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. 

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.  

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.

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.

The Contradictions of Maliki's Politics

By: Ali Rawaf

Over the past three months, Maliki has proved that rules, norms, laws, and the constitution can be boldly violated without any regards to the public sentiments. It also proved the immaturity of Iraq's democracy and the politicians who are still new to the democratic game.

First, Maliki openly supported the rise of the De-baathification committee in the Parliament, a toll that was used to "legally" disqulaify candidates before the elections and after the results came out. The commission, under its new name, Commission for Justice and Accountability, made decisions to disqualify, sue, and publicly question the integrity of candidates, even though its Parliament was not in session. Recently, the commission said it would stop disqualifying newly-elected Parliamentarians, as if they have done us a favor.

Then, Maliki ran on a secular campaign, promising Iraqis that the past of ethnic tensions was to be left behind. He also promised that the politics of confessionalism in Iraq is now an old practice. Once he found out that the results weren't in his favor, he sought Iraqnian support and quickly tried to make a coalition with the radical Shiite bloc, which came third in the elections after Maliki's 89 nine seats and Allawi's 91 seats. The Shiite "coalition" hasn't agreed on a leader of the coalition neither have they settled on a candidate for the prime minister's post, the two important features of a political coalition seem missing. But parties left and right don't like any of the other blocs' candidates(Top vote-getters) for the Prime Minister post, which is not respecting the new election law that calls for and "Open List," a term that refers to placing each candidate's name on the ballot so the voter will choose directly on who wants for the PM post.

Malki also criticized Allawi's visits to regional countries, claiming that the visits represent an invitation to those countries to interfere in Iraqi politics. In the past couple of days, Maliki sent delegations to Arab countries to garner their support for his second term, openly.

The State of Law, Nouri al-Malki's bloc rhetorically attacked Allawi when he said that a non-inclusive government will drag Iraq back into sectarian tensions and violence. Maliki, when he felt that the PM post was slipping from his hand, he claimed that Iraq will once again go back to sectarian violence if he is not to get a second term.

The State of Law's coalition with the radical Iraqi National Alliance, named "National AlLiance," declared the alliance within 48 hours of the date Parliament was set to convene and after Ammar al_Hakim, the leader of the Iraqi National Alliance met with Sistani, the Shiite Grand Ayatolla. This shows that religious authority can override the democratic process and norms and can still manipulate politics or influence it one way or another.

Maliki's government also is acting as it is the official government, not an interim one. The PM is writing laws, signing deals and contracts, and hiring ambassadors, all of which are non-constitutional.

In short, Iraq's democracy s fragile and its rules can still be bent by politicians. Once our politicians leave behind the past and the spirit of revenge and politics of confessionalism, elements of liberal democracy might be more tangible but if we keep the gridlock and bold violation of electoral rules, laws,the constitution, and proportionally distribute government positions, we will stay unconsolidated democracy, a picture that much looks like Lebanon, if not worse.

Now, we are INVESTING!

It seems that education in Iraq is definitely flourishing. After opening the first International Office in Iraq recently, the government has moved on to making a bigger success. I just laid my eyes on the long-awaited news about the Iraqi government investing in the field of education. This article has actually made my day as it marks the actual beginning of the new renaissance of the Iraqi youth and in the same time, Iraq itself. Iraq was one of the Middle Eastern Pioneers in embracing some of the most prestigious universities back in the past century. Iraq, after gaining its independence from the British, assertively used its relations with the developed west to build an educational system that rivaled many other excellent educational institutions and put its graduates in auspicious positions.

Further, the Iraqi government would use its resources to fund scholarships for qualified Iraqis to study in Western Europe to acquire the up-to-date knowledge in their fields of study and then come back to Iraq and implement those skills in the Iraqi society. This endeavor has contributed to creating one the biggest, educated middle-classes in the Middle East by the end of the 1970's.

The question is what happened to all of those people? Well, to begin with, most of them left Iraq as the Baath-party took a major control of the country. It was the norm that if you don't become a Baathist, it would be very hard to advance in your career or even sometimes find a job.
Some of them were unfortunately killed due to their political beliefs. We all anticipated the return of this elite after 2003, but the instability has contributed to their continuing diaspora.

Nevertheless, we had better now think about the present and future of Iraq and think of new means to improve it. And the Iraqi government, among its current successful initiatives, committed itself to sending 10 000 Iraqi students to universities in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the UK, starting with 500-600 students for the 2009-2010 scholastic year. This is hopefully going to serve as the key to renovating an educational system that is more than 25 years old, along with bringing up a learned people that can better rule itself and lead its country towards a promising future.

Just like any other new project, one might have some questions about it. Although the Ministries of Education and Higher Education have not yet declared the selection criteria and the selection process, there is a high chance that they are going to run into the problem of finding the required number of academically-competent students each year. Unless they implement some sort of an ESL program prior to college enrollment, this should no longer be an issue. And yet, the eternal problem of connections in Iraq might contribute to some undeserving students ending up in the scholarship. Fortunately, the big number of required students vilifies this problem as there is a place for many other qualified students.

Another concern might arise as the current situation in Iraq doesn't encourage many skilled people to go back to it after they finish studying in those developed countries. There definitely is some sort of procedure through which the government guarantees the students' return. Logic entails us to think objectively, and this leads us to conclude that there should be some students, regardless of the situation, that won't go back to serving Iraq. Hopefully, this would only be a minority.

In conclusion, this is a proud moment for Iraq towards getting rid of the dark past and initiating a striking future. I believe the government has just made a successful bargain in enlightening its people. As James Madison says ," Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."