Ali Rawaf

After the Islamic revolution in Iran, many actions were taken to make the country more conservative. The new government at the time cracked down on Cinemas, theatres, music halls. The Khomeini government also shut down liquor stores, bars, and social clubs, all of which used to run freely under the Shah. I see similar actions being taken today in Iraq.  Previously, I have written about the Iranian influence in Iraq in politics. I have been reading news about several changes in the social aspects of the Iraqi community, ones that I link to a religious Iranian influence projected to change the structure of our society.

Today, a few Parliament Members who represent minorities showed their objection to a recent decision taken by local authorities to shut down social clubs, bars, and some restaurants that serve alcohol. Kenna, a Parliament Member who represent the Christians in Iraq said the decision punishes the Christian minority unjustly, “Just because a few people who are not supposed to drink go to those social clubs and drink alcohol, those social clubs shouldn’t be closed,” said Kenna criticizing the recent law. Another Member, Mehma Khalil who represents the Yezidi ethnicity in Iraq said the law will drive minorities out of Iraq, “Many minorities run such businesses […] these venues are sources of income to many of these people.”

The reality is Iraq used to be known in the Middle East for alcohol. Iraq’s secular society used to receive Saudis and Kuwaitis who cross the border to come drink in their venues. Shutting down these venues will not only have a negative impact on the society by driving communities out of the country, it will also be one more factor that is detrimental to the economy. Even when Saddam Hussein tightened social norms* to win tribal support in the early 90’s, liquor stores and bars were still open.

Babylon Festival Hall, Oct 2010. Picture by al-Arabyia

In 2004, Shiite militias such as the Mahdi Army cracked down on theatres, music halls, and video/CD stores in the south. The southern region is known for its prominence in the field of entertainment, especially music. In October, Iraqis celebrated the Babylon Festival, an annual festival where famous musicians and actors perform. This year music was banned in the Festival because it coincided with one Imam's birthday. The ban, as al-Arabyia puts it, “[left] most of the performers hailing all the way from Algeria, Azerbaijan, Denmark, Finland, Iran and Russia swaggering around the ruins of Babylon.”

This is frustrating because the toppling of Saddam’s statue was a symbol to many Iraqis that there will be more freedoms, not less. We also hoped that the government wouldn’t align itself with religious factions and religious ideologies. All of this begs the question, if the government will decide what you drink to what one should listen, where do we draw the line? And when will the people of Iraq speak out?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The Washington Post article that is linked in the blog talk about Abu Nawas. Abu Nawas is one of Baghdad’s most famous streets. It is filled with sea food restaurants, night clubs, bars, and music halls. The street faced some difficulties during Saddam Hussein’s era but not to the extent that it is facing today. In February of 2009, the street was reopened after the US funded efforts to restore it. Soon after, the Iraqi local authorities cracked down on all of these venues, putting down hopes of restoring night life to Baghdad. 

Iraq Government Formation Sets a Bad Precedence for a Democracy

By: Ali Rawaf

It would have been great if I could start this blog by congratulating my people about the formation of the government. But unfortunately, what they portray to be the conclusion of a record_breaking and tumultuous eight months of negotiations is nothing but a magnified picture of the disarray of Iraqi politics that has been ongoing and will continue to take place in this government.


Confessionalism
Iraqi politicians pay little attention to the fact that what early governments do in new democracies, sets precedence for future governments. The power-sharing deal on which the parties agree will only institutionalize the sectarianism and the division of the current Iraqi society. The presidency to the Kurdish Talabani, PM post for Maliki, a Shiite, and the parliament Speaker position was given to Nujeifi, a prominent Sunni leader in al-Iraqyia. The perceived amount of power vested in each position is supposed to reflect the percentage of population each sect posses. Sounds silly but sadly, it's true. This kind of power-sharing pays little attention to anything about any candidate other than his sect. So forget having professionals in government as long as they meet the sect requirement. Progressively, politicians elevated the rhetoric about sectarianism in respect to the positions in the new government. Maliki was the first when he told reporters that despite the wishes of having an nonsectarian political race, sectarianism will continue to dominate the process. Kurdish MP's said that the Presidency is a Kurdish right despite the elections results. This is similar to what happened in 2005 and 2006 and exactly how Maliki won his first term. The Parliament also agreed to establish A National Strategic Council which is presumed to be given to Allawi, the head of the Iraqyiah List. The latter position is supposed to check on the PM's powers, it will also have executive powers over security, economy, and foreign policy. Allawi is a secular Shiite.



Inefficiency
While you might think that a power-sharing deal such as the one Iraqis figured out would bring about what Allawi calls "Devolution of power," it can tremendously stall the political process. Each of  these positions don't have clearly defined powers but each of them is supposed to have some sort of a check on each other. If there are four, heads to a government, how long will it take them to make a consensus on a certain issue? I predict very long, knowing that it took them 8 months to come up with this fragile deal.

Allawi's new council, under which the PM will serve as a member, will be very inefficient. Any decision made by the council has to win a vote of an absolute plurality and 80% of the vote in Parliament. Allawi is frustrated. I would too, how can you get 80% of a sectarian parliament to agree on a piece of legislation when they couldn't agree on making a simple majority to form a government for 8 months?

Arguably, it is good to have a long period of deliberation when introducing a legislation. But in a country that is desperately in need of rapid government actions to bring about basic services such as water, electricity, this kind of government dynamics can be a little early.

Above the Law
Before the elections, key members of al-Iraqiyah List were prohibited from running in the election by a Parliamentary commission responsible for running de-Baathification, a program set to oust former members of Saddam Hussein's party and his regime. The program goes after all kinds of public servants and even college professors. Part of the pact the party leaders signed to reach the agreement was the exclusion of key politicians in al-Iraqyia from the de-Baathification program and awarding them with positions in the government, after the elections. To be fair, some of these members were de-Baathified with no evidence. This tells other public servants, who were unjustly ousted from office due to the de-Baathification program, that politicians are simply above the law. This is another example of a bad precedence for a new democracy.

The Will of the Voters
When I voted, I voted for change. Many Iraqis did the same. Iraqis were fed up with the sectarian orientation of the former government. The US President said "the government of Iraq will be inclusive and representative." I beg to differ. Having a Shiite, a Kurd, and a Sunni hold key positions in the government doesn't make it representative of the will of the people. What we have in Iraq today is similar to what we had in the past four years, a bad government and a dwindling hope in the future of democracy in Iraq.

Women's Role in Iraqi Politics Remains Inactive

By: Ali Rawaf

Though they make about a quarter of the newly elected parliament, their voices are unheard and ambitions of leadership remain unseen.Their role doesn't go beyond the fulfillment of the electoral quota. Today, however, one female politician spoke out. Safiya al-Suhail sent a letter to President Talabani asking him if he was "only a president for men and not women" referring to the dinner Talabani organized to break the deadlock in which only men were invited.

 al-Suhail, member of the State of Law bloc said that women in Parliament should be involved in the negotiations to for the net government but her comments showed no ambition. She followed saying, "We [women MPs] will be better at the negotiations because we are not looking to get any of the higher positions." 

Iraq was one of the first Middle Eastern countries to grant women equal rights but the norms of the society do not reflect so. The Iraqi government is dominated my men despite the presence of women in politics but this phenomena cuts across many different aspects of society which is unfortunate because the essence of democracy lies in the fact that all elements of society are represented and empowered. In Iraq, inclusion means the inclusion of other sects while women get overlooked. If we truly care about consolidating out democracy, we need to reevaluate the role women should play in society. We need to be inclusive not only of other sects but also of the other sex. Women must be empowered in all field such as education, work force, and at home. 

In the picture: Safia al-Suhail, Iraqi MP and member of the State of Law bloc.

Is Iraq Falling Back Into Authoritarianism?

By: Ali Rawaf
  
     One sad fact about new democracies is that they might turn back into authoritarian regimes that ruled the country before those democracies emerged. Iraq's democracy might be one of those. Iraq is on the brink of falling back into an authoritarian regime, under Maliki's Dawa party.

We have witnessed Maliki's strong grip on his seat as Prime Minister. Though his term has constitutionally expired, Maliki and his cabinet still have full control of all three powers; executive, legislative, and judicial. The cabinet has signed contracts, appointed ambassadors, passed laws, all while the Parliament is not really in session. Maliki's powers are all unchecked. Maliki seems to have also manipulated Iraq's supreme court to rule in his favor several times. Furthermore, Maliki has been trying every way possible to somehow "legitimize" his bloc, which came in second in the elections, to form the next government. Maliki's bloc, State Of Law has formed an alliance with the National Alliance, the radical Shiite bloc. The alliance, was named the National Alliance hours before the first session of Parliament so al-Iraqyiah wouldn't enter the first session as the biggest bloc. Maliki's alliance with the  radical Shiite bloc had a bumpy start and remains in gridlock over which candidate they want for the Prime Minister post. The National Alliance remains under no leadership.

Recently, Iraqis marched down the streets protesting the lack of basic services such as drinking water and electricity. The protests, after taking place in five provinces, resulted in the resignation of the Minister of Electricity. The protests were seen by Maliki's State of Law as a movement to reduce Malki's popularity. Iraqi news networks reported today that Maliki  ordered to tighten security measures in Basra, the province where the protests started. The security forces have more presence in the province and their purpose is to "discourage" anymore protests. Deterring the protests doesn't remind me of anything but of Iraq's old days under Saddam Hussein.

Today, al-Arabiya news channel was raided be security forces from the Ministry of Interior. The channel staff was ordered to evacuate their office because of "threats that their office will be attacked." The staff was instructed to leave behind all their equipment and belongings in the office before the Ministry of Interior shut down their office. al-Arabiya has been known for its support of Ayad Allawi, the head of the winning Iraqyiah bloc and Maliki's rival for the Prime Minister post. al-Arabyia had interviewed Allawi a few days ago.

With one sign after the other, Iraqis are beginning to lose hope in Iraq's democracy. Maliki and his cronies have managed to take over all aspects of governance in Iraq. Their insistence on remaining in power has brought chaos back to the country and put the political process at stalemate. Almost four months after the elections, Malki still shows no signs of stepping down from his expired post and to transfer power peacefully. The change for which Iraqis voted is farther than it seemed on the night of the elections.