Iraq: Politics and Governance

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs September 30November 10, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS21968 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Summary After extensive sectarian conflict during 2006-2008, Iraq’s political system is increasingly characterized by peaceful relatively peaceful political competition and formation of cross-sectarian alliances, but ethnic and sectarian political infighting continues, often involving violence or the. However, the dominant factions have, by several accounts, often exercised questionable use of key levers of power and legal institutions to arrest or intimidate their opponents. This infighting is based on the belief belief of many factions that holding political power may mean the difference between poverty and and prosperity, or even life and death, for the various political communities. The schisms delayed . The schisms significantly delayed agreement on a new government following the March 7, 2010, national elections for the Council of Representatives (COR, parliament). With U.S. diplomatic help, on November 10, 2010, major ethnic and sectarian factions finally agreed on a framework (“Irbil Agreement”) for a new government under which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is serving a second term. In recent months, with a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq loomingapproaching at the end of 2011, the relations among major factions have frayed. Sunni Arabs still, facing a wave of arrests by government forces in October 2011, fear that Maliki and his Shiite allies will try to will monopolize power. The Kurds are wary that Maliki will not honor pledges to resolve Kurd-Arab territorial and financial disputes. Sunni Arabs and the Kurds dispute territory and governance in parts of northern Iraq, particularly Nineveh Province. Some Iraqi communities, including Christians in northern Iraq, are not necessarily not at odds with the government but have territorial and political disputes with and fear violence from both Sunni Arabs and Kurds. These splits have created conditions under which the insurgency that hampered U.S. policy during 2004-2008 continues to conduct occasional high casualty attacks, and in which Shiite militias have conducted attacks on U.S. forces still in Iraq. The political disputes, ongoing violence, the potential for increased Iranian influence in Iraq, and U.S. concerns about the effectiveness of Iraq’s 650,000 member security forces have caused the United States to call for Iraq to request a continuing, but likely sharply reduced, presence of U.S. forces after 2011. That would require a renegotiation of a 2008 U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement, which requires all U.S. forces to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. An Iraqi decision on such a request was long hampered by all the same political schisms discussed above, as well as the Sadr threats to rearm his followers if U.S. forces remain after 2011. However, Maliki obtained sufficient consensus in July 2011 to announce the start of negotiations with the United States on extension of the U.S. military presence. The retention of some U.S. troops leave might reduce some of the concerns about the ability of the U.S. State Department to secure its facilities and personnel and to carry out its mission on its own. However, some oppose a reported White House idea to retain as few as 3,000 troops after 2011 as too small a force to protect itself or accomplish significant training or other missions. No firm post-2011 number of U.S. troops has been announced or agreed with Iraq to date. With the formal end of the U.S. combat mission on August 31, 2010, U.S. forces have dropped to a level of about 45,000, from a 2008 high of 170,000. Iraq also is in the process of purchasing advanced U.S. military equipment, including F-16 combat aircraft. The Administration is hopeful that, no matter the outcome of discussions on the U.S. military presence, all factions will finally enact pending national oil laws, crucial to attracting foreign investment. Some movement has occurred since However, the lack of a broader and sustained focus on governance, or on improving key services, such as electricity, created popular frustration that manifested as sporadic protests since February 2011. The demonstrations were partly inspired by the wave of unrest that has broken out in many other Middle Eastern countries, but were not centered on overthrowing the regime or wholesale political change. See CRS Report RL34064, Iraq: Oil and Gas Sector, Revenue Sharing, and U.S. Policy, by Christopher M. Blanchard have conducted attacks on U.S. forces still in Iraq. The Administration asserts that Iraq’s governing capacity is self-sufficient and that Iraq will be able to continue to build its democracy, enact long delayed national oil laws, and undertake other measures. Some movement on the oil laws has occurred since August 2011. However, the lack of a broader and sustained focus on governance, or on improving key services, such as electricity, created popular frustration that manifested as sporadic protests since February 2011. The demonstrations were partly inspired by the wave of unrest that has broken out in many other Middle Eastern countries, but were not centered on overthrowing the regime. The political disputes, ongoing violence, the potential for increased Iranian influence in Iraq, and U.S. concerns about the effectiveness of Iraq’s 650,000 member security forces and governing capabilities caused the United States in early 2011 to call for Iraq to request that a relatively small number of U.S. forces remain in Iraq after 2011. An Iraqi decision on such a request was long hampered by the political schisms discussed above as well as threats by the faction of Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr to rearm his followers if U.S. forces remain after 2011. Maliki obtained consensus in July 2011 to negotiate with the United States to extend the 2008 U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement (SA) that required all U.S. forces to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, but negotiations failed when Maliki could not get agreement of enough major factions to continue the SA’s legal immunities for U.S. troops in Iraq beyond 2011. That was deemed unacceptable by the Obama Administration and President Obama announced on October 21, 2011, that no U.S. forces would remain in Iraq to train or mentor the Iraqi security forces. The Administration states that training will continue using programs for Iraq similar to those with other countries in which there is no U.S. troop presence, but there are concerns about the ability of the U.S. State Department to secure its facilities and personnel and to carry out its mission on its own. Concerns about increased Iranian influence as U.S. military involvement ends have been heightened as well. Congressional Research Service Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Contents Overview of the Political Transition/First Elections........................................................................ 1 Initial Transition and Construction of the Political System....................................................... 1 January 30, 2005, Elections for an Interim Government........................................................... 1 Permanent Constitution ............................................................................................................. 2 December 15, 2005, Elections................................................................................................... 3 Post-2005 Elections and Steps Toward Reconciliation.................................................................... 3 Benchmarks and a Troop Surge................................................................................................. 3 The Strengthening of Maliki and the Iraqi Government: 2008-2009 ........................................ 4 Attempts to Decentralize Governance: Provincial Powers Law and January 31, 2009, Provincial Elections ............................................................................ 4 The March 7, 2010, Elections: Coalitions and Political Infighting ........................................... 6 Election Law Dispute and Final Provisions ........................................................................ 8 Election Parameters............................................................................................................. 9 Flashpoint: Disqualification of Some Prominent Sunnis .................................................. 10 Election and Results .......................................................................................................... 11 Post-Election Government ................................................................................................ 12 Political Agreement (“Irbil Agreement”) Reached............................................................ 13 New Government Formed................................................................................................. 1314 Other Elections Possible.......................................................................................................... 15 Continuing Political Schisms .................................................................................................. 15 Security Ministry Appointment Disputes.......................................................................... 1516 National Council for Strategic Policies Dispute................................................................ 1516 Continuing Sunni Community Grievances........................................................................ 1516 KRG-Central Government Disputes/Combined Security Mechanism.............................. 1617 The Sadr Faction’s Continuing Agitation.......................................................................... 1820 Related Governance Issues ............................................................................................................ 2021 2011 Unrest.............................................................................................................................. 2123 Government Response and Prospects................................................................................ 2224 General Human Rights Issues.................................................................................................. 2324 Trafficking in Persons ....................................................................................................... 2325 Media and Free Expression ............................................................................................... 2325 Labor Rights...................................................................................................................... 2325 Religious Freedom/Situation of the Christian Religious Minority.................................... 2425 Corruption ......................................................................................................................... 2527 Mass Graves ...................................................................................................................... 2527 Camp Ashraf...................................................................................................................... 2527 Regional Dimension ...................................................................................................................... 2527 Implications for the Wind Down of the U.S. Military Mission ..................................................... 27 Scenarios for Keeping Some29 Question of Whether U.S. Forces Would Remain Beyond 2011 ......................................................... 27 Other Elections Possible.......................................................................................................... 32 29 U.S. Efforts to Convince Iraq to Request A Continued U.S. Military Presence................ 30 President Obama Announces Decision on Full Withdrawal.............................................. 31 Alternate Means to Accomplish Post-2011 U.S. Strategy on Iraq .................................... 32 State Department Leads Post-2011 U.S. Effort ................................................................. 33 Congressional Research Service Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Tables Table 1. Major Coalitions for 2010 National Elections ................................................................... 8 Table 2. March 2010 COR Election: Final, Certified Results by Province ................................... 31 Congressional Research Service Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights 34 Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Iraq: FY2003-FY2012 Request.......................................................... 3335 Table 4. Recent Democracy Assistance to Iraq.............................................................................. 3436 Table 5. January 31, 2009, Provincial Election Results (Major Slates)......................................... 3537 Table 6. Election Results (January and December 2005) .............................................................. 3638 Table 7. Assessments of the Benchmarks ...................................................................................... 3739 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 3941 Congressional Research Service Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Overview of the Political Transition/First Elections Iraq has completed a political transition from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to a plural politypolitical system that encompasses varying sects and ideological and political factions. That transition has been accomplished through a series of elections that began in 2005, after a one-year occupation occupation period and a subsequent seven-month interim period of Iraqi self-governance. However, disputes over the relative claim of each community on power and economic resources permeate almost every issue in Iraq, including security, elections, economic decision making, and foreign policy. The constant infighting over these issues has contributed to popular frustration over a perceived lack of focus on improving governance and delivery of services. Initial Transition and Construction of the Political System After the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in April 2003, the United States set up an occupation structure, reportedly based on concerns that immediate sovereignty would favor major factions and not produce democracy. In May 2003, President Bush, reportedly seeking strong leadership in Iraq, named Ambassador L. Paul Bremer to head a “Coalition Provisional Authority” (CPA), which was recognized by the United Nations as an occupation authority. Bremer discontinued a tentative political transition process and instead appointed (July 13, 2003) a non-sovereign Iraqi advisory body, the 25-member “Iraq Governing Council” (IGC). During that year, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators, advised by a wide range of international officials and experts, drafted a “Transitional Administrative Law” (TAL, interim constitution), which became effective on March 4, 2004. After about one year of occupation, the United States, following a major debate between the CPA and various Iraqi factions over the modalities and rapidity of a resumption of Iraqi sovereignty, handed sovereignty to an appointed Iraqi interim government on June 28, 2004. That date was two days ahead of the TAL-specified date of June 30, 2004, for the handing over of Iraqi sovereignty and the end of the occupation period, which also laid out the elections roadmap discussed below. The interim government was headed by a prime minister, Iyad al-Allawi, leader of the Iraq National Accord, a secular, non-sectarian faction but whose supporters are mostly Sunni Arabs. Allawi is a Shiite Muslim but many INA leaders were Sunnis, and some of them were formerly members of the Baath Party. The president was Sunni tribalist, Ghazi al-Yawar. January 30, 2005, Elections for an Interim Government A series of elections in 2005 produced the full-term government structure that is in place today. In accordance with the dates specified in the TAL, the first post-Saddam election was held on January 30, 2005. The voting was for a 275-seat transitional National Assembly (which formed an executive), four-year term provincial councils in all 18 provinces and a Kurdistan regional assembly (111 seats). The election for the transitional Assembly was conducted according to the “proportional representation/closed list” election system, in which voters chose among “political entities” (a party, a coalition of parties, or persons). A total of 111 entities were on the national ballot, of which nine were multi-party coalitions. Still restive over their displacement from power in the 2003 U.S. invasion, Sunni Arabs (20% of the overall population) boycotted, winning only 17 Assembly seats, and only one seat on the 51seat Baghdad provincial council. That council was dominated (28 seats) by representatives of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), then led by Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim. (In August 2003, Congressional Research Service 1 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights when Abd al-Aziz’s brother, Mohammad Baqr al-Hakim, was assassinated in a bombing outside a Najaf mosque, Abd al-Aziz succeeded his brother as ISCI leader. After Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim’s death from lung cancer in August 2009, his son Ammar, born in 1971, succeeded him.) Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr, whose armed faction (the militia operated under the name Mahdi Army) was then at odds with U.S. forces, also boycotted, leaving his faction poorly represented on provincial councils in the Shiite south and in Baghdad. The resulting transitional government placed Shiites and Kurds in the highest positions—Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) leader Jalal Talabani was president and Da’wa (Shiite party) leader Ibrahim al-Jafari was prime minister. Sunnis were Assembly speaker, deputy president, a deputy prime minister, and six ministers, including defense. Permanent Constitution The elected Assembly was to draft a permanent constitution by August 15, 2005, to be put to a referendum by October 15, 2005, subject to veto by a two-thirds majority of voters in any three provinces. On May 10, 2005, a 55-member drafting committee was appointed, but with only two Sunni Arabs (15 Sunnis were later added as full members and 10 as advisors). In August 2005, the talks produced a draft, providing for • a December 31, 2007, deadline to hold a referendum on whether Kirkuk (Tamim province) would join the Kurdish region (Article 140); • designation of Islam as “a main source” of legislation;1 • a 25% electoral goal for women (Article 47); • families choosing which courts to use for family issues (Article 41); making only primary education mandatory (Article 34); • having Islamic law experts and civil law judges on the federal supreme court (Article 89). Many women opposed the two latter provisions as giving too much discretion to male family members. It made all orders of the U.S.-led occupation authority (Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA) applicable until amended (Article 126), and established a “Federation Council” (Article 62), a second chamber with size and powers to be determined in future law (not adopted to date). The major disputes—never fully resolved—centered on regional versus centralized power. The draft permitted two or more provinces together to form new autonomous “regions”—reaffirmed in passage of an October 2006 law on formation of regions. Article 117 allows “regions” to organize internal security forces, legitimizing the fielding of the Kurds’ peshmerga militia (allowed by the TAL). Article 109 requires the central government to distribute oil and gas revenues from “current fields” in proportion to population, and gave regions a role in allocating revenues from new energy discoveries. Disputes over these concepts continue to hold up passage of national hydrocarbons legislation. Sunnis dominate areas of Iraq that have few proven oil or gas deposits, and favor centralized control of oil revenues, whereas the Kurds want to maintain maximum control of their own burgeoning energy sector. 1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html. Congressional Research Service 2 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights With contentious provisions unresolved, Sunnis registered in large numbers (70%-85%) to try to defeat the constitution, prompting a U.S.-mediated agreement (October 11, 2005) providing for a panel to propose amendments within four months after a post-December 15 election government took office (Article 137), to be voted on within another two months (under the same rules as the October 15 referendum). The Sunni provinces of Anbar and Salahuddin (which includes Saddam’s home town of Tikrit) had a 97% and 82% “no” vote, respectively, but the constitution was adopted because Nineveh province only voted 55% “no,” missing the threshold for a “no” vote by a two-thirds majority in three provinces. December 15, 2005, Elections The December 15, 2005, elections were for a full-term (four-year) national government (also in line with the schedule laid out in the TAL). Under the voting mechanism used for that election, each province contributed a predetermined number of seats to a “Council of Representatives” (COR)—a formula adopted to attract Sunni participation. Of the 275-seat body, 230 seats were allocated this way, with 45 “compensatory” seats for entities that would have won additional seats had the constituency been the whole nation. There were 361 political “entities,” including 19 multi-party coalitions, competing in a “closed list” voting system (in which party leaders choose the personspeople who will actually sit in the Assembly). As shown in Table 5, voters chose lists representing their sects and regions, and the Shiites and Kurds again emerged dominant. The COR was inaugurated on March 16, 2006, but political infighting caused the Shiite bloc “United Iraqi Alliance” to replace Jafari with another Da’wa figure, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, as prime minister. On April 22, 2006, the COR approved Talabani to continue as president. His two deputies were Adel Abd al-Mahdi (incumbent) of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and Tariq alHashimi, leader of the broad Sunni-based coalition called the Accord Front (“Tawafuq”—within which Hashimi leads the Iraqi Islamic Party). Another Accord figure, the hardline Mahmoud Mashhadani (National Dialogue Council party), became COR speaker. Maliki won COR approval of a 37-member cabinet (including two deputy prime ministers) on May 20, 2006. Three key slots (Defense, Interior, and National Security) were not filled permanently until June 2006, due to infighting. Of the 37 posts, there were 19 Shiites; nine Sunnis; eight Kurds; and one Christian. Four were women. Post-2005 Elections and Steps Toward Reconciliation The 2005 elections were, at the time, considered successful by the Bush Administration but did not resolve the Sunni-Arab grievances over their diminished positions in the power structure. Some argue that the elections in 2005 worsened the violence by exposing the new-found subordination of the Sunni Arabs. The Sunni-led insurgency accelerated in the two subsequent years, in turn prompting the empowerment of Shiite militia factions to counter the insurgency. The sectarian violence was so serious that many experts, by the end of 2006, were considering the U.S. mission as failing. Benchmarks and a Troop Surge In August 2006, the Administration and Iraq agreed on a series of “benchmarks” that, if adopted and implemented, might achieve political reconciliation. Under Section 1314 of a FY2007 Congressional Research Service 3 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights supplemental appropriation (P.L. 110-28), “progress” on 18 political and security benchmarks— as assessed in Administration reports due by July 15, 2007, and then September 15, 2007—was required for the United States to provide $1.5 billion in Economic Support Funds (ESF) to Iraq. President Bush used the waiver provision. The law also mandated an assessment by the GAO, by September 1, 2007, of the degree to which the benchmarks have been met, as well as an outside assessment of the Iraqi security forces (ISF). In early 2007, the United States began a “surge” of about 30,000 additional U.S. forces (bringing U.S. troop levels from their 2004-2006 baseline of about 138,000 to about 170,000 at the height of the surge) intended to blunt insurgent momentum and take advantage of growing Sunni Arab rejection of extremist groups. As 2008 progressed, citing the achievement of many of the major legislative benchmarks and a dramatic drop in sectarian violence that was attributed to surge—the Bush Administration asserted that political reconciliation was advancing. However, U.S. officials maintained that the extent and durability of reconciliation would depend on the degree of implementation of adopted laws, on further compromises among ethnic groups, and on continued attenuated levels of violence. For Iraq’s performance on the benchmarks, see Table 7. The Strengthening of Maliki and the Iraqi Government: 2008-2009 The passage of Iraqi laws in 2008 considered crucial to reconciliation, continued reductions in violence accomplished by the U.S. surge, and the continued turn of many Sunni militants away from violence, enhanced Maliki’s political position. A March 2008 offensive ordered by Maliki against the Sadr faction and other militants in Basra and environs (“Operation Charge of the Knights”) pacified the city and caused many Sunnis and Kurds to see Maliki as even-handed. This contributed to a decision in July 2008 by the Accord Front to end its one-year boycott of the cabinet. Other cabinet vacancies were filled with independents. During the period in which the Accord Front, the Sadr faction, and the bloc of former Prime Minister Iyad al-Allawi were boycotting, there were 13 vacancies out of 37 cabinet slots. Attempts to Decentralize Governance: Provincial Powers Law and January 31, 2009, Provincial Elections Although Maliki gained adherents within the political structure, the January 31, 2009, provincial elections represented an opportunity to try to ensure that neither he, nor any future prime minister, could centralize power to the extent witnessed under Saddam Hussein’s rule. In addition to the checks and balances established in the central government, a 2008 “provincial powers law” was intended to decentralize Iraq by setting up powerful provincial councils that decide on local allocation of resources. The provincial councils in Iraq choose each province’s governor and governing administrations—in contrast to Afghanistan, where provincial governors are appointed by the president. Some central government funds are given directly to provincial administrations for their use, although most Iraqi funds are allocated centrally. ISCI, which had already been distancing itself from its erstwhile ally, Maliki’s Da’wa Party, ran under a separate slate in the provincial elections—thus splitting up the formerly powerful UIA. Ideologically, ISCI favors more power for the provinces and less for the central government; Maliki prefers centralization. The provincial elections had originally been planned for October 1, 2008, but were delayed when Kurdish restiveness over integrating Kirkuk and other disputed territories into the KRG caused a Congressional Research Service 4 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights presidential council veto of the July 22, 2008, election law needed to hold these elections. That draft provided for equal division of power in Kirkuk (among Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomans) until its status is finally resolved, a proposal strongly opposed by the Kurds. On September 24, 2008, the COR passed a final election law, providing for the elections by January 31, 2009, and putting off provincial elections in Kirkuk and the three KRG provinces.2 In the elections, about 14,500 candidates vied for the 440 provincial council seats in the 14 Arabdominated provinces of Iraq. About 4,000 of the candidates were women. The average number of council seats per province was about 30,3 down from a set number of 41 seats per province (except Baghdad) in the 2005-2009 councils. The Baghdad provincial council has 57 seats. This yielded an average of more than 30 candidates per council seat. However, the reduction in number of seats also meant that many incumbents were not reelected. The provincial elections were conducted on an “open list” basis—voters were able to vote for a party slate, or for an individual candidate (although they also had to vote for that candidate’s slate). This procedure encouraged voting for slates and strengthened the ability of political parties to choose who on their slate will occupy seats allotted for that party. This election system was widely assessed to favor larger, well-organized parties, because smaller parties might not meet the vote threshold to obtain any seats on the council in their province.4 This was seen as likely to set back the hopes of some Iraqis that the elections would weaken the Islamist parties, both Sunni and Shiite, that have dominated post-Saddam politics. About 17 million Iraqis (any Iraqi 18 years of age or older) were eligible for the vote, which was run by the Iraqi Higher Election Commission (IHEC). Pre-election-related violence was minimal, although five candidates and several election/political workers were killed. There were virtually no major violent incidents on election day. Turnout was about 51%, somewhat lower than some expected. Some voters complained of being turned away at polling places because their names were not on file. Other voters had been displaced by sectarian violence in prior years and were unable to vote in their new areas of habitation. The vote totals were finalized on February 19, 2009, and were certified on March 29, 2009. Within 15 days of that (by April 13, 2009) the provincial councils began to convene under the auspices of the incumbent provincial governor, and to elect a provincial council chairperson and deputy chairperson. Within another 30 days after that (by May 12, 2009) the provincial councils selected (by absolute majority) a provincial governor and deputy governors. The term of the provincial councils is four years from the date of their first convention. Outcomes Some concerns of Maliki’s opponents—and of those who favor decentralized power—were realized when his allies in his “State of Law Coalition” were clear winners of the provincial elections. His Shiite opponents (his former allies) all ran separate slates and fared generally 2 The election law also stripped out provisions in the vetoed version to allot 13 total reserved seats, spanning six provinces, to minorities. An October 2008 amendment restored six reserved seats for minorities: Christian seats in Baghdad, Nineveh, and Basra; one seat for Yazidis in Nineveh; one seat for Shabaks in Nineveh; and one seat for the Sabean sect in Baghdad. 3 Each provincial council has 25 seats plus one seat per each 200,000 residents over 500,000. 4 The threshold for winning a seat is the total number of valid votes divided by the number of seats up for election. Congressional Research Service 5 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights poorly. With 28 out of the 57 total seats, the Maliki slate gained control of the Baghdad provincial council, displacing ISCI. Da’wa also emerged very strong in most of the Shiite provinces of the south, including Basra, where it won an outright majority (20 out of 35 seats). Although Maliki’s coalition fared well, the subsequent efforts to form provincial administrations demonstrated that he still needed to strike bargains with rival factions, including Sadr, ISCI, and even the Sunni list of Saleh al-Mutlaq (National Dialogue Front) that contains many ex-Baathists. The provincial administrations that took shape are discussed in Table 5. Aside from the victory of Maliki’s slate, the unexpected strength of secular parties, such as that of former Prime Minister Iyad al-Allawi, corroborated the view that voters favored slates committed to Iraqi nationalism and strong central government. The apparent big loser in the elections was ISCI, which had been favored because it is well organized and well funded. ISCI did not win outright in Najaf province, which it previously dominated and which, because of Najaf’s revered status in Shiism, is considered a center of political gravity in southern Iraq. It won seven seats there, the same number that was won by the Maliki slate. ISCI won only 3 seats on the Baghdad province council, down from the 28 it held previously, and only 5 in Basra. Some observers believe that the poor showing for ISCI was a product not only of its call for devolving power out of Baghdad, but also because of its perceived close ties to Iran, which some Iraqis believed was exercising undue influence on Iraqi politics. Others say ISCI was perceived as interested in political and economic gain for its supporters. The Sadr faction, represented mainly in the “Independent Liberals Trend” list, did not come close to winning outright control of any councils, although it won enough seats in several southern provinces to, through deal-making, gain senior positions in a few southern provinces. The showing of the Sadrists was viewed as reflecting voter disillusionment with parties that field militias—which many Iraqis blame for much of post-Saddam violence. Another important trend noted in the 2009 provincial elections was the increasing Sunni entry into the political process. Participating in the provincial elections were Sunni tribal leaders (“Awakening Councils”) who had recruited the “Sons of Iraq” fighters and who were widely credited for turning Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda-linked extremists in Iraq. These Sunni tribalists had largely stayed out of the December 2005 elections because their attention was focused primarily on the severe violence in the Sunni provinces, particularly Anbar. These tribal figures were, at the time of the December 2005 election, still intimidated by Al Qaeda in Iraq’s admonition that Sunnis stay out of the political process. However, in the 2009 provincial elections, as the violence ebbed, Sunni tribalists offered election slates and showed strength at the expense of the established Sunni parties, particularly the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) and the National Dialogue Council. The main “Iraq Awakening” tribal slate came in first in Anbar Province. The tribalists benefitted from the decline of the IIP and other mostly urban Sunni parties, including the National Dialogue Council. In Diyala Province, hotly contested among Shiite and Sunni Arab and Kurdish slates, the provincial version of the (Sunni Arab) Accord Front edged out the Kurds for first place, and subsequently allied with the Kurds and with ISCI to set up the provincial administration. The March 7, 2010, Elections: Coalitions and Political Infighting After his slate’s strong showing in the January 2009 provincial elections, Maliki became the immediate favorite to retain his position in the March 7, 2010, COR elections. The elected COR chooses the full-term government, as discussed above. With many perceiving Maliki as the likely Congressional Research Service 6 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights winner for another term, Maliki was able to include some political competitors in some provinces, including those dominated by Sunni Arabs and Sunni tribalists, into his State of Law coalition that would compete in the national elections for a new COR. However, Sunnis were not in high positions on his slate, and his slate was still perceived as primarily Shiite. Maliki derived further political benefit from the U.S. implementation of the U.S.-Iraq “Security Agreement” (SA, sometimes referred to as the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA), discussed below in the section on the U.S. military mission. However, as 2009 progressed, Maliki’s image as protector of law and order was tarnished by several high-profile attacks from mid-2009 to the eve of the election. Realizing the potential for security lapses to reduce his chances to remain prime minister, Maliki ordered several ISF commanders questioned for lapses in connection with the major bombings in Baghdad on August 20, 2009, in which almost 100 Iraqis were killed and the buildings housing the Ministry of Finance and of Foreign Affairs were heavily damaged. Makeshift alternate Ministry of Finance buildings were attacked again on December 7, 2009. After this latter bombing, which also resulted in the parliament’s insistence that it hear Maliki’s explanation of his responses, Maliki replaced the commander of the Baghdad Brigade. He also attempted to place substantial blame for the lapses on Interior Minister Jawad Bolani, who was heading a rival slate in the elections. (See Table 1 on major slates in the election.) Politically, sensing Maliki’s weakness and a more open competition for prime minister, Shiite unity broke down and a rival Shiite slate took shape as a competitor to Maliki’s State of Law. The “Iraqi National Alliance (INA)” was composed of ISCI, Sadr, and other Shiite figures. The INA coalition believed that each of its component factions would draw support from their individual constituencies to produce an election majority or clear plurality. Sistani remained completely neutral in the election, endorsing no slate, but calling on all Iraqis to participate. To Sunni Arabs, the outwardly cross-sectarian Iraq National Movement (“Iraqiyya”) of former transitional Prime Minister Iyad al-Allawi had strong appeal. There was an openly Sunni slate, leaning Islamist, called the Accordance slate (“Tawaffuq”) led by IIP figures, but it was not expected to fare well compared to Allawi’s less sectarian bloc. Some Sunni figures were recruited to join Shiite slates. Congressional Research Service 7 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Table 1. Major Coalitions for 2010 National Elections State of Law Coalition (slate no. 337) Iraqi National Alliance (slate no. 316) Iraqi National Movement (“Iraqiyya”—slate no. 333) Kurdistan Alliance (slate no. 372) Unity Alliance of Iraq (slate no. 348) Iraqi Accordance (slate no. 338) Led by Maliki and his Da’wa Party. IncludesIncluded Anbar Salvation Front of Shaykh Hatim al-Dulaymi, which is Sunni, and the Independent Arab Movement of Abd al-Mutlaq al-Jabbouri. Appealed to Shiite sectarianism during the campaign by backing the exclusion of candidates with links to outlawed Baath Party. Was favored in the 2010 election due to strong showing in 2009 provincial elections. Formed in August 2009, was initially considered the most formidable challenger to Maliki’s slate. ConsistsConsisted mainly of his erstwhile Shiite opponents and is was perceived as somewhat more Islamist than the other slates. IncludesIncluded ISCI, the Sadrist Sadrist movement, the Fadilah Party, the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi, and the National Reform Movement (Da’wa faction) of former Prime Minister Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari. Possible PrimePotential prime ministerial candidate from this bloc was deputy President Adel Abd al-Mahdi, a moderate well respected by U.S. officials. However, some observers say Chalabi—the key architect of the effort to exclude candidates with Baathist ties—wanted to replace Maliki. This slate was considered close to Ayatollah Sistani, but did not receive his formal endorsement. Formed in October 2009. Led by former Prime Minister Iyad al-Allawi (Iraq National Accord) who is Shiite but his faction appeals to Sunnis, and Sunni leader Saleh al-Mutlaq (ex-Baathist who leads Iraq Front for National Dialogue). Backed by Iraqi Islamic Party leader and Deputy President Tariq Al-Hashimi as well as other powerful Sunnis, including Usama al-Nujaifi and Rafi al-Issawi. However, Justice and Accountability Commission (formerly the De-Baathification Commission) disqualified Mutlaq and another senior candidate on this slate, Dhafir al Ani, for supporting the outlawed Baath Party. An appeals court affirmed their disqualification (decision their disqualification, but the decision was legislatively reversed after the election). Competed again in 2010 as a joint KDP-PUK Kurdish list. However, Kurdish solidarity was shaken by July 25, 2009, Kurdistan elections in which a breakaway PUK faction called Change (Gorran) did unexpectedly well. Gorran ran its own separate list for the March 2010 elections. However, PUK’s ebbing strength in the north did not jeopardize Talabani’s continuation as president, although Sunnis sought that position. Led by Interior Minister Jawad Bolani, a moderate Shiite who has a reputation for political independence. Bolani haswas not previously been affiliated with the large Shiite Shiite parties such as ISCI and Dawa, and was only briefly affiliated with the Sadrist faction aligned with the Sadr faction (which has been strong in Bolani’s home town of Amarah, in southeastern Iraq). Considered a non-sectarian slate, this list Included Sunni tribal faction led by Shaykh Ahmad Abu Risha, brother of slain leader of the Sunni Awakening movement in Anbar. The list included first post-Saddam defense minister Sadun al-Dulaymi. A coalition of Sunni parties, including breakaway factions of the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP). Led by Ayad al-Samarrai, speaker of the COR. Viewed as a weak competitor for Sunni votes against Allawi slate. Sources: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; various press. Election Law Dispute and Final Provisions While coalitions formed to challenge Maliki, disputes emerged over the ground rules for the election. The holding of the elections required passage of an election law setting out the rules and parameters of the election. Under the Iraqi constitution, the elections were to be held by January 31, 2010, in order to allow 45 days before the March 15, 2010, expiry of the current COR’s term. Iraq’s election officials had ideally wanted a 90-day time frame between the election law passage and the election date, in order to facilitate the voter registration process. Congressional Research Service 8 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Because the provisions of the election law (covering such issues as voter eligibility, whether to allot quota seats to certain constituencies, the size of the next COR) have the potential to shape the election outcome, the major Iraqi communities were divided over its substance. These differences caused the COR to miss almost every self-imposed deadline to pass it. One dispute was over the election system, with many COR members leaning toward a closed list system (which gives the slates the power to determine who occupies actual COR seats after the election), despite a call by Grand Ayatollah Sistani for an open list vote (which allows voters to also vote for candidates as well as coalition slates). Each province served as a single constituency and a fixed number of seats for each province (see Table 2, for the number of seats per province). There was also a dispute over how to apply the election in disputed Tamim (Kirkuk) province, where Kurds feared that the election law drafts would cause Kurds to be underrepresented. The version of the election law passed by the COR on November 8, 2009 (141 out of 195 COR deputies voting), called for using 2009 food ration lists as representative of voter registration. The Kurds had sought this provision, facing down the insistence of many COR deputies to use 2005 voter lists, which presumably would contain fewer Kurds. A compromise in that version of the law allowed for a process to review, for one year, complaints about fraudulent registration, thus easing Sunni and Shiite Arab fears about an excessive Kurdish vote in Kirkuk. However, this version guaranteed only a small quota of seats for Iraqis living abroad or who are displaced—and Sunnis believed they would therefore be undercounted because it was mainly Sunnis who had fled Iraq. On this basis, one of Iraq’s deputy presidents, Tariq al Hashimi, a Sunni Arab, vetoed the law. The veto, on November 18, sent the law back to the COR. A new version was adopted on November 23, but it was viewed as even less favorable to Sunni Arabs than the first version, because it eliminated any reserved seats for Iraqis in exile. Hashimi again threatened a veto, which he was required to exercise within 10 days. As that deadline was about to lapse, the major factions, reportedly at the urging of U.S. and other diplomats, adopted a new law (December 6, 2009). Election Parameters The compromise version, not vetoed by any member of the presidency council, provided for: • Expansion of the size of the COR to 325 total seats. Of these, 310 were allocated by province, with the constituency sizes ranging from Baghdad’s 68 seats to Muthanna’s seven. The COR size, in the absence of a recent census, was based on taking 2005 population figures and adding 2.8% per year growth.5 • The remaining 15 seats were to be minority reserved seats (8) and “compensatory seats” (7)—seats allocated from “leftover” votes; votes for parties and slates that did not meet a minimum threshold to achieve any seats outright. • No separate electoral constituency for Iraqis in exile, so Iraqis in exile had their votes counted in the provinces where these voters originated. • An open list election system. • An election date set for March 7, 2010. 5 Analysis of Iraq expert Reidar Visser. “The Hashemi Veto.” http://gulfanalysis.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/thehashemi-veto/. Congressional Research Service 9 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Flashpoint: Disqualification of Some Prominent Sunnis The electoral process was at least partly intended to bring Sunni Arabs ever further into the political structure and to turn them away from violence and insurgency. Sunnis boycotted the January 2005 parliamentary and provincial elections and were, as a result, poorly represented in all governing bodies. Sunni slates, consisting mainly of urban, educated Sunnis, did participate in the December 2005 parliamentary elections, an apparent calculation that it would not serve Sunni interests to remain permanently alienated from the political process. The Sunni commitment to the political process appeared in some jeopardy in the context of a major dispute over candidate eligibility for the March 2010 elections. Although a Sunni boycott of the elections did not materialize, there was a Sunni Arab perception that the election might be unfair because of this dispute. The acute phase of this political crisis began in January 2010 when the Justice and Accountability Commission (JAC, the successor to the “De-Baathification Commission” that worked since the fall of Saddam to purge former Baathists from government) invalidated the candidacies of 499 individuals (out of 6,500 candidates running), spanning many different slates. The JAC was headed by Ali al-Lami, a Shiite who had been in U.S. military custody during 2005-2006 for alleged assistance to Iranian agents active in Iraq. He was perceived as answerable to or heavily influenced by Ahmad Chalabi, who had headed the DeBaathification Commission. Both were part of the Iraqi National Alliance slate and both are Shiites, leading many to believe that the disqualifications represented an attempt to exclude prominent Sunnis from the vote. The JAC argued that the disqualifications were based on law and careful evaluation of candidate backgrounds and not based on sect, because many of the candidates disqualified were Shiites. The IHEC reviewed and backed the invalidations on January 14, 2010; disqualified candidates had three days to file an appeal in court. Apparently due in part to entreaties from the U.S. Embassy, Vice President Joseph Biden (during a visit to Iraq on January 22, 2010) and partner embassies in Iraq—all of which feared a return to instability—the appeals court at first ruled that disqualified candidates could run in the election and clear up questions of Baathist affiliation afterwards. However, reported pressure by Maliki and other Shiites caused the court to reverse itself on February 12, 2010, and to disqualify 145 candidates. Twenty-six candidates were reinstated. The remaining approximately 300 disqualified candidates had already been replaced by other candidates on their respective slates. The slate most affected by the disqualifications was Iraqiyya, because two of its leading candidates, National Dialogue Front party leader Saleh alMutlaq and Dhafir al-Ani, both Sunnis, were barred from running. The Iraqiyya slate did not, as a whole, call for a broad boycott—nor did Mutlaq himself call for a boycott. Mutlaq was replaced as a candidate by his brother. The slate campaigned vigorously, and many Sunnis seemed to react by recommitting to a high turnout among their community, in order to achieve political results through the election process. Even the JAC’s disqualification of an additional 55 mostly Iraqiyya candidates the night before the election did not prompt a boycott. The crisis appeared to prompt the February 16, 2010, comments by General Ray Odierno, then the top U.S. commander in Iraq (who was replaced as of September 1, 2010, by his deputy, General Lloyd Austin), that Iran was working through Chalabi and al-Lami to undermine the legitimacy of the elections. General Odierno specifically asserted that Chalabi was in close contact with an Iraqi, COR member Jamal al-Ibrahimi, who is ana purported ally of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, who commands the Qods Force unit of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Congressional Research Service 10 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights (IRGC).6 Chalabi’s successful efforts to turn the election into a campaign centered on excluding ex-Baathists—which Sunnis view as a codeword for their sect—caused particular U.S. alarm. Possibly because of the disqualification dispute, Lami was assassinated on May 26, 2011, possibly by Sunnis who viewed him as an architect of the perceived election discrimination. Chalabi, now a member of parliament, replaced Lami as manager of the JAC, but Maliki dismissed him in that role, appointing instead the Minister for Human Rights. Election and Results About 85 total coalitions were accredited for the March 7, 2010, election. There were about 6,170 total candidates running on all these slates and, as noted, Iraqis were able to vote for individual candidates as well as overall slates. The major blocs are depicted in Table 1. All available press reports indicated that campaigning was vibrant and vigorous. Total turnout was about 62%, according to the IHEC. Turnout was slightly lower in Baghdad because of the multiple insurgent bombings that took place there just as voting was starting. The final count was announced on March 26, 2010, by the IHEC. As noted in Table 2, Iraqiyya won a plurality of seats, winning a narrow two-seat margin over Maliki’s State of Law slate. The Iraqi constitution (Article 73) mandates that the COR “bloc with the largest number” of members gets the first opportunity to form a government. On that basis, Allawi, leader of the Iraqiyya slate, demanded the first opportunity to form a government. However, on March 28, 2010, Iraq’s Supreme Court issued a preliminary ruling that any group that forms after the election could be deemed to meet that requirement, laying the groundwork for Allawi to be denied the right to the first opportunity to form a government. The vote was to have been certified by April 22, 2010, but factional wrangling delayed this certification. On March 21, 2010, before the count was final, Prime Minister Maliki issued a statement, referring to his role as armed forces commander-in-chief, demanding the IHEC respond to requests from various blocs for a manual recount of all votes. The IHEC responded that any recount decisions are under its purview and that a comprehensive recount would take an extended period of time. Several international observers, including then-U.N. Special Representative Representative for Iraq Ad Melkert, indicated that there was no cause, at that point, to suggest widespread fraud. (Melkert was replaced in September 2011 by Martin Kobler.) However, in response to an appeal by Maliki’s faction, on April 19, 2010, an Iraqi court ordered a recount of votes in Baghdad Province. The recount in the province, which has 68 elected seats, was completed on May 15, 2010, and did not result in an alteration of seat totals. This followed a few days after the major factions agreed to put aside any JAC disqualifications of winning candidates. With the seat count holding, the way was set for Iraq’s Supreme Court to certify the results. The final certification came on June 1, 2010, and the following timelines were to apply: • 6 Fifteen days after certification (by June 15), the new COR was to be seated and to elect a COR speaker and deputy speaker. (The deadline to convene was met, although, as noted, the COR did not elect a leadership team and did not meet again until November 11, 2010.) Gertz, Bill. “Inside the Ring.” Washington Times, February 18, 2010. Congressional Research Service 11 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights although, as noted, the COR did not elect a leadership team and did not meet again until November 11, 2010.) • After electing a speaker, but with no deadline, the COR is to choose a president (by a two-thirds vote). (According to Article 138 of the Iraqi constitution, after this election, Iraq is to have a president and at least one vice president—the “presidency council” concept was an interim measure that expired at the end of the first full-term government.) • Within another 15 days, the largest COR bloc is tapped by the president to form a government. (The selection of a president occurred on November 11, 2010, and Maliki was formally tapped to form a cabinet on November 25, 2010.) • Within another 30 days (by December 25), the prime minister-designate (Maliki) is to present a cabinet to the COR for confirmation (by majority vote). Post-Election Government In accordance with timelines established in the Constitution, the newly elected COR did convene on June 15, 2010. However, the session ended after only 18 minutes and, because of the political deadlock, did not elect a COR leadership team. Under Article 52 of the Constitution, the “eldest member” of the COR (Kurdish legislator Fouad Massoum) became acting COR speaker. During the period when no new government was formed, the COR remained inactive, with most COR members in their home provinces while still collecting their $10,000 per month salaries. The resentment over this contributed to the popular unrest in February 2011. Allawi’s chances of successfully forming a government appeared to suffer a substantial setback in May 2010 when Maliki’s slate and the rival Shiite INA bloc agreed to an alliance called the “National Alliance.” However, the alliance was not able to agree to a prime minister selectee, with the Sadr faction and ISCI opposing Maliki. With no agreement, the COR aborted its second meeting scheduled for July 27, 2010. On August 3, 2010, this putative alliance splintered. The various factions made little progress through August 2010, as Maliki insisted he remain prime minister for another term. With the factional disputes unresolved, Maliki remained prime minister in a caretaker role. Some observers assert that he continued to govern as a caretaker, having had little incentive to see a new government formed. With the end of the U.S. combat mission on August 31, 2010, approaching, the United States reportedly stepped up its involvement in political talks. Some discussions were held between Maliki and Allawi’s bloc on a U.S.-proposed formulas under which Allawi, in return for supporting Maliki, would head a new council that would have broad powers as a check and balance on the post of prime minister. Alternate proposals had Allawi being given the presidency, although the Kurds refused to cede that post to another community, fearing loss of leverage on other demands. The Kurds’ insistence was despite the fact that there would not be a “presidency council” with an executive veto in the next government—the transitional provision for that power expired after the first four-year government ended. An expectation that the August 10-September 11, 2010, Ramadan period would enable the blocs to reach an agreement was not met. On October 1, 2010, Iraq earned the distinction of having gone longer than any other country without an agreed government following an election. Part of the difficulty forming a government was the close result, and the dramatic implications of gaining or retaining power in Iraq, where Congressional Research Service 12 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights politics is often seen as a “winner take all” proposition. Others blamed Allawi for the impasse, claiming that he was insisting on a large, powerful role for himself even though he could not assemble enough COR votes to achieve a majority there. Congressional Research Service 12 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Political Agreement (“Irbil Agreement”) Reached On October 1, 2010, Maliki received the backing of most of the 40 COR deputies of Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr, bringing Maliki within striking distance of obtaining enough votes for another term as prime minister. The United States reportedly was alarmed at the prospect that Maliki might be able to form a government primarily by allying with Sadr, and by extension, Iran. However, in early November 2010, the United States, Allawi, and many of the Sunni Arab regional states acquiesced to a second Maliki term. The key question that remained was whether Maliki, and Iraq’s Kurds would agree to form a broad based government that meets the demands of Iraqiyya for substantial Sunni Arab inclusion. Illustrating the degree to which the Kurds reclaimed their former role of “kingmakers,” Maliki, Allawi, and other Iraqi leaders met in the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government-administered region in Irbil on November 8, 2010, to continue to negotiate on a new government. (Sadr did not attend the meeting in Irbil, but ISCI/Iraq National Alliance slate leader Ammar Al Hakim did.) On November 10, 2010, with reported direct intervention by President Obama, the “Irbil Agreement” was reached in which: (1) Allawi agreed to support Maliki and Talabani to remain in their offices for another term, and for Iraqiyya to join the new government; (2) an Iraqiyya figure reportedly would become COR Speaker, another (presumably Allawi himself) would chair the enhanced oversight body discussed above, though renamed the “National Council for Strategic Policies;”7 (3) Iraqiyya would obtain several major cabinet posts, including the Defense Minister post; and (4) amending the de-Baathification laws that had barred some Iraqis, such as Saleh alMutlaq, from holding political positions. Although some of the provisions of the agreement have been subsequently disputed or not implemented, as discussed below, observers praised it as helpful to U.S. policy because an agreement was signed among major factions, with Masoud Barzani and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffries attending. The agreement did not specify concessions to the Sadr faction, a development that observers viewed as a setback to Iran. At the November 11, 2010, COR session to implement the agreement, Iraqiyya figure Usama alNujaifi (brother of controversial Nineveh governor Atheel Nujaifi) was elected COR speaker, as agreed. However, Allawi and most of his bloc walked out after three hours over the refusal of the other blocs to readmit the three Iraqiyya members who had been disqualified from running for the COR by the JAC (see above on the disqualification crisis). The walkout raised U.S. and other fears that the agreement might immediately unravel, but the remaining COR members were sufficient for a quorum and Talabani was re-elected president after two rounds of voting. Fears were calmed on November 13, 2010, when most of Allawi’s bloc attended the COR session and continued to implement the settlement agreement; Allawi himself did not attend. On November 25, 2010, Talabani formally tapped Maliki as the prime minister-designate, giving him 30 days (until December 25) to name and achieve majority COR confirmation for a new cabinet. 7 Fadel, Leila and Karen DeYoung. “Iraqi Leaders Crack Political Deadlock.” Washington Post, November 11, 2010. Congressional Research Service 13 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights New Government Formed8 The stage was set for a new cabinet to be announced after December 19, when Allawi reaffirmed his intent to join the government. Allawi’s assurance came the same day that the COR voted (with barely a quorum achieved after a Shiite walkout of the vote) to reinstate to politics the three 7 8 Fadel, Leila and Karen DeYoung. “Iraqi Leaders Crack Political Deadlock.” Washington Post, November 11, 2010. The following information is taken from Iraqi news accounts presented in http://www.opensource.gov. Congressional Research Service 13 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights senior members of his bloc, including Saleh al-Mutlaq, who had been barred from politics by the JAC, as discussed above. Mutlaq was subsequently named one of three deputy prime ministers. On December 21, 2010, in advance of the December 25, 2010, deadline, Maliki presented a cabinet to the COR (42 seats, including the posts of prime minister, three deputy prime ministers, and 38 ministries and ministers of state) receiving broad approval. No permanent appointments were named for seven ministries. Still, the government formed was inclusive of all major factions. Among major outcomes were the following. • As for the State of Law list, Maliki remained prime minister, and retained for himself the Defense, Interior, and National Security posts pending permanent nominees for those positions. The faction holds seven other cabinet posts, in addition to the post of first deputy president (Khudair Al Khuzai of the Da’wa Party) and deputy prime minister for energy issues (Hussein Shahristani, previously the oil minister). • For Iraqiyya, in addition to Mutlaq becoming a deputy prime minister, Tariq alHashimi remained a deputy president (the second deputy).9 The bloc also obtained nine ministerial posts, of which a senior Iraqiyya figure, Rafi al-Issawi (previously a deputy prime minister), became finance minister. • For the Iraqi National Alliance, a senior figure, Adel Abdul Mahdi, remained one of the three deputy presidents. The alliance also obtained 13 cabinet positions, parceled out among its various factions. An INA technocrat Abd al Karim Luaibi, was appointed oil minister. A Fadilah party member, Bushra Saleh, is a minister of state without portfolio and was the only woman in the cabinet until the February 13, 2011, naming of Ibtihal Al Zaidy as minister of state for women’s affairs (although she is not from the INA). Another Fadila activist was named minister of justice. • Of the 13 INA cabinet seats, Sadr faction members head eight ministries, including Housing, Labor and Social Affairs, Ministry of Planning (Ali Abd alNabi, appointed in April 2011), and Tourism and Antiquities. A Sadrist also is one of two deputy COR speakers. However, these positions are relatively junior within the cabinet and appeared to represent less influence for the Sadrists than was anticipated. Still, the Sadr faction received some compensatory influence when one of its members subsequently became governor of Maysan Province. • The Kurdistan Alliance received major posts. Talabani stayed president; and the third deputy prime minister is Kurdish figure (PUK faction) Rows Shaways, who has served in various central and KRG positions since the fall of Saddam. Arif Tayfour is second deputy COR speaker. Alliance members have six other cabinet seats, including longtime Kurdish (KDP) stalwart Hoshyar Zebari remaining in position. He has been foreign minister since the transition governments that followed the fall of Saddam. Khairallah Hassan Babakir, was named trade minister in the February 13, 2011, “second wave” of ministerial appointments. 9 Some sources say that Hashimi and another figure, Adel Abdul Mahdi, may not have received permanent appointments to these second and third deputy presidential posts. Congressional Research Service 14 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights 8 The following information is taken from Iraqi news accounts presented in http://www.opensource.gov. Some sources say that Hashimi and another figure, Adel Abdul Mahdi, may not have received permanent appointments to these second and third deputy presidential posts. 9 Congressional Research Service 14 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights seats, including longtime Kurdish (KDP) stalwart Hoshyar Zebari remaining in position. He has been foreign minister since the transition governments that followed the fall of Saddam. Khairallah Hassan Babakir, was named trade minister in the February 13, 2011, “second wave” of ministerial appointments. Other Elections Possible There had been speculation that the March COR elections would be held concurrently with a referendum on the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement. The referendum was to be held by July 31, 2009, but the United States, which views the referendum as unnecessary, supported a delay. In mid-October 2009, Iraqi parliamentarians quietly shelved the referendum vote by failing to act on legislation to hold the referendum and focusing instead on the broader election law needed for the National Assembly elections.10 District and sub-district elections were previously slated for July 31, 2009, as well. However, those are delayed, and the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said in a report on U.N. operations in Iraq, released August 3, 2009, that these elections would likely be held later in 2010, after the National Assembly elections. No date for these elections has been announced. There could also be a vote on amendments to Iraq’s 2005 constitution if and when the major factions agree to finalize the recommendations of the constitutional review commission (CRC). There have been no recent major developments reported that would indicate if and when such a referendum might be ready. As noted above, there is discussion of provincial elections in the Kurdish region, which were not held during the January 2009 provincial elections in the other areas of Iraq, and were not held in the March 7, 2010, nationwide vote. Nor were they held in November 2010, as was scheduled, and no date is set. There could be a vote on a Kirkuk referendum, if a negotiated settlement is reached. Some Iraqis believe that the 2011 popular unrest, discussed below, has created a need for new nationwide provincial elections. However, existing provincial councils mostly maintain that doing so would be contrary to the constitution, which allows a four-year term to the councils elected in 2009. Continuing Political Schisms The Irbil Agreement did not resolve the underlying differences among the major communities. Ambassador to Iraq Jim Jeffries testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 1, 2011, describing the Iraqi government as a success for U.S. foreign policy because it is inclusive and “focused on power sharing.” However, subsequent disputes have, to some extent, tarnished that assessment. Among , and these differences spilled over into the Iraqi decision not to allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011 under terms acceptable to the United States. Among the sources of ongoing political friction is the fact that Maliki continues to hold major security posts, an issue that has caused written recriminations between him and Allawi since April 2011 and which threatens to potentially unravel governance. Security Ministry Appointment Disputes On July 9, 2011, with Talabani acting as mediator, the main political blocs attempted but again failed to reach agreement on nominees for the security-related ministries, as well as on the issue of whether to request that some U.S. troops remain in Iraq past 2011 (although the deadlock on this issue was resolved on August 3, 2011, as discussed further below). Maliki interprets the Irbil and which threatens to potentially unravel governance. Splits between Sunni leaders and Maliki 10 Sly, Liz. “Iraqi Push Fades For Referendum on U.S. Troop Pullout.” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 2009. Congressional Research Service 15 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights widened in October 2011 with the reported arrest and purging of over 600 Sunnis allegedly conspiring against the government. Security Ministry Appointment Disputes On July 9, 2011, with Talabani acting as mediator, the main political blocs attempted but again failed to reach agreement on nominees for the security-related ministries. Maliki interprets the Irbil Agreement as requiring appointment of a Sunni Arab as Defense Minister, and not necessarily a member of the Iraqiyya faction. Allawi’s view is that an Iraqiyya member is required to be appointed under the Irbil Agreement. With that dispute unresolved, on August 16, 2011, Maliki y appointed Sadun Dulaymi as acting Defense Minister. Dulaymi is a Sunni Arab but he is a member of the Iraq Unity Alliance and not a member of Iraqiyya. Maliki claimed that Iraqiyya Iraqiyya had suggested but withdrawn the names of some of its members for the position, and that he was forced to make a selection by an August 16, 2011, deadline agreed weeks earlier among major major factions. No newpermanent choices for Defense, Interior or National Security ministers were namedhave been formally nominated to date. National Council for Strategic Policies Dispute A further cause of tension between Maliki and AlawiAllawi is the continuing stalemate over the formation of the National Council for Strategic Policies. Some proposals call for the council to As noted above, the formation of such a council, and with substantial powers, was a provision of the Irbil Agreement. Some proposals from those sympathetic to Allawi call for the council to include the prime minister, president, their deputies, and a representative of all major blocs—and for decisions of the council to be binding on Maliki if they achieve support of 80% of the council members. However, theMaliki and his supporters want this Council to have as few powers as possible so as not to impinge upon the power of the Prime Minister. The body and its powers have not been voted on by the COR, and Allawi is considered unlikely to chair the body unless it is given significant authorities. Continuing Sunni Community Grievances The earlier disqualification crisis—andSeveral developments over the past few years—the election disqualification crisis discussed above, the denial to Allawi of the ability to try to form a government after his bloc won the most seats—leads many Sunni Arabs to question the fairness of the central government. Separately, Sunni Arabs resented the slow pace with which the Maliki seats, and arrests of Sunnis allegedly linked to the banned Baath Party—lead many Sunni Arabs to question the commitment of the central government to share power. One of the most significant additional Sunni Arab grievances is the slow pace with which the Maliki government implemented its pledge to fully integrate the approximately 100,000 “Sons of Iraq” fighters (former insurgents who ended their fight and cooperating with U.S. forces against Al Al Qaeda in Iraq and other militants) into the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) or provide them with government jobs. In 2009 and 2010, there were repeated reports that some Sons of Iraq had been dropped from payrolls, harassed, arrested, or sidelined, and that the Maliki government might want to strangle the program. However, Ambassador Jeffries testified on February 1, 2011, that no payment difficulties existed as of that time, and no U.S. official has since amended or altered that assertion. As of September 2011, more than half of them (about 50,000) havehad been integrated into the ISF or given civilian government jobs. However, in October and November 2011, reports resurfaced of governmental delay of payments to some of the Sons units. Congressional Research Service 15 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights 16 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Fears of some Sunnis were inflamed further in October and November 2011 by a series of arrests by security forces. About 600 Sunnis were arrested, ostensibly for involvement in an alleged plot revealed by the new leaders of Libya (based on information captured from former leader Muammar Qadhafi and his regime) in which Sunni Iraqis were attempting to organize a coup against the Iraqi government. Some Sunnis were reportedly purged from the security forces, and 140 faculty members from the University of Tikrit (Saddam’s home town) for alleged Baathist associations. As a reflection of the fears, the provincial council of the mostly Sunni province of Salahuddin (which contains Tikrit) voted on October 28, 2011 to start the process of forming a separate “region.” Previously, Basra and Wasit provinces had begun similar processes, although doing so involved full parliamentary concurrence and a popular referendum of approval; no single province has completed that process. On November 7, 2011, tribal leaders close to the Sons of Iraq movement claimed government complicity in an assassination attempt on the governor of the overwhelmingly Sunni province of Anbar. The continuing fears and concerns within the Sunni community might account for some of the high profile attacks that continue in Iraq, as well as a perceived upsurge of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) activities. On U.S. officials estimated in November 2011 that there might be 800-1,000 people in Al Qaeda-Iraq’s network, of which many are involved in media or finance of operations.11 On August 15, 2011, AQ-I announced that it would undertake a 100 attack campaign to avenge the May 1, 2011, killing by U.S. Special Forces of Osama bin Laden. The group carried out 40 attacks that day around Iraq, killing 90. On August 28, 2011, a suicide bomber killed 28 at the the major Sunni Umm al-Qura mosque in Baghdad, including one member of the COR. Several other other attacks against Iraqi Shiites and pro-government Sunnis have taken place since, including a September 26, 2011, series of bombings in the mostly Shiite city of Karbala, possibly representing an effort by AQ-I to restart sectarian conflict. A multiple-bomb attack occurred in Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad on October 28, 2011. KRG-Central Government Disputes/Combined Security Mechanism10Mechanism12 The COR elections and cabinet formation were not expected to—and did not—heal KRG-central government disputes. All the existing territorial and political disputes between the KRG and the central government had been aggravated by the 2009 provincial elections. In that vote, Sunni Arabs wrested control of the Nineveh (Mosul) provincial council from the Kurds, who won control of that council in the 2005 election because of the broad Sunni Arab boycott of that election. A Sunni list (al-Hadba’a) won a clear plurality of the 2009 Nineveh vote and subsequently took control of the provincial administration there. Al-Hadba’a is composed of hardline Sunni Arabs who openly oppose Kurdish encroachment in the province and who are committed to the “Arab and Islamic identity” of the province. A member of the faction, Atheel alNufaiji, is the governor (brother of 2010-2014 COR speaker Usama al-Nujaifi), and, even before the popular unrest that broke out in Iraq as of February 2011, the Kurds had been preventing his visitation of areas of Nineveh where the Kurds’ peshmerga militia operates. In the runup to the March 2010 national COR election, KRG President Masoud Barzani visited Washington, D.C. (January 2010) and, according to participants in his meetings, discussed with senior officials ways in which the Kurds would cooperate with Iraq’s Arabs after the election. That was widely interpreted as an Administration admonition not to establish territorial-related preconditions to join a governing coalition after the elections. However, KRG Prime Minister Barham Salih said on June 15, 2010, that Kurdish leaders submitted 19 specific demands from Iraq’s Arab leaders as a condition of providing Kurdish votes for any new governing coalition. The most notable demand was that the Kurds retain the presidency for one of their own, and many of the others concerned the Kirkuk and other territorial disputes discussed below. Although receiving from Maliki only vague assurances on their key demands, the main Kurdish factions eventually threw their weight behind Maliki to continue as over territory, autonomy for the KRG, oil exports from the KRG, proposed oil laws, and several other issues. These disputes are expected to widen once all U.S. troops leave Iraq, which could explain the rationale behind a November 2011 visit to Washington D.C. by KRG Prime Minister Barham Salih. The Kurdish nervousness about Maliki’s intentions after the U.S. withdrawal might also account for the visit of President Talabani to Saudi Arabia in October 2011; the Saudis are seen as a counterweight to Iran’s support for Maliki. The territorial and political disputes between the KRG and the central government have been acute since the 2009 provincial elections, in which Sunni Arabs wrested control of the Nineveh (Mosul) provincial council from the Kurds, who won control of that council in the 2005 election because of the broad Sunni Arab boycott of that election. A Sunni list (al-Hadba’a) won a clear plurality of the 2009 Nineveh vote and subsequently took control of the provincial administration there. Al-Hadba’a is composed of hardline Sunni Arabs who openly oppose Kurdish encroachment in the province and who are committed to the “Arab and Islamic identity” of the 11 Michael Schmidt and Eric Schmitt. “Leaving Iraq, U.S. Fears New Surge of Qaeda Terror.” New York Times, November 6, 2011. 12 For more information on Kurd-Baghdad disputes, see CRS Report RS22079, The Kurds in Post-Saddam Iraq, by Kenneth Katzman. Congressional Research Service 17 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights province. A member of the faction, Atheel al-Nufaiji, is the governor (brother of 2010-2014 COR speaker Usama al-Nujaifi), and, even before the popular unrest that broke out in Iraq as of February 2011, the Kurds had been preventing his visitation of areas of Nineveh where the Kurds’ peshmerga militia operates. The United States has played a role since 1991 of protecting Iraq’s Kurds from the central government. Since the overthrow of Saddam, however, the Kurds’ “special relationship” with the United States has frayed somewhat because of the U.S. need to work closely with Maliki and the central government. In the runup to the March 2010 national COR election, KRG President Masoud Barzani visited Washington, D.C. (January 2010) and, according to participants in his meetings, discussed with senior officials ways in which the Kurds would cooperate with Iraq’s Arabs after the election. That was widely interpreted as an Administration admonition not to establish territorial-related preconditions to join a governing coalition after the elections. However, KRG Prime Minister Barham Salih said on June 15, 2010, that Kurdish leaders submitted 19 specific demands from Iraq’s Arab leaders as a condition of providing Kurdish votes for any new governing coalition. The most notable demand was that the Kurds retain the presidency for one of their own, and many of the others concerned the Kirkuk and other territorial disputes discussed below. Although receiving from Maliki only vague assurances on their key demands, the main Kurdish factions eventually threw their weight behind Maliki to continue as prime minister, as discussed above. Additional friction was created in the context of the KRG’s parliamentary and presidential elections on July 25, 2009. The KRG leadership had been planning, during that vote, to conduct a referendum on a separate KRG constitution. However, the central government asserted that a KRG constitution would conflict with the publicly adopted national constitution, and that the KRG draft constitution, adopted by the Kurdish parliament on June 23, 2009, claimed Kurdish control over disputed territories and oil resources. The KRG did not hold the referendum. 10 For more information on Kurd-Baghdad disputes, see CRS Report RS22079, The Kurds in Post-Saddam Iraq, by Kenneth Katzman. Congressional Research Service 16 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Combined Security Mechanism at Kurd-Arab Frontier In part to prevent outright violence between the KRG and the central government, in August 2009 then-top U.S. commander in Iraq General Odierno developed an unprecedented plan to partner U.S. forces with peshmerga units and with ISF units in the province to build confidence between the two forces and. The process was also intended to reassure Kurdish, Arab, Turkomen, and other province residents. Implementation of this “combined security mechanism” (CSM) began in January 2010 and U.S. officials said on August 16, 2010, that the joint (ISF-U.SKurdishS-Kurdish) patrols, maintenance of 22 checkpoints, and U.S. training of participating ISF and peshmerga forces would continue until the U.S. pullout at the end of 2011. The mechanism has been administered through provincial level Combined Coordination Centers, which bring the parties together to play operations in disputed areas. Disagreements are referred to a Senior Working Group and a High Level Ministerial Committee.1113 As of October 2010, the United States had ceased participating at four of the checkpoints, in concert with the U.S. change of mission to a non-combat role (Operation New Dawn) on September 1, 2010, and U.S. participation in the remaining remaining checkpoints ceased as of August 1, 2011. Many who assert that at least some U.S. forces should to remain in Iraq after 2011 do so on the grounds that U.S. troops are needed to continue to participate in the joint patrols and training 13 “Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops.” Rand Corporation, 2011. Congressional Research Service 18 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights components of the CSM.14components of the CSM.12 However, Maj. Gen. David Perkins, commander of the 5,000 U.S. forces still in northern Iraq, said on September 29, 2011, that the CSM continued to work well even after the transition of U.S. forces out of the joint checkpoints, and that there is not the need for a substantial U.S. force in northern Iraq after 2011. That view supportssupported that of those in the Administration who want to keep as small force as possible in Iraq after 2011. In concert with the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, the headquarters of the 750 U.S. troops in the north closed on October 20, 2011, and those forces left the north. Previously, some Previously, some have advanced alternatives to U.S. force participation in the CSM, including giving the U.S role to a United Nations force, NATO, or civilians (Iraqi or international). It is not clear that any of these alternative ideas are supported by Iraqi factions. Broader Territorial Issues (“Disputed Internal Boundaries”) The CSM is not a substitute for a broader settlement of the various territorial disputes between the Kurds and Iraq’s Arabs—the most emotional of which is the Kurdish insistence that Tamim Province (which includes oil-rich Kirkuk) be formally affiliated to the KRG. There was to be a census and referendum on the affiliation of the province by December 31, 2007 -, in accordance with Article 140 of the Constitution -, but the Kurds have agreed to repeated delays in order to avoid jeopardizing overall progress in Iraq. Nor has the national census that is pivotal to any such referendum been conducted; it was scheduled to begin on October 24, 2010. In early October 2010, Maliki postponed it until at least December 2010 to allow time for a full-term government to be put in place, which would oversee the census. The census has not begun, as of August 2011, in part because of continued factional disputes over how to account for movements of populations into or out of the Kurdish controlled provinces. Attempting to resolve these long-standing disputes is another issue within the mandate of UNAMI, and consultations with all parties are ongoing, according to UNAMI head Ad Melkert.13 11 “Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops.” Rand Corporation, 2011. Ibid. 13 Meeting with congressional staff, February 24, 2011. 12 Congressional Research Service 17 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights .15 The three Kurdish-controlled provinces and the disputed province of Kirkuk did not hold provincial elections with the rest of Iraq on January 31, 2009. Elections had been rescheduled for November 2010 but were not held. However, the Property Claims Commission that is adjudicating claims from the Saddam regime’s forced resettlement of Arabs into the KRG region is functioning and about 10,000 Iraqi Arabs have relocated back to their original provinces as of the end of 2010. There continues to be substantial friction between Sunni and Shiite Arabs in Diyala province. This is in part because of disputes over territory in the province that are inhabited by Kurds and Arabs. In addition, there is tension in the province between Sunni and Shiite Arabs there because Sunni militants drove out many Shiites from the province at the height of the civil conflict during 2005-2007. In October 2011, the central government ordered the Kurdish flags taken down from public buildings in Khanaqin, a Kurdish town in the province; the Kurdish police in the city disobeyed the order. 14 15 Ibid. Meeting with congressional staff, February 24, 2011. Congressional Research Service 19 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights KRG Oil Exports Another issue remains over the ability of the Kurds to export oil that is discovered and extracted in the KRG region. Oil exports from the KRG had been suspended during 2010 over central government opposition to proposed mechanisms for paying the international investors who are performing the extraction and exportation. However, Ambassador Jeffries testified on February 1, 2011, that, as a consequence of the formation of a government and greater factional harmony, a compromise had been reached that would allow the KRG energy exports to resume, and exportation of about 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day has resumed from the KRG fields as of March 1, 2011. Still, the Kurds have opposed draft oil laws adopted by the Iraqi cabinet in late August 2011, and sent on to the COR for ratification, as favoring a centralized energy sector that would impinge on KRG control of its energy resources. In connection with the visit of KRG Prime Minister Salih, Kurdish representatives told the author on November 8, 2011 that it is likely that the oil laws would taken up by the COR, after further negotiation, by the end of 2011.16 Intra-Kurdish Divisions Further complicating the political landscape are widening divisions within the Kurdish community. The KRG elections also, to some extent, shuffled the political landscape. A breakaway faction of President Talabani’s PUK, called “Change” (“Gorran”), won an unexpectedly high 25 seats (out of 111) in the Kurdistan national assembly, embarrassing the PUK and weakening it relative to the KDP. KRG President Masoud Barzani, leader of the KDP, easily won reelection against weak opposition. Gorran ran its own list in the March 2010 elections and constituted a significant challenge to the Kurdistan Alliance in Sulaymaniyah Province, according to election results. As a result, of the 57 COR seats held by Kurds, 14 are held by parties other than the Kurdistan Alliance. Gorran has 8, the Kurdistan Islamic Union has 4, and the Islamic Group of Kurdistan has 2. These divisions may also be playing a role in the popular demonstrations that have occurred in Sulaymaniyah since February 2011. The demonstrations reflect frustration over jobs and services but possibly also over the monopolization of power in the KRG by the Barzani and Talabani clans. Some of these have been suppressed by peshmerga. The Sadr Faction’s Continuing Agitation The young Shiite cleric, Moqtada Al Sadr, who is about 33 years old, sees himself and his faction as the main representative for Iraq’s Shiites, causing an inherent rivalry with Maliki and other more mainstream Shiite leaders in Iraq. As noted above, Sadr was part of the anti-Maliki Shiite coalition Iraqi National Congressional Research Service 18 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Alliance for the March 2010 national elections. On October 17, 2009, the Sadr movement held a “primary” election to determine who would fill the 329 total candidate slots that will be fielded by the Sadr movement in the elections (as part of the broader Iraqi National Alliance bloc discussed above). About 800 total candidates competed. After the election, the Sadr faction, acting on instructions from Moqtada Al Sadr who was still in Iran, initially insisted that Maliki should be replaced by another Shiite. However, the shift by the faction in late September 2010 was decisive in Maliki’s success in achieving another term. In 16 Author conversation with KRG Washington D.C. representative Qubad Talabani. November 8, 2011. Congressional Research Service 20 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights return, as discussed above, Sadrists were given several seats in the cabinet and a Sadrist governor was later installed in Maysan Province, which includes the Sadrist stronghold of Amarah. The governor reportedly refuses to meet with U.S. military commanders. Moqtada Al Sadr has been more politically visible and active since he returned to Iraq on January 5, 2011. Since his return, he has given several speeches that, among other themes, insist on full implementation of a planned U.S. withdrawal by the end of 2011. Sadr’s position on this appeared has also issued statements opposing the awarding of Iraqi energy contracts to American firms and called on his followers to protest the failure of the Maliki government to improve public services. Sadr’s position on the U.S. withdrawal appeared so firm that, in an April 9, 2011, statement, he threatened to reactivate his Mahdi Army militia if U.S. forces remained in Iraq beyond the December 31, 2011, deadline. Despite his indication in a May 13, 2011, sermon in Najaf that he might withdraw this threat if there were a strong consensus among the other blocs that U.S. troops should stay,1417 his followers conducted a large march in Baghdad on May 26, 2011, to make clear that the faction would go to great lengths to oppose any extension of the U.S. presence in Iraq beyond 2011. On August 7, 2011, Sadr threatened to direct his followers to attack U.S. troops if they remain in Iraq beyond 2011. He tempered this insistence somewhat on September 11, 2011, by calling on is followers not to attack withdrawing U.S. troops so as not to provide the United States or the Iraqi government an excuse to retain troops in Iraq after 2011. Sadr has also issued statements opposing the awarding of Iraqi energy contracts to American firms and called on his followers to protest the failure of the Maliki government to improve public services. Sadr’s threats against U.S. forces may not be completely idle. In June and July 2011, U.S. officials march in Baghdad on May 26, 2011, against any extension of the U.S. presence. The threats were considered pivotal to the Iraqi government decision in October 2011 not to meet U.S. requirements for retaining a small number of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond 2011. Sadr’s threats against U.S. forces were considered not idle. In June and July 2011, U.S. officials accused pro-Sadr Shiite militias for an elevated level of U.S. troop deaths in June 2011 (14 killed, the highest in any month in over one year). These militias operate under names including Asa’ib Al Haq (League of the Righteous), Khata’ib Hezbollah (Hezbollah Battalions), and Promised Day Brigade. U.S. officials have accused Iran of arming the militias with upgraded rocket-propelled munitions, possibly in an effort to ensure a full U.S. withdrawal and to claim credit for forcing that withdrawal. U.S. officials reportedly requested that the ISF act against these militias and prevail on Iran to stop aiding the militias. Press reports and U.S. commander comments in August and September 2011 suggested the strategy had, at least temporarily, succeeded in reducing Shiite attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. However, outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iran was providing the militias with increasingly capable Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions (IRAM’s) and that the United States would act against the militias if they act against U.S. forces. There were some attacks on U.S. forces in the Maysan area in October 2011. While Sadr has long sought to highlight Maliki’s failures to bolster his own influence, the Sadr faction’s extensive participation in the post-2010 government complicates the Sadrist efforts to paint governmental failures as purely the fault of Maliki. In addition, the Sadr faction is said to be using its fundraising ability to develop charity and employment networks (so-called 14 Davis, Aaron. “Shiite Infighting May Be Key to U.S. Extension in Iraq.” Washington Post, May 15, 2011. Congressional Research Service 19 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights “Mumahidoon” or “those who pave the way”) that rival or displace those of the central government—employing a political model similar to that of Hizballah in Lebanon.1518 Related Governance Issues The formation of the government in December 2010 raised hopes that Iraq was well on its way to permanent stability, the strengthening of democracy and institution-building, and a turning of Iraqi official attention toward basic governance and economic issues. U.S. officials, as testified by Ambassador Jeffries on February 1, 2011, saw signs that the factional comity evidenced in the 17 18 Davis, Aaron. “Shiite Infighting May Be Key to U.S. Extension in Iraq.” Washington Post, May 15, 2011. Healy, Jack. “Cleric’s Anti-U.S. Forces Poised for Gains in Iraq.” New York Times, December 20, 2010. Congressional Research Service 21 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights new government would enable the COR to move quickly on long-stalled initiatives. In terms of immediate Iraqi legislative business, the COR turned to and was able, by the end of February 2011, to adopt a calendar year 2011 budget. The draft $67 billion budget was submitted to the COR on December 18, 2010, and was subsequently adopted. Ambassador Jeffries pointed to other signs of progress, including resolving the dispute over the de-Baathification issue. In February 2011, other observers reported progress toward enactment of the national hydrocarbon laws that are needed to encourage foreign investment in Iraq’s relatively undeveloped energy sector. Substantial progress was made in August 2011 when both the COR and the Cabinet drafted the needed oil laws, although there were differences in their individual versions. The Cabinet adopted its A version by the Oil and Natural Resources Committee was presented to the full CoR on August 17, 2011. The Cabinet adopted its separate version on August 28, 2011; the COR iswas expected to take up the issue when it reconvenes on reconvened on September 6, 2011, after the Eid al-Fitr celebration marking the end of Ramadan. However,It was unclear which version would form the basis of final legislation, amid opposition from the Kurds to what they see as an overly centralized energy industry encapsulated in the draft law has slowed the legislation’s progress. Some note that efforts to rein in official corruption have faltered because no comprehensive anticorruption law has been passedCabinet’s draft law. The opposition and the presence of two competing versions of the oil laws account for the postponement of further COR action apparently until at least the end of 2011. Also not passed are laws addressing the environment, other elections, consumer protections, intellectual property rights, building codes, and a new national flag. Many factions flag, and the permanent rules for de-Baathification. Many factions, not only Sunnis or Kurds, continued to remain wary of Prime Minister Maliki’s long-term intentions. Some consolidation of power. Iraqi suspicions of a lack of commitment to governing transparency were reinforced by Maliki’s request that Iraq’s Supreme Court rule that several independent commissions—including the Independent Higher Election Commission and the anti-corruption commission—be supervised by the cabinet. The court ruled in Maliki’s favor on January 23, 2011, although the court also said in its ruling that the institutions must remain free of political interference.16 Others19 Others (mostly Iraq’s Sunnis but also the Kurds and some Shiite factions) express concern that Maliki intends to consolidate control over all armed forces. In 2008, he began to create or restructure security organs to report to his office rather than the Defense or Interior ministries. Through his Office of the Commander-in-Chief, he commands direct command of the National Counter-Terrorism Force (about 10,000 personnel) as well as the Baghdad Brigade, responsible for security in the capital. Reports quoting U.S. commanders in Iraq in June 2011 say that lower level commanders often bypass the official chain of command and report directly to Maliki’s office. The concerns about Maliki’s intentions could account for the factional disputes that have held up the appointment of permanent ministers for any of the three security ministries. As noted above, Sadun Dulaymi was selected Defense Minister in mid-August 15 16 Healy, Jack. “Cleric’s Anti-U.S. Forces Poised for Gains in Iraq.” New York Times, December 20, 2010. Parker, Ned and Salar Jaff. “Electoral Ruling Riles Maliki’s Rivals.” Los Angeles Times, January 23, 2011. Congressional Research Service 20 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights 2011, but on an acting basis, and the National Security and Interior ministry posts remain held by Maliki. In an earlier example, in February 2010, Maliki’s government reportedly directed the Iraqi Army’s Fourth Division to cordon a provincial council building in Tikrit to influence the resolution of a dispute over the Salahuddin provincial council’s ousting of the former governor of the province.17 security ministries. In an earlier example, in February 2010, Maliki’s government reportedly directed the Iraqi Army’s Fourth Division to cordon a provincial council building in Tikrit to influence the resolution of a dispute over the Salahuddin provincial council’s ousting of the former governor of the province.20 19 Parker, Ned and Salar Jaff. “Electoral Ruling Riles Maliki’s Rivals.” Los Angeles Times, January 23, 2011. Myers, Steven Lee and Anthony Shadid. “Maliki Faulted On Using Army in Iraqi Politics.” New York Times, February 11, 2010. 20 Congressional Research Service 22 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights 2011 Unrest Iraq’s government, although flawed, is the product of democratic choices. Therefore, many experts were surprised when protests that have(which built to the point where they ousted leaders in Egypt and Tunisia spread to Iraq. ) broke out in Iraq. Small protests began in several provinces on February 6, 2011, and later expanded to numerous provinces including Baghdad, Maysan, Sulaymaniyah, Basra, Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, and Diwayniyah provinces. Protests, although small and infrequent compared to those witnessed in several other Middle Eastern countries during 2011, resulted in 20 deaths on the February 25, 2011, “Day of Rage” demonstrations called by activists. Most experts agree that the protesters, although to some extent inspired by the uprisings throughout the Middle East, do not have the similar objective of toppling Iraq’s leadership because Iraq’s government is the product of democratic processes. The spread of unrest into Iraq suggested to many that Iraqis have been frustrated by what they perceive as a nearly exclusive focus of the major factions on politics rather than governing or improving services. Many protesters have expressed particular outrage at the still severe shortages of electricity in Iraq, as well as to the lack of job opportunities and to perceived elite corruption. Iraqis who cannot afford their own generators (or to share a generator with a few others), face repeated power outages every day. Politically, the protests have affected all factions. The demonstrations caused the resignations of provincial governors in Wasit and Basra provinces and of several municipal leaders in Anbar Province. The governor of Nineveh, discussed above, survived a political challenge there even though Maliki (backed by the Kurds who distrust governor Nujaifi) reportedly sought to use the unrest to oust this political rival from that post. Jafar Al Sadr, who obtained the second most votes in the March 2010 elections on Maliki’s list (after Maliki himself), resigned from the COR on February 17, 2011, to protest what he sees as elite interest in politics over governing. The use of force was also at odds with statements by Grand Ayatollah Sistani supporting the right to peacefully protest; a Sistani representative reportedly attended the Day of Rage demonstrations. Moqtada Al Sadr also supported peaceful demonstrations, although its assumption of some of the service-related ministries has complicated the efforts of his faction to absolve itself for responsibility for governmental failures to provide services. As noted above, Sadr has called for his followers to demonstrate in early September 2011In September 2011, Sadr followers held some small additional demonstrations against the government’s failure to provide services. Unrest in the KRG region appeared to reflect deep frustrations and was more intense than in the rest of Iraq. The unrest in Sulaymaniyah resulted in the deaths of at least three protestors at the hands of peshmerga and Kurdish intelligence (Asayesh), and is said to rattle the top Kurdish leaders who fear the KRG’s image as an oasis of stability and prosperity in Iraq is being clouded. Demonstrations in Sulaymaniyah on February 17, also revived long-standing but suppressed 17 Myers, Steven Lee and Anthony Shadid. “Maliki Faulted On Using Army in Iraqi Politics.” New York Times, February 11, 2010. Congressional Research Service 21 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights tensions between the PUK and the KDP as the KDP retaliated for protester attacks on some of its offices. Both major Kurdish parties have used the unrest to advance pan-Kurdish issues rather than combat each other. After the February 17 clashes discussed above, the two parties ordered peshmerga forces into disputed Kirkuk ostensibly to protect demonstrators from Sunni Arab insurgents, although Sunni Arabs saw the move as an attempt to stake the Kurdish claim to Kirkuk through armed force. The governor and provincial council chairs of Kirkuk resigned on March 15, 2011, and a member of the Turkmen minority that is numerous in Kirkuk is expected to become the became the new council chair. The newcurrent governor is, like his predecessor, a Kurd; he is Najmaddin Karim, Congressional Research Service 23 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights a longtime Kurdish activist in the United States before he moved back to Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein. Most, but not . Most, but not all, peshmerga had withdrawn from Kirkuk as of April 1, 2011. Government Response and Prospects The government has soughtwas able to defuse the unrest in Iraq, with mixed success. In early February 2011, popular unrest with varied measures. In February 2011, Maliki announced a voluntary cut in his salary (from about $350,000 per year to about half half that) and indicated he would not seek a third term when his current term expires in 2014. On February 27, 2011, he announced that his new cabinet would have “100 days” to prove their its effectiveness or face replacement. That deadline expired on June 7, 2011, without significant incident, although U.S. diplomats say the government has begunbegan public works projects and provided some fuel supplies as part of its efforts to show results by that time. In addition, on May 31, 2011, third deputy president Adel Abdul Mahdi resigned in an effort to show that the government is committed to cutting its bloated bureaucracy. To reinforce that commitment, the COR voted on July 30, 2011, to back Maliki’s plan to reduce the number of cabinet posts from the current 42 to 29. Other government actions appear intended to assert long-standing positions. For example, in response to the unrest, 12 out of 28 members of the Najaf provincial council petitioned to convert the province to a “region,” as provided for in the constitution. Although the petition meets the constitutional requirement (one-third of a provincial council filing a petition) to start that process, it is not clear that a referendum will achieve a popular majority in the province to accomplish that transition. Another component of the response was to appoint several technocrats to permanently fill cabinet slots in ministries that deliver services to the public. In a wave of appointments on February 13, 2011, an Iraqiyya technocrat, Raad Shallal, was appointed minister of Electricity and Power. In addition, Municipality and Public Works minister Adel Mohder was named, as were appointments to be ministers of state for tribal affairs, civilian community affairs, and national reconciliation. Shallal was removed in August 2011, most likely as a scapegoat for continued electricity shortages, although the stated cause of his removal was a failure to follow proper procedures in signing $1.7 billion worth of power plant construction contracts with Canadian and German firms. The government has also used a modest amount of repression. In early June 2011, in advance of the the June 7 “100 day” deadline, the government detained several dozen activists in order to preempt preempt protests. Additional steps have been taken since to curb protests, including tolerating pro-government progovernment thugs to beat demonstrators on June 10, 2011. Either because of the repression or because of lack of popular support, demonstrations that continue have been relatively scattered and small. Congressional Research Service 22 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights General Human Rights Issues U.S. and international officials say they expect the 2010-2014 government to make further progress establishing rule of law and adherence to international standards of human rights. The State Department’s report on human rights for 2010 released April 8, 2011, largely repeated the previous year’s characterizations of Iraq’s human rights record as follows: “Extremist violence, coupled with weak government performance in upholding the rule of law, resulted in widespread Congressional Research Service 24 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights and severe human rights abuses.”1821 The State Department report cited a wide range of human rights problems committed by Iraqi government security and law enforcement personnel, including some unlawful killings; torture and other cruel punishments; poor conditions in prison facilities; denial of fair public trials; arbitrary arrest; arbitrary interference with privacy and home; limits on freedoms of speech, assembly, and association due to sectarianism and extremist threats; lack of protection of stateless persons; wide scale governmental corruption; human trafficking; and limited exercise of labor rights. Trafficking in Persons The State Department’s Trafficking in Persons report for 2011, released on June 27, 2011, places Iraq in “Tier 2 Watch List.” This is one rank below Tier 3, the lowest ranking. The relatively negative rating is on the grounds that, during the reporting period, Iraq did not demonstrate evidence of significant efforts to punish traffickers or proactively identify victims. The report says the Iraqi government has a written plan that, if implemented, would go a long way toward complying with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and, for that reason, was not given a Tier 3 ranking. Media and Free Expression While State Department and other reports attribute most of Iraq’s human rights difficulties to the security situation and factional infighting, apparent curbs on free expression appear independent of such factors. The State Department human rights report for 2010 noted numerous laws that restrict press freedoms, and instances in which officials have beaten or intimidated journalists who try to do their work. In some past cases, Maliki has sued publications that have written articles alleging corruption or nepotism on his part. One issue that troubles human rights activists is a draft law on freedom of expression. The draft reportedly allows authorities to curtail rights in order to protect “the public interest.” The draft was approved by the Council of Ministers (the cabinet) on May 16, 2011, and remains under consideration in the National AssemblyCoR. The draft allows for peaceful protest but would require demonstration demonstration organizers to obtain a permit. Labor Rights A 1987 (Saddam era) labor code remains in effect. Although Iraqis are legally allowed to join unions, the labor code virtually rules out independent union activity. Unions have no legal power to negotiate with employers or protect workers’ rights through collective bargaining. However, 18 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154462.htm. Congressional Research Service 23 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights some of the February 2011 street demonstrations protesting lack of services have included demands for more worker rights. Religious Freedom/Situation of the Christian Religious Minority In regard to human rights, a major concern is the safety and security of Iraq’s Christian population, which is concentrated in northern Iraq as well as in Baghdad. The situation of 21 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154462.htm. Congressional Research Service 25 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Christians is addressed in the State Department’s “July – December 2010 Religious Freedom Report,” released September 13, 2011. The report notes overallnoted “no change” in the status of respect for religious freedom by the government for the reporting period, but does note the did list numerous attacks on the community’s houses of worship and its clergy. The report praised the COR’s November 2010 approval of a document calling on the government to protect Iraq’s Christians. Attacks on members of the community appear to occur in spates. In the run-up to the January 2009 provincial elections, about 1,000 Christian families reportedly fled the province in October 2008, although Iraqi officials report that most families returned by December 2008. The issue faded in 2009 but then resurfaced late in that year when about 10,000 Christians in northern Iraq, fearing bombings and intimidation, fled the areas near Kirkuk during October-December 2009. On October 31, 2010, a major attack on Christians occurred when a church in Baghdad (Sayidat al-Najat Church) was besieged by militants and as many as 60 worshippers were killed. The siege shook the faith of the Christian community in their security. Several other attacks appearing to target Iraqi Christians have taken place sinceMany Christian families fled their homes after the church attack, often going to live with relatives in Christian-inhabited locations around Iraq. Partly as a result, Christian celebrations of Christmas 2010 were said to be subdued—following three years in which Christians had felt confident enough to celebrate that holiday more openly. Many Christian families fled their homes after the church attack, often going to live with relatives in Christian-inhabited locations around Iraqopenly. Several other attacks appearing to target Iraqi Christians have taken place since.. Some Iraqi Christians blame all the various attacks on them on Al Qaeda in Iraq, which is still somewhat strong in Nineveh Province and which associates Christians with the United States. Some human rights groups allege that it is the Kurds who are committing abuses against Christians and other minorities in the Nineveh Plains, close to the KRG-controlled region. Kurdish leaders deny the allegations, and the State Department human rights report for 2010 says the KRG has permitted Christians fleeing violence in Baghdad to relocate into KRG-controlled areas. Some Iraqi Christian groups advocate a “Nineveh Plains Province Solution,” in which the Nineveh Plains would be turned into a self-administering region, possibly its own province but affiliated or under KRG control. Supporters of the idea claim such a zone would pose no threat to the integrity of Iraq, but others say the plan’s inclusion of a separate Christian security force could set the scene for violence and confrontation. Even at the height of the U.S. military presence in Iraq, U.S. forces did not specifically protect Christian sites at all times, partly because Christian leaders do not want to appear closely allied with the United States. The FY2008 consolidated appropriation earmarked $10 million in ESF from previous appropriations to assist the Nineveh Plain Christians. A supplemental appropriation for 2008 and 2009 (P.L. 110-252) earmarked another $10 million for this purpose. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-117) made a similar provision for FY2010, although focused on Middle East minorities generally and without a specific dollar figure mandated for Iraqi Christians. In the 112th Congress, a bill, H.R. 440, which would establish a post of Special Envoy to promote religious freedom in the Middle East and South Central Asia, passed the House on July 29, 2011, by a vote of 402-20. Congressional Research Service 24 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Before the 2010-2011 rounds of violence against Christians, about 400,000 Christians had left Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein—a large proportion of the approximately 1 million–1.5 million Christian population that was there during Saddam’s time. Christian priests have been kidnapped and killed; the body of Chaldean Catholic archbishop Faraj Rahho was discovered in Mosul on March 13, 2008, two weeks after his reported kidnapping. An attack on the Yazidis in August 2007, which killed about 500 personspeople, appeared to reflect the precarious situation for Iraqi minorities. Congressional Research Service 26 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Corruption The State Department human rights report for 2010 contains substantial detail on the relative lack of progress in curbing official corruption. The report discusses political and other factors that have caused anti-corruption institutions, such as the Commission on Integrity, to be regularly thwarted or hampered in attempts to investigate and prosecute corruption. The COR has its own Integrity Committee that oversees the executive branch and the governmental anti-corruption bodies. Some note that efforts to rein in official corruption have faltered because no comprehensive anti-corruption law has been passed. Mass Graves As is noted in the State Department report on human rights for 2010, the Iraqi government continues to uncover mass graves of victims of the Saddam regime. This effort is under the authority of the Human Rights Ministry. On April 15, 2011, a mass grave of more than 800 bodies became the latest such discovery. The largest to date was a mass grave in Mahawil, near Hilla, that contained 3,000 bodies; the grave was discovered in 2003, shortly after the fall of the regime. Camp Ashraf The Iraqi government treatment of the population of Camp Ashraf, a camp in which over 3,000 Iranian oppositionists have resided, is an indicator of the government performance on human rights. The residents of the camp accuse the government of repression and of scheming to expel the residents or extradite them to Iran, where they might face prosecution or death. An Iraqi military redeployment at the camp on April 8, 2011, resulted in major violence against camp residents in which 36 of them were killed. Iraq says the Camp will close at the end of 2011 and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the European Union, and other organizations are working to relocate the Ashraf residents within or outside Iraq to avoid violence or forcible expulsion from the Camp when Iraq enforces its closure deadline. This issue is discussed in This issue is discussed in substantially greater detail in CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, by Kenneth Katzman. Regional Dimension For Iraq’s neighbors as well as for the United States, the stakes in the outcome of the political process in Iraq have been high. First and foremost, according to most experts, the United States seeks to prevent the emergence of a governing coalition that marginalizes Sunni Arabs or bolsters the influence of the most pro-Iranian factions such as that of Sadr. The key U.S. objectives have been met thus far, in large part because of the inclusion of senior Iraqiyya figures in high positions and the lower-than-expected profile of Sadrists in the new cabinet. Iran may be seeking to enhance its influence as the U.S. presence in Iraq ends or is sharply reduced at the end of 2011. Iran’s reported weapons deliveries to pro-Sadr militias could be intended to ensure that all U.S. forces leave, or to give the impression that the militias are driving the United States out of Iraq. However, if that is Tehran’s intent, it appeared to fail on August 3, Congressional Research Service 25 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights 2011, when Iraqi factions, with the exception of the Sadrist, gave Maliki backing to negotiate an extension of the U.S. presence beyond 2011. Senior U.S. officials, include then Secretary of Defense Gates, have articulated that one compelling reason to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq past 2011 is to ensure that Iran does not gain preponderant influence in Iraq. U.S. warnings in September 2011 that the United States would act against Iranian-armed militias might also have been intended to signal Tehran that the U.S. drawdown in Iraq would not cede Iraq to Iranian influence. Iran may have acknowledged that a continuing U.S. presence was likely when its ambassador in Iraq, Hassan Danaie Far, told journalists on September 21, 2011, that Iran wants a strong, stable Iraq that a continued U.S.-trained Iraqi security force could provide. The United States also appeared to benefit from the formation of a government that seems able to integrate with all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey. However, the long-term degree of regional acceptance for the new government might depend on the extent to which Iyad al-Allawi and his Sunni-led Iraqiyya bloc continue to participate in government and have influence over decisions. Allawi had been favored for prime minister by the Sunni neighbors such as Saudi Arabia and even by Syria, which is mostly Sunni but allied with Iran. Syria hosted numerous meetings among faction leaders, although no agreement was reached among them under Syrian sponsorship. As Maliki gained support, Syria, possibly influenced by Iran, threw its backing to Maliki for a second term as Prime Minister. It may be partly because of that backing, as well as the Iraqi relationship with Iran, that, during March 2011- August 2011, caused Iraq to refrain from sharp criticism of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for using military force against protests in 2011. On the other hand, in September 2011 Iraq moved closer to the Iranian position by calling on Syrian President Bashar Al Assad to make major reforms or risk unrest that could spill into Iraq itself. Saudi Arabia still has not, to date, opened its embassy in Baghdad, a move Saudi Arabia pledged in 2008 and which the United States has long urgedStill at odds with Iran on virtually every issue in the Middle East, the United States has considerable concerns about Iranian influence in Iraq. Senior U.S. officials, include then Secretary of Defense Gates, argued that one compelling reason to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq past 2011 is to ensure that Iran does not gain preponderant influence in Iraq. These fears are shared by Iraq’s Sunni Arab factions who see Iran as supporting the domination of Iraq by Maliki and other Shiite leaders. Some argue that the decision in October 2011 that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq at the end of 2011 will benefit Iran, and represents a success for Iranian strategy in Iraq. In an interview with CNN broadcast on October 23, 2011, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran planned a closer security relationship with Iraqi forces after U.S. troops depart. However, to counter the impression that Iran might benefit from the complete U.S. pullout, Secretary of State Clinton said on October 23, 2011, that: Congressional Research Service 27 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights …I think Iran should look at the region. We may not be leaving military bases in Iraq, but we have bases elsewhere. We have support and training assets elsewhere. We have a NATO ally in Turkey. The United States is very present in the region. That theme was echoed by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. That same day, he said Iraq, even without U.S. troops present there, would be able to counter any threat from Iranian influence or from Iran-backed Iraqi Shiite militias. Others believe that the U.S. departure represents a success for Iran’s main ally in Iraq, the Sadr faction. Iran’s reported weapons deliveries to pro-Sadr militias during 2010 and 2011 could have been intended to ensure that all U.S. forces leave, or to give the impression that the militias are driving the United States out of Iraq. U.S. warnings in September 2011 that the United States would act against Iranian-armed militias might also have been intended to signal Tehran that the U.S. drawdown in Iraq would not cede Iraq to Iranian influence. Still others see Iranian influence as less political than economic. Observers report that Iran is heavily promoting brands of its products, such as yogurt and jams, in Iraqi shops primarily in southern Iraq. Some Iraqi businessmen are said to resent what they believe is Iranian dumping of cheap products in Iraq which is depressing the development of Iraqi industries. Another question is whether Iraq will help or hinder U.S. policy in Syria, which is a close ally of Iran. U.S. policy is that the government of President Bashar Al Assad has lost legitimacy due to its extensive use of force against peaceful protesters, and should step down. Iran has invested resources (advice, technology, and possibly some types of weapons) to try to protect the Assad government from the large demonstrations since March 2011. During March 2011- August 2011, Iraq, as did Iran, refrained from sharp criticism of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for using military force against protests in 2011. During that same period, Maliki received high level business and other delegations from Syria in a show of support for his government. In September 2011 Iraq moved closer to the Iranian position by calling on Syrian President Bashar Al Assad to make major reforms or risk unrest that could spill into Iraq itself. Still, both Iraq and Iran have opposed any calls for President Al Assad to step down and both are perceived as wanting his regime to remain in power. Turkey’s concerns focus mostly, although not exclusively, on northern Iraq, which borders Turkey. Turkey has historically been viewed as concerned about the Iraqi Kurdish insistence on autonomy and Iraqi Kurds’ ethnically-based sympathies for Kurdish oppositionists in Turkey. The anti-Turkey Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has long maintained camps inside Iraq, along the border with Turkey. In August 2011, Turkey conducted the latest in a historic pattern of periodic bombardments and other miltary operations against the PKK in Iraq. In September 2011, Turkey said it would likely conduct joint operations with Iran against PKK and anti-Iran Kurds (Free Life Party, PJAK) based in Iraq. As a In October 2011, Turkey sent troops into northern Iraq to attack PKK bases following the killing of 24 Turkish soldiers by the PKK. Iraq also remains at odds with some of the Sunni-led Persian Gulf states who have not fully accommodated themselves to the fact that Iraq is now dominated by Shiite factions. Saudi Arabia still has not, to date, opened its embassy in Baghdad, a move Saudi Arabia pledged in 2008 and which the United States has long urged. Ayatollah Sistani is revered by many Bahraini Shiites, who mounted a major challenge to the Sunni-led government of Bahrain throughout the first half of 2011. A possible indication of greater acceptance of the Iraqi government by the state it once occupied (1990-1991), came when Kuwait’s prime minister visited Iraq on January 12, 2011. Maliki Maliki subsequently visited Kuwait on February 16, 2011. These key exchanges took place after the U.N. Congressional Research Service 28 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights the U.N. Security Council on December 15, 2010, passed three resolutions (1956, 1957, and 1958) that had the net effect of lifting most Saddam-era sanctions on Iraq, although the U.N.-run reparations reparations payments process remains intact (and which deducts 5% from Iraq’s total oil revenues). Still, However, mutual suspicions persist and flare occasionally, as they did persisted, and in August 2011 when Iraqi politicians accused accused Kuwait of intruding on Iraq’s oil through slant drilling at the border. Congressional Research Service 26 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Implications for the Wind Down of the U.S. Military Mission The continuing splits within Iraq, and continuing high profile attacks by insurgent groups and Shiite militias, cloud the approaching completion of a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq at the end of 2011. That withdrawal is in keeping with arequired by the November 2008 U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement (SA), which took effect on January 1, 2009. Following the SA’s entry into force, President Obama, on February 27, 2009, outlined a U.S. troop drawdown plan that provided for a drawdown of U.S. combat brigades by the end of August 2010, with a residual force of 50,000 primarily for training the Iraq Security Forces, to remain until the end of 2011. An interim benchmark in the SA was the June 30, 2009, withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq’s cities. This was strictly implemented by U.S. forces, to the point where U.S. forces pulled out of locations in the restive Mosul area and from Sadr City, where U.S. commanders felt U.S. forces should stay. Maliki hailed this interim milestone as a “victory” and declared it a national holiday. With the formal end of the U.S. combat mission on August 31, 2010, U.S. forces dropped to 47,000. As of late September 2011, the level of U.S. forces in Iraq is about 45,000, according to U.S. commanders, and the force is expected to be reduced sharply as the withdrawal proceeds to its end of 2011 completion. Retaining substantial U.S. troops in Iraq beyond 2011 requires the renegotiation of the Security Agreement, although not necessarily a formal vote of the Iraqi COR on an extension. A separate Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA), signed and entering into effect at the same time as the SA, presents a framework for long-term U.S.-Iraqi relations. The SFA implies ongoing U.S. assistance, but does not stipulate specific anticipated U.S. assistance levels or offer anything beyond vaguemore than loosely worded promises that the United States will assist Iraq in accomplishing various goals. The The SFA provides for the following (among other provisions): • There is to be U.S.-Iraq cooperation “based on mutual respect,” and that the United States will not use Iraqi facilities to launch any attacks against third countries, and will not seek permanent bases. • There will be U.S support for Iraqi democracy and support for Iraq in regional and international organizations. • There will be cultural cooperation through several exchange programs, such as the Youth Exchange and Study Program and the International Visitor Leadership Program. Scenarios for Keeping SomeQuestion of Whether U.S. Forces Would Remain Beyond 2011 With the end of 2011 deadline in the SA for all U.S. troops to be out of Iraq approaching, The continuing high profile attacks, coupled withfears of expanded Iranian influence, and perceived deficiencies in Iraq’s 650,000 member security forces, have caused U.S. officials to question Iraqi stability were the United States to withdraw completely as provided in the SA. As noted, there are also continuing U.S. concerns over Iranian influence over Iraq as U.S. forces depart, particularly given the activism of radical pro-Iranian Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr. Others believe that the reduction in U.S. leverage and influence in Iraq already under way will allow rifts among major caused U.S. officials to seek to revise the SA to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011. Some U.S. experts feared the potential for rifts among major ethnic and sectarian communities to widen to the point where Iraq could still become a “failed state” after 2011, unless some U.S. troops Congressional Research Service 27 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights remain after that timeunless some U.S. troops remain. Still others notenoted that U.S. troops are required beyond 2011 to ensure that to ensure that the Kurd-Arab tensions in northern Iraq do not cause conflict—the deployment of Kurdish peshmerga to Kirkuk in March 2011 did not become violent because U.S. troops interceded between them and the Sunni Arabs in the province. Uppermost on the minds of U.S. policymakers is whether Iraq would revert to severe instability if the entire U.S. force leaves Iraq at the end of 2011. In his semi-annual report to Congress dated In his semi-annual report to Congress dated Congressional Research Service 29 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights July 30, 2011, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) stated that Iraq has become less safe in the past twelve months than it was previously. Renegotiating the SA would require discussions with the Iraqi government although not necessarily a formal vote of the Iraqi COR. Among major recent attacks that shake U.S. confidence in the Iraqi ability to maintain internal security on its own wereAmong major recent attacks that shake confidence are a suicide bombing at an Iraqi Army recruiting station in Baghdad in August 2010 that killed nearly 60 Iraqis; a wave of approximately 15 bombings across Baghdad on the night of November 2, 2010, that killed at least 60 Iraqis; a series of major bombings, causing numerous casualties, that took place in Tikrit, Diyala province, Karbala, and other places in January 2011; the killing of 20 in Baghdad in mid-May 2011 in a spate of bombings; and attacks in Tikrit on June 3, 2011, that killed 20. Other attacks, such as theThe multiple attacks on August 14, 2011, that killed 90 Iraqis, were noted above. On October 13, 2011, five explosions targeting Iraqi police forces shook Baghdad and killed at least 22 people, mostly police officers. Many blame much of Many blame much of the continuing violence on Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was assessed to have about as many as 1,000 members in Iraq, as noted above. The SIGIR and other reports also note Shiite militia operations as a factor in Iraq’s future stability. Despite doubts, in public, U.S. officials express full confidence in the ability of the ISF to secure Iraq on their own. U.S. officials have been publicly praising the dramatic progress of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) over the past two 1,000 fighters in Iraq by Defense Secretary-nominee Director Leon Panetta at his June 9, 2011, confirmation hearings. The SIGIR report also noted Shiite militia attacks on U.S. troops as a factor in its assessment. U.S. officials praise the dramatic progress of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) over the past two years to prevent such security incidents from leading to an unraveling of Iraq’s political system. In public, U.S. officials express full confidence in the ability of the ISF to secure Iraq on their own. U.S. Army Major Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan said publicly on August 17, 2011, two days after the wave of bombings in Iraq discussed above, said that the Iraqi government can defeat the extremists carrying out such attacks. In arguing for a continued U.S. presence after 2011, U.S. officials couchcouched their concerns about the ISF primarily in terms of questioning Iraq’s ability to defend its airspace and borders, and assert that the ISF continues to need U.S. training. Some of these concerns were reflected in an October 2011 audit by the SIGIR on potential deficiencies in the training program for the Iraqi police forces as that responsibility was transferred from Department of Defense to Department of State on October 1, 2011.22 Iraqi comments, such as an October 30, 2011 statement by Iraqi Army chief of staff Lt. Gen. Babaker Zebari, to that effect that Iraq would be unable to execute full external defense until 2020-2024, reinforce those who are pessimistic about Iraq’s prospects without U.S. forces present. 23 U.S. Efforts to Convince Iraq to Request A Continued U.S. Military Presence The purpose of many high-level U.S. visits and statements in early-mid 2011 was to urge the Iraqis to The purpose of many high-level U.S. visits and statements in 2011 have been to urge the Iraqis to consider making such a request. On April 22, 2011, thethen Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, on a visit to Iraq, said U.S. logistical and operational considerations required that an Iraqi request for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011 come within a few weeks of his visit.1924 Prime Minister Maliki told visiting Speaker of the House John Boehner, during his April 16, 2011, visit to Baghdad, that Iraqi forces were capable of securing Iraq after 2011, but that Iraq would welcome U.S. training and arms after that time.20 25 22 http://www.sigir.mil/files/audits/12-006.pdf#view=fit. “Iraq General Says Forces Not Ready ‘Until 2020.’” Agence France Presse, October 30, 2011. 24 Schmidt, Michael and Tim Arango. “Iraq Must Decide Within Weeks If U.S. Troops Will Stay Past 2011, Top Official Says.” New York Times, April 23, 2011. 25 Prashant Rao. “Maliki Tells US’ Boehner Iraqi Troops Are Ready.” Agence France Presse, April 16, 2011. 23 Congressional Research Service 30 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Subsequent to Boehner visit, Maliki appeared to lay the groundwork for a possible extension of the U.S. presence. He stated that a request for U.S. troops might be made if there were a “consensus” among political blocs, which he defined as not necessarily unanimity but at least 70% concurrence.2126 This statement appeared to be an effort to isolate the Sadr faction, which has been the most vocal opponent of a continuing U.S. presence. In his first visit to Iraq as Defense Secretary on July 11, 2011, Leon Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to make a decision on whether to request request U.S. troops remain, and that such a decision be affirmative given the continuing need. Joint 19 Schmidt, Michael and Tim Arango. “Iraq Must Decide Within Weeks If U.S. Troops Will Stay Past 2011, Top Official Says.” New York Times, April 23, 2011. 20 Prashant Rao. “Maliki Tells US’ Boehner Iraqi Troops Are Ready.” Agence France Presse, April 16, 2011. 21 Aaron Davis. “Maliki Seeking Consensus on Troops.” Washington Post, May 12, 2011. Congressional Research Service 28 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen, on an August 1, 2011, visit, his last scheduled to Iraq before leaving his post post on September 30, 2011, again stressed the urgency of any Iraqi request. The visit appeared to galvanize the Iraqi political system to make a firm decision and, on August 3, 2011, major factions (except the Sadrists) gave Maliki their backing to negotiate an SA extension. Press reports have indicated that the Defense Department had shaped its final withdrawal in such a way asschedule to allow for certain units to remain in Iraq even if a U.S.-Iraq agreement to keep U.S. troops there materialized very late in 2011. Secretary Panetta said on August 20, 2011, that it is likely that Iraq willwould request a continued U.S. presence U.S. presence primarily to train the ISF andbut possibly to help secure Iraq more broadly, adding that negotiations underway between the two countries would shape the size and scope of the post-2011 U.S. presence. Experts on Iraq have had informal discussions in 2011 on this issue and, aspost2011 U.S. presence. As of early September 2011, a , a figure of about 15,000 U.S. troops, reflecting recommendations of the U.S. military, appeared to receive substantial discussion.22was being widely discussed.27 However, the issue became a subject of substantial debate when the New York Times reported on September 7, 2011, that the Administration was considering proposing to Iraq to retain only about 3,000 – 4,000 forces, mostly in a training role, after 2011.2328 Many experts and some Members of Congress criticized that figure as too low to ensure force protection and carry out the intended training and other missions in Iraq. The intended missions. The Administration subsequently indicatedresponded that no decisions on the size of the post-2011 U.S. force in Iraq, if there is to be one, had been made. had been made. Some reports suggested that the United States might keep a sizeable force in Kuwait - ready to intervene in Iraq if needed but still satisfying the Iraqi and U.S. pledges that a post-2011 U.S. force in Iraq would be non-existent or, at the very least, small intervene in Iraq if needed. For its part, Iraqi officials said on September 22, 20121 that COR debates over its 2012 budget (estimated at $110 billion total) have delayed Iraqi approval of the post-2011 U.S. mission because Iraq doesdid not know how much money it will have available for its share of the relevant costs. The United States insists that U.S. forces retain the legal protections contained in the existing SA, although it is possible that there could be a U.S.-Iraq agreement to keep U.S. forces in Iraq without a formal extension of the SA, but rather under some lesser memorandum of understanding. If SA extension negotiations fail, previous plans called for establishing a large (up to 4,000 person) military liaison office (Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq) engaged mostly in training and assisting Iraq in the use of U.S. arms sold to Iraq, such as combat aircraft. That office would be under the authority of the U.S. Ambassador and some of its facilities around Iraq will be shared with the State Department. Such an arrangement might not require formal amendment of share of the relevant costs. President Obama Announces Decision on Full Withdrawal The difficulty in the negotiations became clearer on October 5, 2011, when Iraq issued a statement that it agreed on the need to keep U.S. military personnel in Iraq as trainers, but that Iraq would not extend the legal protections contained in the existing SA. That stipulation failed to meet the requirements of the Defense Department, which fears that trying any American soldier under the Iraqi constitution (which states that no Iraqi law shall contradict Islam) could lead to serious crises at some stage. With little evident Iraqi flexibility, on October 21, 2011, following a videoconference with Maliki, President Obama announced that the two sides had agreed that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq at the end of 2011 in strict accordance with the SA. In that statement, President Obama announced that Maliki would visit Washington, D.C. in December 2011 to discuss the way forward in the relationship; the visit is set for December 12. 26 Aaron Davis. “Maliki Seeking Consensus on Troops.” Washington Post, May 12, 2011. Author conversations with Iraq experts in Washington, DC, 2011. 28 Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers. “Plan Would Keep Military in Iraq Beyond Deadline.” September 7, 2011. 27 Congressional Research Service 31 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights With the formal end of the U.S. combat mission on August 31, 2010, U.S. forces dropped to 47,000. As of November 10, 2011, the level of U.S. forces in Iraq is just over 30,000, according to U.S. commanders, with about 500 troops leaving Iraq every day on average. U.S. forces, as of early November 2011, are located in about 20 bases around Iraq, down from 505 at the height of the U.S. presence in 2008. Alternate Means to Accomplish Post-2011 U.S. Strategy on Iraq After the announcement, senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Panetta, stated that the United States would still be able to help train the ISF after 2011 using programs commonly used with other countries. About 160 U.S. military personnel will remain in Iraq after 2011 to protect the U.S. Embassy and other U.S. locations in Iraq, and to serve in the U.S. military liaison office (Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq, OSC-I). In total, OSC-I will have about 4,000 personnel in Baghdad and other locations around Iraq, of which the vast majority will be civilians and contractors. OSC-I will be engaged mostly in training and assisting Iraq in the use of U.S. arms sold to Iraq, such as combat aircraft. As noted above, the State Department (Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) has taken over the programs to train Iraqi police as of October 1, 2011. All the personnel that will serve in Iraq will be under the authority of the U.S. Ambassador and some of its facilities around Iraq will be shared with the State Department. Such an arrangement might not require formal amendment of the security agreement. One focus of the OSC-I is expected to be on the sale of up to 36 F-16 aircraft to Iraq, valued at up to $4.2 billion when all parts, training, and weaponry are included. Iraq had said on July 12, 2011, that the buy was postponed due to needs to fund food rations and other items – possibly a decision influenced by the popular protests in 2011. However, on July 31, 2011, Maliki announced the purchase request would go forward. On September 27, 2011, officials in both countries confirmed that a sale had been agreed for an initial 18 F-16’s, and that an initial payment of $1.5 billion had been received by the United States. Whether or not some U.S. troops remain after 2011, the State Department becomes the lead U.S. agency in Iraq as of October 1, 2011, with all attendant responsibilities. In July 2011, as part of 22 23 Author conversations with Iraq experts in Washington, DC, 2011. Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers. “Plan Would Keep Military in Iraq Beyond Deadline.” September 7, 2011. Congressional Research Service 29 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights the transition, the United States formally opened planned consulates in Basra and Irbil. Embassy There are also discussions within the Administration and between the Administration and neighboring states about a new security architecture that would display continuing U.S. interest in Iraqi security. Press reports say the Administration is considering stationing additional forces in the Gulf states, particularly Kuwait, after the withdrawal from Iraq. The United States has defense cooperation agreements with all six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to access their military facilities and, in several cases, to station forces and preposition even heavy armor. The United States reportedly has proposed stationing about 4,000 additional U.S. forces in Kuwait, over and above those there already to support U.S. rotations into and out of Iraq. These forces would presumably be available to intervene in Iraq to support the ISF, were the ISF to confront situations it could not handle. To date, there does not appear to be firm agreement to host additional U.S. forces, but Kuwait has always extended all possible cooperation with the United States when Kuwait’s own security is at stake, which could be the case in this situation.29 This suggests that Kuwait is likely to accept the U.S. proposal. Additional forces in Kuwait and other GCC states would also serve to support the U.S. assertion that it is not abandoning its interests in Iraq to Iran or any other power. 29 Pauline Jelinek. “Kuwait, US Still Talking About Troop Plan.” Associated Press, November 7, 2011. Congressional Research Service 32 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights State Department Leads Post-2011 U.S. Effort With the decision that U.S. troops will not remain after 2011, virtually all of the responsibility to retain U.S. influence in Iraq falls on the State Department. The State Department became the lead U.S. agency in Iraq as of October 1, 2011, with all attendant responsibilities. In July 2011, as part of the transition, the United States formally opened planned consulates in Basra and Irbil. Embassy branch offices are in various stages of opening in Mosul and Kirkuk, although there are continuing security issues in Mosul. There is a vibrant U.S. debate over whether the State Department, using security contractors, will be able to fully secure its personnel in Iraq if all U.S. forces were toafter all U.S. forces depart. A staff report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released January 31, 2011, expresses substantial skepticism.2430 No matter the outcome of that debate, State Department Department officers will continue to promote Iraqi political reconciliation and peaceful dispute resolution, as well as economic ties, cultural ties, educational ties, and broader relations under the Strategic Strategic Framework Agreement. Table 4 provides information on U.S. assistance to promote Iraqi Iraqi democracy and peaceful political competition and consensus building. If Iraq’s major factions factions have permanently shifted away from supporting violence and toward peaceful political competition, some might argue that U.S. funding has contributed to that transition. Others might argue that the change was caused by numerous factors, such as the improvement of security and rejection of foreign terrorist influence, and that it is virtually impossible to assess the contribution made by U.S. assistance. 2430 Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Iraq: The Transition From a Military Mission to A Civilian-Led Effort.” S.Prt. 112-3. January 31, 2011. Congressional Research Service 3033 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Table 2. March 2010 COR Election: Final, Certified Results by Province Province Elected Seats in COR Results Baghdad 68 Maliki: 26 seats; Iraqiyya: 24 seats; INA: 17 seats; minority reserved: 2 seats Nineveh (Mosul) 31 Iraqiiya: 20; Kurdistan Alliance: 8; INA: 1; Accordance: 1; Unity (Bolani): 1; minority reserved: 3 Qadisiyah 11 Maliki: 4; INA: 5; Iraqiyya: 2 Muthanna 7 Maliki: 4; INA: 3 Dohuk 10 Kurdistan Alliance: 9; other Kurdish lists: 1; minority reserved: 1 Basra 24 Maliki: 14 ; INA: 7; Iraqiyya: 3 Anbar 14 Iraqiyya: 11; Unity (Bolani): 1; Accordance: 2 Karbala 10 Maliki: 6; INA: 3; Iraqiyya: 1 Wasit 11 Maliki: 5; INA: 4; Iraqiyya: 2 Dhi Qar 18 Maliki: 8; INA: 9; Iraqiyya: 1 Sulaymaniyah 17 Kurdistan Alliance: 8; other Kurds: 9 Kirkuk (Tamim) 12 Iraqiyya: 6; Kurdistan Alliance: 6 Babil 16 Maliki: 8; INA: 5; Iraqiyya: 3 Irbil 14 Kurdistan Alliance: 10; other Kurds: 4 Najaf 12 Maliki: 7; INA: 5 Diyala 13 Iraqiyya: 8; INA: 3; Maliki: 1; Kurdistan Alliance: 1 Salahuddin 12 Iraqiyya: 8; Unity (Bolani): 2; Accordance: 2 Maysan 10 Maliki: 4; INA: 6 Total Seats 325 Iraqiyya: 89 + 2 compensatory = 91 (310 elected + 8 minority reserved + 7 compensatory) Maliki: 87 + 2 compensatory = 89 INA: 68 + 2 compensatory = 70 (of which about 40 are Sadrist) Kurdistan Alliance: 42 +1 compensatory = 43 Unity (Bolani): 4 Accordance: 6 other Kurdish: 14 minority reserved: 8 Source: Iraqi Higher Election Commission, March 26, 2010. Notes: Seat totals are approximate and their exact allocation may be subject to varying interpretations of Iraqi law. Total seat numbers include likely allocations of compensatory seats. Total seats do not add to 325 total seats in the COR due to some uncertainties in allocations. Congressional Research Service 31 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Other Elections Possible There had been speculation that the March COR elections would be held concurrently with a referendum on the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement. The referendum was to be held by July 31, 2009, but the United States, which views the referendum as unnecessary, supported a delay. In mid-October 2009, Iraqi parliamentarians quietly shelved the referendum vote by failing to act on legislation to hold the referendum and focusing instead on the broader election law needed for the National Assembly elections.25 District and sub-district elections were previously slated for July 31, 2009, as well. However, those are delayed, and the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said in a report on U.N. operations in Iraq, released August 3, 2009, that these elections would likely be held later in 2010, after the National Assembly elections. No date for these elections has been announced. There could also be a vote on amendments to Iraq’s 2005 constitution if and when the major factions agree to finalize the recommendations of the constitutional review commission (CRC). There have been no recent major developments reported that would indicate if and when such a referendum might be ready. As noted above, there is discussion of provincial elections in the Kurdish region, which were not held during the January 2009 provincial elections in the other areas of Iraq, and were not held in the March 7, 2010, nationwide vote. Nor were they held in November 2010, as was scheduled, and no date is set. There could be a vote on a Kirkuk referendum, if a negotiated settlement is reached. Some Iraqis believe that the 2011 unrest has created a need for new nationwide provincial elections. However, existing provincial councils mostly maintain that doing so would be contrary to the constitution, which allows a four-year term to the councils elected in 2009. 25 Sly, Liz. “Iraqi Push Fades For Referendum on U.S. Troop Pullout.” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 2009. Congressional Research Service 3234 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Iraq: FY2003-FY2012 Request (appropriations/allocations in millions of $) IRRF ESF Democracy Fund IFTA (Treasury Dept. Asst.) NADR Refugee Accounts (MRA and ERMA) IDA Other USAID Funds INCLE Foreign Military Financing IMET DOD - ISF Fund DOD Iraq Army DOD CERP DOD - Oil Repair DOD Business Support Total FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Total FY2003FY2011 FY2012 Req. — — 10.0 1,535.4 — 1,676.8 — 429.0 — 541.5 — 382.5 — ? 20,874 4,565 –– 325.7 — — — 250.0 75.0 — — — 325.0 –– — — — — — 3.6 13.0 — 2.8 18.4 — 20.4 — 35.5 — 30.3 — ? 15.8 108.2 –– –– 39.6 21.8 .1 — — 7.1 — .3 78.3 45.0 277.8 85.0 260.0 50.8 300.0 42.0 — — 955.8 252.0 –– –– 469.9 — — — — — — 91.4 — 170.0 23.8 85.0 — 20.0 — 702.0 — ? 493.7 1,068 –– 1,000.0 –– — –– 1.2 –– — –– — –– 1.1 –– — –– 2.0 –– 2.0 –– ? –– 6.3 1,000.0 2.0 — — 5,391 3,007 5,542 3,000 1,000 1,000 1,500 20,440 — 51.2 — 210.0 — — — — — — 261.2 — — 140 718 708 750 996 339 263 70 3,984 — 802 — — — — — — — — 802 — FY 2003 FY 2004 2,475 — 18,389 — — FY 2005 — — — — 50.0 50.0 74.0 — — 174.0 — 3,859 18,548 6,329 5,365 8,584 5,042 2,322 2,721 1,570 54,325 2,327 Sources: State Department FY2012 Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification; SIGIR Report to Congress, April 30, 2011; and CRS calculations. Notes: Table prepared by Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, on May 5, 2011. FY2011 amount is appropriation/allocation figure available to date. Most 150 account allocations are expected in June 2011; humanitarian and other aid figures become available during course of year. This table does not contain agency operational costs, including CPA, State Department, and PRTs, except where these are embedded in the larger reconstruction accounts. Estimated operational costs to date are an additional $5.7 billion. IG oversight costs estimated at $322 million. IMET=International Military Education and Training; IRRF=Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund; INCLE=International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Fund; ISF=Iraq Security Force; NADR=Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related: ESF=Economic Support Fund; IDA=International Disaster Assistance. Congressional Research Service 3335 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Table 4. Recent Democracy Assistance to Iraq (in millions of current $) FY2009 FY2010 (act.) FY2011 FY2012 (req.) 32.45 33.3 16.5 29.75 143.64 117.40 90.33 100.5 Political Competition/Consensus-Building 41.00 52.60 30.00 16.25 Civil Society 87.53 83.6 32.5 55.5 304.62 286.9 169.33 202.0 Rule of Law and Human Rights Good Governance Totals Source: Congressional Budget Justification, March 2011. Congressional Research Service 3436 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Table 5. January 31, 2009, Provincial Election Results (Major Slates) Baghdad—55 regular seats, plus one Sabean and one Christian set-aside seat State of Law (Maliki)—38% (28 seats); Independent Liberals Trend (pro-Sadr)—9% (5 seats); Accord Front (Sunni mainstream)—9% (9 seats); Iraq National (Allawi)— 8.6%; Shahid Mihrab and Independent Forces (ISCI)—5.4% (3 seats) ; National Reform list (of former P.M. Ibrahim al-Jafari)—4.3% (3 seats) Basra—34 regular seats, plus one Christian seat State of Law—37% (20); ISCI—11.6% (5); Sadr—5% (2); Fadhila (previously dominant in Basra)—3.2% (0); Allawi—3.2% (0); Jafari list—2.5% (0). Governor : Shiltagh Abbud (Maliki list); Council chair: Jabbar Amin (Maliki list) Nineveh—34 regular seats, plus one set aside each for Shabaks, Yazidis, and Christians Hadbaa—48.4%; Fraternal Nineveh—25.5%; IIP—6.7%; Hadbaa took control of provincial council and administration. Governor is Atheel al-Nujaifi (Hadbaa). Najaf—28 seats State of Law—16.2% (7); ISCI—14.8% (7); Sadr—12.2% (6); Jafari—7% (2); Allawi— 1.8% (0); Fadhila—1.6% (0). Council chairman: Maliki list Babil—30 seats State of Law—12.5% (8); ISCI—8.2% (5); Sadr—6.2% (3); Jafari—4.4% (3); Allawi— 3.4%; Accord Front—2.3% (3); Fadhila—1.3%. New Council chair: Kadim Majid Tuman (Sadrist); Governor—Salman Zirkani (Maliki list) Diyala—29 seats Accord Front list—21.1%; Kurdistan Alliance—17.2%; Allawi—9.5%; State of Law— 6 %. New council leans heavily Accord, but allied with Kurds and ISCI. Muthanna—26 seats State of Law—10.9% (5); ISCI—9.3% (5); Jafari—6.3% (3); Sadr—5.5% (2); Fadhila— 3.7%. Anbar—29 seats Iraq Awakening (Sahawa-Sunni tribals)—18%; National Iraqi Project Gathering (established Sunni parties, excluding IIP)—17.6%;; Allawi—6.6%; Tribes of Iraq— 4.5%. Maysan—27 seats State of Law—17.7% (8); ISCI—14.6% (8); Sadr—7; Jafari—8.7% (4); Fadhila—3.2%; Allawi—2.3%. New Governor: Mohammad al-Sudani (Maliki); Council chair: Hezbollah Iraq Dhi Qar—31 seats State of Law—23.1% (13); pro-Sadr—14.1% (7); ISCI—11.1% (5); Jafari—7.6% (4); Fadhila—6.1%; Allawi—2.8%. Governor—Maliki list; Council chair: Sadrist Karbala—27 seats List of Maj. Gen. Yusuf al-Habbubi (Saddam-era local official)—13.3% (1 seat); State of Law—8.5% (9); Sadr—6.8% (4); ISCI—6.4% (4); Jafari—2.5% ; Fadhila—2.5%. Salah Ad Din—28 seats IIP-led list—14.5%; Allawi—13.9%; Sunni list without IIP—8.7%; State of Law—3.5%; ISCI—2.9%. Council leans Accord/IIP Qadissiyah—28 seats State of Law—23.1% (11); ISCI—11.7% (5); Jafari—8.2% (3); Allawi—8%; Sadr— 6.7% (2); Fadhila—4.1%. New governor: Salim Husayn (Maliki list) Wasit—28 seats State of Law—15.3% (13); ISCI—10% (6); Sadr—6% (3); Allawi—4.6%; Fadhila— 2.7%. Governor: Shiite independent; Council chair: ISCI Source: UNAMI translation of results issued February 2, 2009, by the Independent Higher Election Commission of Iraq; Vissar, Reidar. The Provincial Elections: The Seat Allocation Is Official and the Coalition-Forming Process Begins. February 19, 2009. Congressional Research Service 3537 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Table 6. Election Results (January and December 2005) Seats (Jan. 05) Seats (Dec. 05) United Iraqi Alliance (UIA, Shiite Islamist). 85 seats after departure of Fadilah (15 seats) and Sadr faction (28 seats) in 2007. Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq of Abd al-Aziz alHakim has 30; Da’wa Party (25 total: Maliki faction, 12, and Anizi faction, 13); independents (30). 140 128 Kurdistan Alliance—KDP (24); PUK (22); independents (7) 75 53 Iraqis List (secular, Allawi); added Communist and other mostly Sunni parties for Dec. vote. 40 25 Iraq Accord Front. Main Sunni bloc; not in Jan. vote. Consists of Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP, Tariq al-Hashimi, 26 seats); National Dialogue Council of Khalaf Ulayyan (7); General People’s Congress of Adnan al-Dulaymi (7); independents (4). — 44 National Iraqi Dialogue Front (Sunni, led by former Baathist Saleh al-Mutlak) Not in Jan. 2005 vote. — 11 Kurdistan Islamic Group (Islamist Kurd) (votes with Kurdistan Alliance) 2 5 Iraqi National Congress (Chalabi). Was part of UIA list in Jan. 05 vote — 0 Iraqis Party (Yawar, Sunni); Part of Allawi list in Dec. vote 5 — Iraqi Turkomen Front (Turkomen, Kirkuk-based, pro-Turkey) 3 1 National Independent and Elites (Jan)/Risalyun (Message, Dec) pro-Sadr 3 2 People’s Union (Communist, non-sectarian); on Allawi list in Dec. vote 2 — Islamic Action (Shiite Islamist, Karbala) 2 0 National Democratic Alliance (non-sectarian, secular) 1 — Rafidain National List (Assyrian Christian) 1 1 Liberation and Reconciliation Gathering (Umar al-Jabburi, Sunni, secular) 1 3 Ummah (Nation) Party. (Secular, Mithal al-Alusi, former INC activist) 0 1 Yazidi list (small Kurdish, heterodox religious minority in northern Iraq) — 1 Bloc/Party Notes: Number of polling places: January: 5,200; December: 6,200; Eligible voters: 14 million in January election; 15 million in October referendum and December; Turnout: January: 58% (8.5 million votes)/ October: 66% (10 million)/December: 75% (12 million). Congressional Research Service 3638 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Table 7. Assessments of the Benchmarks July 12, 2007, Admin. Report Benchmark GAO (Sept. 07) Sept. 14, 2007, Admin. Report Subsequent Actions and Assessments—May 2008 Administration report, June 2008 GAO report, International Compact with Iraq Review in June 2008, and U.S. Embassy Weekly Status Reports (and various press sources) 1. Forming Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) and completing review (S) satisfactory unmet S CRC filed final report in August 2008 but major issues remain unresolved and require achievement of consensus among major faction leaders. 2. Enacting and implementing laws on DeBaathification (U) unsatisfact. unmet S “Justice and Accountability Law” passed Jan. 12, 2008. Allows about 30,000 fourth ranking Baathists to regain their jobs, and 3,500 Baathists in top three party ranks would receive pensions. Could allow for judicial prosecution of all ex-Baathists and bars exSaddam security personnel from regaining jobs. DeBaathification officials used this law to try to harm the prospects of rivals in March 2010 elections. 3. Enacting and implementing oil laws that ensure equitable distribution of resources U unmet U Framework and three implementing laws long stalled over KRG-central government disputes, but draft legislation pending in COR and in the Cabinet as of August 2011. Revenue being distributed equitably, including 17% revenue for KRG. Kurds also getting that share of oil exported from fields in KRG area. 4. Enacting and implementing laws to form semi-autonomous regions S partly met S Regions law passed October 2006, with relatively low threshold (petition by 33% of provincial council members) to start process to form new regions, took effect April 2008. November 2008: petition by 2% of Basra residents submitted to IHEC (another way to start forming a region) to convert Basra province into a single province “region. Signatures of 8% more were required by mid-January 2009; not achieved. March 2011: more than 33% of provincial council of Najaf has asked for a referendum to become a province. 5. Enacting and implementing: (a) a law to establish a higher electoral commission, (b) provincial elections law; (c) a law to specify authorities of provincial bodies, and (d) set a date for provincial elections S on (a) and U on the others overall unmet; (a) met S on (a) and (c) Draft law stipulating powers of provincial governments adopted February 13, 2008, took effect April 2008. Implementing election law adopted September 24, 2008, provided for provincial elections by January 31, 2009. Those elections were held, as discussed above. 6. Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty for former insurgents no rating unmet Same as July Law to amnesty “non-terrorists” among 25,000 Iraqheld detainees passed February 13, 2008. Most of these have been released. 19,000 detainees held by U.S. were transferred to Iraqi control under SA. 7. Enacting and implementing laws on militia disarmament no rating unmet Same as July March 2008 Basra operation, discussed above, viewed as move against militias. On April 9, 2008, Maliki demanded all militias disband as condition for their parties to participate in provincial elections. Law on militia demobilization stalled. 8. Establishing political, media, economic, and S met met No longer applicable; U.S. “surge” has ended and U.S. troop total in Iraq now about 47,000, down from Congressional Research Service 3739 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights July 12, 2007, Admin. Report Benchmark GAO (Sept. 07) Sept. 14, 2007, Admin. Report services committee to support U.S. “surge” Subsequent Actions and Assessments—May 2008 Administration report, June 2008 GAO report, International Compact with Iraq Review in June 2008, and U.S. Embassy Weekly Status Reports (and various press sources) about 170,000 at the 2008 height of the surge. 9. Providing three trained and ready brigades to support U.S. surge S partly met S No longer applicable. Eight brigades were assigned to assist the surge when it was in operation. 10. Providing Iraqi commanders with authorities to make decisions, without political intervention, to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias U unmet S to pursue extremists U on political interference No significant change. Still some U.S. concern over the Office of the Commander in Chief (part of Maliki’s office) control over appointments to the ISF—favoring Shiites. Some politically motivated leaders remain in ISF. But, National Police said to include more Sunnis in command jobs and rank and file than one year ago. 11. Ensuring Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) providing even-handed enforcement of law U unmet S on military, U on police U.S. interpreted March 2008 Basra operation as effort by Maliki to enforce law even-handedly. Tribal support councils not even-handed, and still widespread Iraqi public complaints of politicallymotivated administration of justice. 12. Ensuring that the surge plan in Baghdad will not provide a safe haven for any outlaw, no matter the sect S partly met S No longer applicable with end of surge. Ethnosectarian violence has fallen sharply in Baghdad. 13. (a) Reducing sectarian violence and (b) eliminating militia control of local security Mixed. S on (a); U on (b) unmet same as July 12 Sectarian violence has not re-accelerated outright, although there are fears the unrest in 2011 could reignite sectarian conflict. Shiite militias threatening to reactivate if all U.S. forces do not leave at the end of 2011. 14. Establishing Baghdad joint security stations S met S Over 50 joint security stations operated in Baghdad at the height of U.S. troop surge. Closed in compliance with June 30, 2009, U.S. pull out from the cities. 15. Increasing ISF units capable of operating independently U unmet U ISF expected to secure Iraq by the end of 2011 under the SA. U.S. officials say ISF will meet the challenges. Iraqi Air Force not likely to be able to secure airspace by then and DOD has approved potential sale to Iraq of F-16s and other major equipment. 16. Ensuring protection of minority parties in COR S met S No change. Rights of minority parties protected by Article 37 of constitution. Minorities given a minimum seat allocated in 2010 election law. 17. Allocating and spending $10 billion in 2007 capital budget for reconstruction. S partly met S About 63% of the $10 billion 2007 allocation for capital projects was spent. 18. Ensuring that Iraqi authorities not falsely accusing ISF members U unmet U Some governmental recriminations against some ISF officers still observed. Source: Compiled by CRS. Congressional Research Service 3840 Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights Author Contact Information Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs kkatzman@crs.loc.gov, 7-7612 Congressional Research Service 3941