Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights
Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
January 15, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS21968
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Summary
Accelerating violence and growing political schisms call into question whether the fragile
stability left in place in Iraq after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will collapse. Iraq’s stability is
increasingly threatened by a revolt—with both peaceful and violent aspects—by Sunni Arab
Muslims who resent Shiite political domination. Sunni Arabs, always fearful that Prime Minister
Nuri al-Maliki would seek unchallenged power, accuse him of attempting to marginalize them
politically by arresting or attempting to remove key Sunni leaders. Sunni demonstrations have
grown since late December 2012 over Maliki’s moves against leading Sunni figures. Iraq’s Kurds
are increasingly aligned with the Sunnis, based on their own disputes with Maliki over territorial,
political, and economic issues. The Shiite faction of Moqtada Al Sadr has been leaning to the
Sunnis and Kurds and could hold the key to Maliki’s political survival. Adding to the schisms is
the physical incapacity of President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd who has served as a key mediator, who
suffered a stroke in mid-December 2012. The growing rifts raise the potential for early national
elections, originally due for 2014 but which could be advanced to coincide with provincial
elections in April 2013.
The violent component of revolt is spearheaded by Sunni insurgents linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq
(AQ-I), perhaps emboldened by the Sunni-led uprising in Syria. They have conducted numerous
complex attacks against Shiite religious pilgrims and neighborhoods and Iraqi Security Force
(ISF) members. The attacks are intended to reignite all-out sectarian conflict, but have failed to
do so to date. There are concerns whether the ISF—which numbers nearly 700,000 members—
can counter the violence now that U.S. troops are no longer in Iraq; U.S. forces left in December
2011 in line with a November 2008 bilateral U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement. The Iraqis refused to
extend the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, believing Iraq could handle violence on its own and
seeking to put behind it the period of U.S. occupation and political and military tutelage.
Since the U.S. pullout, U.S. training for Iraq’s security forces through an Office of Security
Cooperation—Iraq (OSC-I) and a State Department police development program have
languished. However, the Administration—with increasing Iraqi concurrence—has asserted that
the escalating violence necessitates that Iraq rededicate itself to military cooperation with and
assistance from the United States. Since August 2012, Iraqi officials have requested expedited
delivery of U.S. arms and joint exercises and in December 2012 signed a new defense
cooperation agreement with the United States.
Although recognizing that Iraq wants to rebuild its relations in the Arab world and in its
immediate neighborhood, the United States is seeking to prevent Iraq from falling under the sway
of Iran. The Maliki government is inclined toward close relations with the Islamic Republic, but
the legacy of Iran-Iraq hostilities, and Arab and Persian differences, limit Iranian influence. Still,
Iraq has aligned with Iran’s support for Bashar Al Assad’s regime in Syria and may be allowing
Iranian arms supply flights to reach Syria by transiting Iraqi airspace. Some see Iraq instead to
reestablish its historic role as a major player in the Arab world. Iraq took a large step toward
returning to the Arab fold by hosting an Arab League summit on March 27-29, 2012.



Congressional Research Service

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Contents
Overview of the Post-Saddam Political Transition .......................................................................... 1
Initial Transition and Construction of the Political System ....................................................... 1
Interim Government Formed and New Coalitions Take Shape ........................................... 2
Permanent Constitution ....................................................................................................... 2
December 15, 2005, Elections ............................................................................................. 3
2006-2011: Sectarian Conflict and U.S.-Assisted Reconciliation ................................................... 4
Benchmarks and a Troop Surge ................................................................................................. 4
Iraqi Governance During the Troop Surge: 2008-2009 ............................................................. 5
Empowering Local Governance: Provincial Powers Law and January 31, 2009,
Provincial Elections ......................................................................................................... 5
The March 7, 2010, Elections: Shiites Fracture and Sunnis Cohere ......................................... 7
Election Law Dispute and Final Provisions ........................................................................ 8
Election Parameters ............................................................................................................. 9
Flashpoint: De-Baathification and Disqualification of Some Prominent Sunnis ................ 9
Election and Results .......................................................................................................... 10
Post-Election Government ................................................................................................ 11
Agreement on a New Government Reached (“Irbil Agreement”) ..................................... 12
2010-2014 Government Formed ....................................................................................... 12
Post-U.S. Withdrawal Political Unraveling ................................................................................... 14
Disputes Over Maliki’s Attempts to Monopolize Power ......................................................... 14
Political Crisis Begins Immediately After U.S. Withdrawal Completion ......................... 15
The Crisis and Upcoming Elections .................................................................................. 18
Broader Sunni Community Grievances and Escalating Violence ........................................... 19
Sunni Insurgent Violence/Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQ-I) and Naqshabandis ............................ 19
Sons of Iraq Fighters ......................................................................................................... 21
KRG-Central Government Disputes ........................................................................................ 21
Territorial Issues/“Disputed Internal Boundaries” ............................................................ 22
KRG Oil Exports/Oil Laws ............................................................................................... 24
Intra-Kurdish Divisions ..................................................................................................... 25
The Sadr Faction’s Continuing Ambition and Agitation ......................................................... 26
Governance and Human Rights Issues .......................................................................................... 27
National Oil Laws and Other Pending Laws ........................................................................... 27
Energy Sector Development .............................................................................................. 27
Corruption................................................................................................................................ 28
General Human Rights Issues.................................................................................................. 28
Use of Coercive Force Against Arab Spring-Related Demonstrations ............................. 29
Trafficking in Persons ....................................................................................................... 30
Media and Free Expression ............................................................................................... 30
Labor Rights ...................................................................................................................... 30
Religious Freedom/Situation of the Christian Religious Minority .................................... 30
Women’s Rights ................................................................................................................ 32
Executions ......................................................................................................................... 32
Mass Graves ...................................................................................................................... 32
Regional Dimension ...................................................................................................................... 32
Iran ........................................................................................................................................... 33
Iranian Opposition: People’s Mojahedin/Camp Ashraf and PJAK ................................... 35
Congressional Research Service

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Syria ......................................................................................................................................... 35
Turkey ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Gulf States ............................................................................................................................... 37
Kuwait ............................................................................................................................... 37
U.S. Military Withdrawal and Post-2011 Policy ............................................................................ 38
Question of Whether U.S. Forces Would Remain Beyond 2011 ............................................. 38
President Obama Announces Decision on Full Withdrawal .............................................. 39
Structure of the Post-Troop Relationship ................................................................................ 39
Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I).................................................................... 40
The Diplomatic and Economic Relationship ..................................................................... 43

Tables
Table 1. Major Coalitions for 2010 National Elections ................................................................... 8
Table 2. March 2010 COR Election: Final, Certified Results by Province ................................... 46
Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Iraq: FY2003-FY2013 ....................................................................... 47
Table 4. Recent Democracy Assistance to Iraq .............................................................................. 48
Table 5. January 31, 2009, Provincial Election Results (Major Slates) ......................................... 49
Table 6. Election Results (January and December 2005) .............................................................. 50
Table 7. Assessments of the Benchmarks ...................................................................................... 51

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 53

Congressional Research Service

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Overview of the Post-Saddam Political Transition
During the 2003-2011 presence of U.S. forces, Iraq completed a transition from the dictatorship
of Saddam Hussein to a plural political system in which varying sects and ideological and
political factions compete in elections. A series of elections began in 2005, after a one-year
occupation period and a subsequent seven-month interim period of Iraqi self-governance. There
has been a consensus among Iraqi elites since 2005 to give each community a share of power and
prestige to promote cooperation and unity. Still, disputes over the relative claim of each
community on power and economic resources permeated almost every issue in Iraq and were
never fully resolved. The constant infighting among the major factions over their perceived share
of power and resources has not dramatically hampered the basic functions of governing but has
produced popular frustration over a failure of government to improve 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, 2004.1
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 (INA), a secular, non-sectarian faction. Allawi is a Shiite Muslim but
his supporters are mostly Sunni Arabs, including some former members of the Baath Party. The
president was Sunni tribalist Ghazi al-Yawar.
This interim government was weak and heavily influenced by parties and factions that had long
campaigned to oust Saddam. These included longstanding anti-Saddam Shiite Islamist parties,
such as the Da’wa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), as well as a Shiite
Islamist faction loyal to radical cleric Moqtada Al Sadr that gelled as a cohesive party after
Saddam’s ouster and also formed an armed faction called the Mahdi Army. Also influential were
the long-established Kurdish parties the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) headed by Masoud
Barzani, son of the late, revered Kurdish independence fighter Mullah Mustafa Barzani, and the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) headed by Jalal Talabani.

1 Text, in English, is at: http://www.constitution.org/cons/iraq/TAL.html
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Interim Government Formed and New Coalitions Take Shape
Iraqi leaders of all factions agreed that elections should determine the composition of Iraq’s new
power structure. The beginning of the elections process was set for 2005 to produce a transitional
parliament that would supervise writing a new constitution, a public referendum on a new
constitution, and then the election of a full term government under that constitution.
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 would
form 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 people). A total of 111 entities were
on the national ballot, of which 9 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 1 seat on the 51-seat
Baghdad provincial council. That council was dominated (28 seats) by representatives of the
ISCI, then led by Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim. (In August 2003, 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 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
(another Shiite Islamist party) leader Ibrahim al-Jafari was prime minister. Sunnis were Assembly
speaker, deputy president, a deputy prime minister, and six ministers, including defense. Another
significant longtime anti-Saddam faction was the Iraqi National Congress (INC) of Ahmad
Chalabi, which had lobbied since the early 1990s for the United States to take steps to overthrow
Saddam Hussein.
Permanent Constitution2
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:
• The three Kurdish-controlled provinces of Dohuk, Irbil, and Sulaymaniyah to
constitute a legal “region” administered by the Kurdistan Regional Government
(KRG), which would have its own elected president and parliament (Article 113).

2 Text of the Iraqi constitution is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/
AR2005101201450.html.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

• 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.
• all orders of the U.S.-led occupation authority (Coalition Provisional Authority,
CPA) to be applicable until amended (Article 126), and a “Federation Council”
(Article 62), a second chamber with size and powers to be determined in future
law (not adopted to date).
• a 25% electoral goal for women (Article 47).
• families to choose 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 Iraqi women opposed this and the previous provisions as
giving too much discretion to male family members.
• two or more provinces to join together to form new autonomous “regions”—
reaffirmed in passage of an October 2006 law on formation of regions.
• “regions” to organize internal security forces, legitimizing the fielding of the
Kurds’ peshmerga militia (Article 117). This continue a TAL provision.
• the central government to distribute oil and gas revenues from “current fields” in
proportion to population, and for regions to have a role in allocating revenues
from new energy discoveries (Article 109). 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.
These provisions left many disputes unresolved, particularly the balance between central
government and regional and local authority. With this basic question unresolved, Sunnis
registered in large numbers (70%-85%) to try to defeat the constitution, prompting a U.S.-
mediated agreement (October 11, 2005): a panel would propose amendments within four months
after a post-December 15 election government took office (Article 137), and the amendments
would be voted on within another two months —under the same rules as the October 15
referendum. Despite that stipulation, the Sunni provinces of Anbar and Salahuddin had a 97% and
82% “no” vote, respectively, but the constitution was adopted because Nineveh province voted
55% “no,” missing the threshold for three provinces to vote “no” by a two-thirds majority.
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 people 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
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

COR was inaugurated on March 16, 2006, but political infighting caused the Shiite bloc “United
Iraqi Alliance (UIA)” 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 ISCI and Tariq al-Hashimi, leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party
(IIP). Another Sunni 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; 9 Sunnis; 8 Kurds; and 1 Christian. Four were women.
2006-2011: Sectarian Conflict and U.S.-Assisted
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.
However, later events suggested that the elections in 2005 might have worsened the violence by
exposing and reinforcing the political weakness of the Sunni Arabs. With tensions high, the
bombing of a major Shiite shrine within the Sunni-dominated province of Salahuddin in February
2006 set off major sectarian unrest, characterized in part by Sunni insurgent activities against
government and U.S. troops, high-casualty suicide and other bombings, and the empowerment of
Shiite militia factions to counter the Sunni acts. The sectarian violence was so serious that many
experts, by the end of 2006, were considering the U.S. mission as failing, an outcome that an
“Iraq Study Group” concluded was a significant possibility absent a major change in U.S. policy.3
Benchmarks and a Troop Surge
As assessments of possible overall U.S. policy failure multiplied, 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 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
exercised the waiver provision. The law also mandated an assessment by the GAO, by September
1, 2007, of Iraqi performance on the benchmarks, 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. The Administration cited as partial justification the Iraq Study

3 “The Iraq Study Group Report.” Vintage Books, 2006. The Iraq Study Group was funded by the conference report on
P.L. 109-234, FY2006 supplemental, which provided $1 million to the U.S. Institute of Peace for operations of an Iraq
Study Group. The legislation did not specify the Group’s exact mandate or its composition.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Group’s recommending such a step. As 2008 progressed, citing the achievement of many of the
major Iraqi 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 its extent and durability 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.
Iraqi Governance During the Troop Surge: 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, facilitated political stabilization. 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—
willing to take on radical groups even if they were Shiite. This contributed to a decision in July
2008 by the Sunni-led Accord Front to end its one-year boycott of the cabinet. 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.
Empowering Local Governance: Provincial Powers Law and January 31, 2009,
Provincial Elections
The first provincial elections, held January 31, 2009, continued Iraq’s political stabilization. The
provincial elections followed adoption in 2008 of a “provincial powers law” intended to
decentralize governance by setting up powerful provincial councils that could decide local
allocation of resources. The provincial councils in Iraq choose the province’s governor and
governing administrations. Some central government funds are given as grants directly to
provincial administrations for their use, although most of Iraq’s budget is controlled centrally.
There have been efforts in 2012 in some provinces to consult with district and municipal level
officials to assure a fair distribution of provincial resources.
The provincial elections had been planned for October 1, 2008, but were delayed when Kurdish
restiveness over integrating Kirkuk into the KRG caused a 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 because it would dilute their political dominance there.
On September 24, 2008, the COR passed an election law, providing for the provincial elections
by January 31, 2009, but putting off provincial elections in Kirkuk and the three KRG provinces.4
In the elections, about 14,500 candidates vied for the 440 provincial council seats in the 14 Arab-
dominated provinces of Iraq. About 4,000 of the candidates were women. The average number of
council seats per province was about 30,5 down from a set number of 41 seats per province

4 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.
5 Each provincial council has 25 seats plus one seat per each 200,000 residents over 500,000.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

(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.6 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 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; others had been
displaced by sectarian violence 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: Maliki Strongest Among Shiites, and Sunni Tribalists Enter Politics
The hopes of some Maliki opponents that the provincial elections would empower local
authorities were dashed somewhat when Maliki’s “State of Law Coalition” (a coalition composed
of his Da’wa Party plus other Shiite and a few non-Shiite allies) was the clear winner of the
provincial elections. With 28 out of the 57 total seats, the Maliki slate gained control of the
Baghdad provincial council, and ran very strong in most of the Shiite provinces of the south,
including Basra, where it won an outright majority (20 out of 35 seats). ISCI, which ran under a
separate slate, 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 of its perceived close ties to Iran and interest in political and economic gain for its
supporters.
Although Maliki’s State of Law coalition fared well, subsequent efforts to form provincial
administrations demonstrated that he still needed to strike bargains with rival factions, including
Sadr, ISCI, and various Sunni parties such as the IIP and the National Dialogue Council. Aside
from the victory of Maliki’s slate, the unexpected strength of secular parties, such as that of
former Prime Minister Allawi, corroborated the view that voters favored slates committed to Iraqi
nationalism and strong central government. The provincial administrations that took shape are
discussed in Table 5.

6 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
6

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Another important trend outcome of the 2009 provincial elections was the entry of into the
political process of 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. 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, and because of Al Qaeda in Iraq’s admonition that Sunnis stay out of the political process.
However, in the 2009 provincial elections, as violence was ebbing, tribalists offered election
slates and showed strength at the expense of the mostly urban Sunni parties (IIP and National
Dialogue Council. The main “Iraq Awakening” tribal slate came in first in Anbar Province. 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 led
the provincial administration there.
The March 7, 2010, Elections: Shiites Fracture and Sunnis Cohere
After his slate’s strong showing in the provincial elections, Maliki was the favorite to retain his
position in the March 7, 2010, COR elections. The elected COR chooses the full-term
government. Maliki derived further political benefit from the U.S. implementation of the U.S.-
Iraq “Security Agreement” (SA), 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. 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 Ministry of Finance buildings were attacked again on December 7, 2009.
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 State of Law. The “Iraqi
National Alliance (INA)” formed as a coalition of ISCI, the Sadrists (faction of Moqtada Al
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 victory.
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 led by IIP figures, but it was not expected to fare
well compared to Allawi’s less sectarian bloc. Some Sunni figures joined Shiite slates in order to
improve their chances of winning a seat.

Congressional Research Service
7

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Table 1. Major Coalitions for 2010 National Elections
State of Law Coalition
Led by Maliki and his Da’wa Party. Included Anbar Salvation Front of Shaykh
Hatim al-Dulaymi, which is Sunni, and the Independent Arab Movement of Abd
(slate no. 337)
al-Mutlaq al-Jabbouri. Appealed to Shi te sectarianism during the campaign by
backing the exclusion of candidates with links to outlawed Baath Party.
Iraqi National Alliance
Formed in August 2009, was initially considered the most formidable challenger
to Maliki’s slate. Consisted mainly of his Shiite opponents and was perceived as
(slate no. 316)
somewhat more Islamist than the other slates. Included ISCI, the Sadrist
movement, the Fadilah Party, the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi, and
the National Reform Movement (Da’wa faction) of former Prime Minister
Ibrahim al-Jafari. This slate was considered close to Ayatol ah Sistani, but did not
receive his formal endorsement.
Iraqi National Movement
Formed in October 2009. Led by former Prime Minister Iyad al-Al awi who is
Shi te but his faction appeals to Sunnis, and Sunni leader Saleh al-Mutlaq (ex-
(“Iraqiyya”—slate no. 333)
Baathist who leads the National Dialogue Front). The coalition included the IIP
and several powerful Sunni individuals, including Usama al-Nujaifi and Rafi al-
Issawi.
Kurdistan Alliance
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
(slate no. 372)
PUK faction called Change (Gorran) did unexpectedly well. Gorran ran its own
separate list for the March 2010 elections. PUK’s ebbing strength in the north did
not jeopardize Talabani’s continuation as president, although Sunnis sought that
position.
Unity Alliance of Iraq
Led by Interior Minister Jawad Bolani, a moderate Shiite who has a reputation for
political independence. Bolani was not previously affiliated with the large Shiite
(slate no. 348)
parties such as ISCI and Dawa, and was only briefly aligned with the Sadr faction
(which has been strong in Bolani’s home town of Amarah, in southeastern Iraq).
Considered non-sectarian, 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.
Iraqi Accordance
A coalition of Sunni parties, including some breakaway leaders of the IIP. Led by
Ayad al-Samarrai, then-speaker of the COR. Was viewed as a weak competitor
(slate no. 338)
for Sunni votes against Allawi’s Iraqiyya.
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.
Because the provisions of the election law (covering such issues as voter eligibility, whether to
allot quota seats to certain constituencies, and the size of the next COR) shape the election
outcome, the major Iraqi communities were divided over its substance and the COR repeatedly
missed self-imposed deadlines to pass it. One dispute was over the election system, with many
COR members leaning toward a closed list system that gives the slates the power to determine
who occupies COR seats after the election. Others, backed by Grand Ayatollah Sistani, called for
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

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 current food ration lists as representative of voter registration.
The Kurds had sought this provision, opposing the use instead of 2005 voter lists that contained
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, deputy president Tariq al Hashimi vetoed the law on
November 18, 2009, sending it back to the COR. A new version was adopted on November 23,
2009, 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, at the
urging of U.S. diplomats, adopted a new law on 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 7. The COR size, in the absence of a recent census, was based on
taking 2005 population figures and adding 2.8% per year growth.7
• The remaining 15 seats 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.
Flashpoint: De-Baathification and Disqualification of Some Prominent Sunnis
The electoral process was at least partly intended to bring Sunni Arabs further into the political
structure and to turn them away from violence and insurgency. As noted, Sunnis boycotted the
January 2005 parliamentary and provincial elections but they did participate to some extent in the
December 2005 parliamentary elections. This trend was jeopardized by a major dispute over

7 Analysis of Iraq expert Reidar Visser. “The Hashemi Veto.” http://gulfanalysis.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/the-
hashemi-veto/.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

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 De-Baathification 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 not based on sect, even though
most 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 Vice President Joseph Biden (during a visit to Iraq
on January 22, 2010) and partner countries —all of which feared a return to instability—the
appeals court ruled that disqualified candidates could run in the election and clear up questions of
Baathist affiliation afterwards. However, about 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 al-Mutlaq and Dhafir al-Ani, both Sunnis, were replaced on their slates. Still,
the slate campaigned vigorously, hoping to use high turnout to achieve political results. Even the
JAC’s disqualification of an additional 55 mostly Iraqiyya candidates the night before the election
did not prompt a Sunni 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 the two were working with
Iraqi allies of General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Qods Force unit of Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).8 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. (Lami was assassinated on May 26, 2011, presumably by Sunnis
who viewed him as an architect of the perceived discrimination. Chalabi, a member of parliament
as of the 2010 elections, initially replaced Lami as manager of the JAC, but Maliki dismissed
Chalabi, appointing instead the minister for human rights to serve in that role concurrently.)
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, although somewhat lower than that in Baghdad because of the multiple
insurgent bombings that took place just as voting was starting.

8 Gertz, Bill. “Inside the Ring.” Washington Times, February 18, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

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 ruled that a coalition that forms after the election could be deemed to meet that
requirement, essentially denying Allawi the first opportunity to form a government.
The vote was to have been certified by April 22, 2010, but factional disputes delayed the
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 a comprehensive recount would take an extended period of time. Several international
observers, including then-U.N. Special Representative for Iraq Ad Melkert (and head of the U.N.
Assistance Mission—Iraq, UNAMI), indicated that there was no cause to suggest widespread
fraud. (Melkert was replaced in September 2011 by Martin Kobler.)
After appeals of some of the results, Iraq’s Supreme Court certified the results on June 1, 2010,
triggering the following timelines:
• Fifteen days after certification (by June 15, 2010), 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.)
• 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, 2010), the prime minister-designate 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 convened on
June 15, 2010, but the session ended after less than a half hour without electing 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 formed a broader “National
Alliance.” However, this coalition was not able to immediately agree to a prime minister selectee
and the COR aborted its second meeting scheduled for July 27, 2010. The various factions made
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

little progress through August 2010, as Maliki insisted he remain prime minister for another term
and remained in a caretaker role.
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. An expectation that the August 10-September 11, 2010, Ramadan period would
enable the blocs to reach an agreement was not met.
Part of the difficulty forming a government was the close result, and the dramatic implications of
gaining or retaining power in Iraq, where 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.
Agreement on a New Government Reached (“Irbil Agreement”)
On October 1, 2010, Maliki received the backing of most of the 40 COR Sadrist deputies. The
United States reportedly was alarmed at the prospect that Maliki might be able to form a
government primarily by allying with Sadrist, but they, Allawi, and the Sunni Arab regional states
acquiesced to a second Maliki term. The key question that remained was whether Maliki would
agree to form a broad based government that met 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; (2) Iraqiyya would be extensively represented in government—one
of its figures would become COR Speaker, another would be defense minister, and another
(presumably Allawi himself) would chair the enhanced oversight body discussed above, though
renamed the “National Council for Strategic Policies;”9 and (3) amending the de-Baathification
laws that had barred some Iraqis, such as Saleh al-Mutlaq, from holding political positions.
Observers praised the agreement because it included all major factions and was signed with KRG
President Masoud Barzani and then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey in attendance. The
agreement did not specify concessions to the Sadr faction.
2010-2014 Government Formed10
At the November 11, 2010, COR session to implement the agreement, Iraqiyya figure Usama al-
Nujaifi (brother of controversial Nineveh Governor Atheel Nujaifi) was elected COR speaker, as

9 Fadel, Leila and Karen DeYoung. “Iraqi Leaders Crack Political Deadlock.” Washington Post, November 11, 2010.
10 The following information is taken from Iraqi news accounts presented in http://www.opensource.gov.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

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 (see above). The remaining COR members were sufficient for a quorum and Talabani was
re-elected president after two rounds of voting. Fears were further 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, 2010) to name
and achieve majority COR confirmation for a new cabinet.
Governmental formation advanced on December 19, 2010, when Allawi reaffirmed his intent to
join the government. His cooperation came when the COR voted (with barely a quorum achieved
after a Shiite walkout) to reinstate to politics the three barred members of his bloc, 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, 3 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 (minister of state) posts
pending permanent nominees for those positions. The faction took seven other
cabinet posts, in addition to the post of first vice 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 al-
Hashimi remained a vice president (second of three). The bloc also obtained nine
ministerial posts, including the key Finance Ministry (Rafi al-Issawi, previously a
deputy prime minister).
• For the Iraqi National Alliance, a senior figure, Adel Abdul Mahdi, remained a
vice president (third of three). 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,
became minister of state without portfolio and the only woman in the cabinet
until the February 13, 2011, naming of Ibtihal Al Zaidy as minister of state for
women’s affairs (not an INA member). Another Fadila activist was named
minister of justice.
• Of the 13 INA cabinet seats, Sadr faction members headed eight ministries,
including Housing, Labor and Social Affairs, Ministry of Planning (Ali Abd al-
Nabi, appointed in April 2011), and Tourism and Antiquities. A Sadrist also
became one of two deputy COR speakers. The Sadrists received additional
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 had six other cabinet
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

seats, including longtime Kurdish (KDP) stalwart Hoshyar Zebari remaining as
foreign minister (a position he’s held since the transition governments that
followed the fall of Saddam). Khairallah Hassan Babakir, was named trade
minister in a February 13, 2011, group of ministerial appointments.
Post-U.S. Withdrawal Political Unraveling
The agreements that led to the 2010 government formation did not resolve the underlying
differences among the major communities. Subsequent disputes, particularly between Maliki and
the Iraqiyya bloc of Iyad al-Allawi tarnished the U.S. assessment that Iraqi factions would
continue to share power. The unraveling of the Irbil Agreement in the immediate aftermath of the
December 18, 2011, U.S. withdrawal cast some doubt on President Obama’s assertion, marking
the U.S. withdrawal, that Iraq is now “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.” The sections below also
discuss the various disagreements and their causes.
Disputes Over Maliki’s Attempts to Monopolize Power
The central assertion of Maliki’s opponents is that he seeks to centralize power in his own and his
faction’s hands. His attempts to purge leading Sunni Arabs from government are discussed below
in the context of the post-U.S. withdrawal political crisis, but Sunnis are not the only group
criticizing Maliki on this basis. The criticisms are discussed below.
• Security Ministerial Appointments. Maliki’s critics accuse him of monopolizing
control of the major security posts. Maliki refuted Allawi’s interpretation of the
Irbil Agreement as requiring appointment of an Iraqiyya official as defense
minister, asserting that the appointee could be any Sunni Arab, not necessarily a
member of the Iraqiyya faction. With this dispute unresolved, Maliki appointed
allies and associates as acting ministers of Defense, of Interior, and of National
Security. Sadun Dulaymi—a Sunni Arab member of the Iraq Unity Alliance, not
Iraqiyya—is acting Defense Minister. Falih al-Fayad, a Shiite in the faction of
former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari, is acting Minister of State for National
Security. Adnan al-Asadi, another Shiite aligned with Maliki, is acting interior
minister. No permanent choices for any of these posts have been nominated to
date.
• Direct Control Over Security Forces. Maliki’s critics have long asserted that he
has sought to exercise direct control over the security forces and to use them for
political purposes. In 2008, he began to 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
Counterterrorism 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 said that lower-level commanders routinely
bypass the official chain of command and report directly to Maliki’s office. On at
least one occasion, he has ordered tanks deployed around the homes and offices
of an opponent. In August 2012, Maliki formed a “Tigris Operations Command”
composed of Arab troops in the north which the Kurds viewed as a Maliki
attempt to exercise control over Kurd-Arab disputed areas.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

• National Council for Strategic Policies. Another issue, although raised seldom as
of early 2013, was stalemate over the formation of the National Council for
Strategic Policies—a key provision of the Irbil Agreement. Proposals from those
sympathetic to Allawi called 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 if they achieve support of 80% of the
council members. Allawi refused to chair the body unless it was given significant
authorities. Maliki and his supporters wanted this council to have as few powers
as possible, and the concept was not voted on by the COR.
• Blockage of Sunni Moves to Form Separate Regions. In late 2011, local Sunni
leaders attempted to use legal mechanisms to reduce central government control.
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.” Overwhelmingly Sunni Anbar province followed suit. The
mixed province of Diyala took a similar step on December 12, 2011, setting off
protests by Shiites in the province who might have been instigated by the Shiite-
dominated central government. Previously, the mostly Shiite provinces of Basra
and Wasit had begun similar processes, although doing so requires parliamentary
concurrence and a popular referendum of approval. The Maliki government has
essentially ignored these votes and did not task the Independent Higher Election
Commission (IHEC), which is a central government body, to organize the
referenda needed as part of the region formation process. The IHEC is subject to
Maliki’s control, giving him a de-facto veto over the region formation process.
• Exercise of Control Over Independent Bodies. Maliki’s critics assert that he has
tried to put under his executive control several independent bodies. In late 2010,
he requested 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.11 In March 2012,
Maliki also asserted governmental control over another institution that was to be
independent—the Central Bank. In October 2012, Maliki fired the Central Bank
governor for allegedly allowing unauthorized bulk transfers of foreign currency
out of the country.
Political Crisis Begins Immediately After U.S. Withdrawal Completion
The political disputes discussed above intensified as U.S. forces drew down until the final
withdrawal on December 18, 2011. As the last U.S. forces were exiting, and even as Maliki
visited Washington, DC, on December 12, 2011, to meet with President Obama, the carefully
constructed political power-sharing arrangements broke down. As a part of what Sunni Iraqis—
and also KRG President Barzani—have called a clear power grab by Maliki, Iraq has been
experiencing its worst political crisis since the U.S. invasion of 2003. Still, Iraqi factions have, in
the past, cobbled together agreements when faced with the alternative of political collapse.

11 Parker, Ned and Salar Jaff. “Electoral Ruling Riles Maliki’s Rivals.” Los Angeles Times, January 23, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

As the U.S. withdrawal completion approached, fears of some Sunnis were inflamed in October
and November 2011 by a series of arrests by security forces. About 600 Sunnis were arrested,
ostensibly for involvement in a coup plot alleged by the new leaders of Libya. Some Sunnis were
reportedly purged from the security forces, and 140 faculty members from the University of Tikrit
(Saddam’s home town) were removed for alleged Baathist associations. Many of the latter have
since been reinstated. These sentiments continue to plague post-U.S. presence Iraq.
The day of the final U.S. withdrawal (December 18, 2011), Maliki asked the COR to vote no
confidence against Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq, a senior Sunni Iraqiyya figure. That
day, Iraqiyya parliamentarians walked out of the COR and most of the Iraqiyya members of the
cabinet suspended their work. On December 19, 2011, the government announced an arrest
warrant against Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, another major Iraqiyya figure, accusing him of
ordering his security staff to commit acts of assassination. Three such guards were shown on
television “confessing” to assassinating rival politicians at Hashimi’s behest. Hashimi fled to the
KRG region for meetings with President Talabani and refused to return to face trial in Baghdad,
as is demanded by the judiciary, unless his conditions for a fair trial there were met. His trial in
absentia began in Baghdad in May 2012 and the court convicted and sentenced him to death on
September 9, 2012, for the killing of two Iraqis. There was not an international outcry over the
verdict and sentence suggesting that Maliki succeeded, to some extent, in convincing
international servers that there is evidence to support the allegations. Hashimi remains in Turkey,
where he eventually fled, meaning there is virtually no chance the death sentence will ever be
implemented. During January 19-20, 2012, security forces raided the homes of two Sunni
politicians in Diyala province and arrested the Sunni vice chairman of the Baghdad provincial
council.
Mid-2012: The Crisis Produces Failed Attempt to Vote Out Maliki
Sensing possible political unraveling, U.S. officials intervened diplomatically during 2012,
initially succeeding in containing the crisis. Iraqiyya COR deputies resumed their duties in late
January 2012 and Iraqiyya ministers returned to their offices on February 8, 2012. For his part,
Maliki arranged the release of some of the Baathists arrested in early 2012 and he agreed to legal
amendments to give provinces more autonomy over their budgets and the right of consent when
national security forces are deployed.12
By March 2012, the factions tentatively agreed to hold a “national conference,” to be chaired by
President Talabani, the purpose of which would be to achieve durable solutions to the outstanding
fundamental Sunni-Shiite-Kurdish issues. A “preparatory committee” was named to establish an
agenda and format, but the committee repeatedly failed to meet. However, March 20, 2012
comments by KRG President Barzani, accusing Maliki of a “power grab” by harnessing control
of the security forces dimmed prospects for holding the conference. On April 1, 2012, Maliki
nonetheless formally issued invitations to the major factions to convene on April 5, 2012. Barzani
kept intact his plans to visit the United States at that time and the conference was not held, nor
was a new date for it set.
With attempts to repair the rifts failing, during April 27-28, Maliki critics met in the KRG region
at the invitation of Barzani. Also attending the meetings were Iraqiyya leader Allawi, Iraqiyya
member and COR speaker Osama Nujaifi, and Moqtada Al Sadr, in what reportedly was his first

12 Tim Arango. “Iraq’s Prime Minister Gains More Power After Political Crisis.” New York Times, February 28, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

ever visit to the Kurdish north. At the conclusion of the meetings, the four reportedly issued a
letter to Maliki threatening a vote of no-confidence within 15 days unless he adheres to the
“principles and framework” of a more democratic approach to governance.
During late May and early June 2012, the Maliki opponents obtained the signature of 176
deputies requesting a no-confidence vote. Under Article 61 of the constitution, signatures of only
20% of the 325 COR deputies (65 signatures) are needed to trigger a vote, but President Talabani,
who is required to present a valid request to the COR to hold the vote, determined that factions
must demonstrate they have enough support to win such a vote. On June 10, 2012, Talabani stated
that there were only 160 valid signatures, after some deputies asked their signatures be removed.
On that basis he declined to ask the COR to go forward with the no-confidence vote. Some
experts attributed the signature withdrawals to pressure by Iran, through the Sadr faction, to keep
Maliki in office.13 Some Maliki opponents may have been dissuaded from continuing the effort
by Maliki’s counter-threat to call early national elections, suggesting that the crisis might have
bolstered Maliki’s popularity with his Shiite base. On the other hand, one rival Shiite leader,
ISCI’s leader Ammar al-Hakim, proved an able and successful mediator, perhaps in an effort to
position himself for national leadership in the future elections.
In part to cause the no-confidence vote effort to falter, or to calm the political situation in general,
Maliki reached out to Sunni leaders. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq resumed his duties,
signaling an end to another of Maliki’s efforts against Sunni leadership figures. And, Iraqi news
sources said that Maliki was able to at least temporarily win the support of two other senior
Iraqiyya figures in early September 2012—COR Speaker Nujaifi and Finance Minister Rafi al-
Issawi. On the other hand, Minister of Communications Mohammad al-Allawi, an Iraqiyya
member, resigned in late August 2012 in protest of what he said was Maliki’s interference in the
work of his ministry.
Crisis Intensifies as 2013 Begins, Triggered by Move Against Another Key Sunni
As many experts predicted, Maliki’s outreach to Sunni leaders was either temporary or insincere,
and a new crisis flared immediately after the widely respected political mediator President
Talabani suffered a stroke on December 18, 2012. The day he was flown out of Iraq for treatment
on December 20, 2012, Maliki again moved against his perceived Sunni adversaries with the
arrest of ten bodyguards of Finance Minister Rafi al-Issawi. That move again ignited broad Sunni
fears and touched off immediate anti-Maliki demonstrations—some large—in the major Sunnis
cities of Anbar, Salahuddin, and Nineveh provinces, as well as in Baghdad. Although the thrust of
the unrest was based on perceived discrimination against Sunnis by the Maliki-dominated central
government, some demonstrators used the protests to express their grievances over continued
shortfalls in government services. Some protesters carried pictures of ousted dictator Saddam
Hussein, prompting Maliki to warn that “former regime” elements might take advantage of the
protests and to threaten measures to end the protests. On January 7, 2013, ISF members fired into
the air to disperse protests. The demonstrator have essentially blocked the roads leading from Iraq
to Jordan. Violent Sunni elements have taken advantage of the unrest, for example by organizing
a breakout of AQ-I and other Sunni insurgent figures from a prison at Taji on January 11, 2013.
Politically, the new Sunni unrest sparked by the Issawi bodyguard arrests may jeopardize Maliki’s
prime ministership. Allawi and Saleh al-Mutlaq have called on Maliki to resign and, in a

13 “Embattled Iraqi PM Holding On To Power for Now.” Associated Press, June 12, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

potentially ominous sign for Maliki, Moqtada Al Sadr has shown cracks in Shiite solidarity by
supporting the demonstrators. In the COR, as of January 9, 2013, more than the required twenty
five deputes had signed on to a formal request for Maliki to appear before the COR to answer
questions about the unrest. As part of his political attempts to calm the demonstrations and divide
his opponents, Maliki has raised the possibility of calling elections earlier than the planned 2014
timeframe—perhaps concurrent with the April 2013 provincial elections (which are discussed
below).14 Maliki has tried to mollify the protesters by releasing some imprisoned Sunnis,
including 300 released on January 14, 2013.
Also unresolved—and perhaps adding to the unrest—is the incapacity of President Talabani.
Because first vice president al-Hashimi has been convicted and sentenced, second vice president
Khudayr Khuzai, a Shiite has become acting president while Talabani recovers. This has raised
fears that Maliki will try to engineer (through allies in the COR) the permanent replacement of
Talabani, a Kurd, with a Shiite (Khuzai). Doing so would upend the informal factional and ethnic
balance in the top tiers of government, and add substantial Kurdish unrest to that in the Sunni
community. And, Talabani’s incapacity has removed from the scene his substantial capacity to
mediate resolutions among the major factions.
The Crisis and Upcoming Elections
The political crisis threatened to have adverse effects on several upcoming elections in Iraq. The
mandate of the current nine-member IHEC expired at the end of April 2012. The April 12, 2012,
arrest of the IHEC chairman, Faraj al-Haidari, threatened to complicate the naming of a new
panel, but he was released and had resumed his duties by April 15, 2012. In late April, the IHEC’s
mandate was extended by three months, and the COR confirmed a new panel in September 2012.
The IHEC is needed to run the upcoming elections scheduled or possible.
April 2013 Provincial Elections. As noted above, the terms of the provincial councils are four
years, mandating the elections in the central government controlled provinces in early 2013. On
October 30, 2012, the Iraqi cabinet set a date for these elections as April 21, 2013. They will not
be held in the KRG-controlled provinces. The deadline for party registration expired on
November 25, 2012, and the IHEC subsequently published a list of 261 political entities that
registered to run. The registrants suggest that both the large Sunni as well as Shiite coalitions—
including Maliki’s—have fractured somewhat and their constituent parties are running separately.
Candidate registration is due by December 25, 2012. The seat distribution per province has
changed little from the 2009 election, but there is still an institutional dispute over the electoral
law that will govern these elections.
KRG Elections. Provincial elections in the KRG-controlled provinces were not held during the
January 2009 provincial elections in the other areas of Iraq, nor were they held during the March
7, 2010, COR vote. These elections had been scheduled for September 27, 2012, but a June 2012
KRG announcement postponement them indefinitely because the IHEC ruled that Christian
voters could only vote for Christian candidates, a ruling the Kurds said restricted the rights of
minorities living in the KRG. The Iraqi National Assembly has not enacted an election law to
govern these KRG elections and no date for them is scheduled.

14 Zaid Sabah. “Iraq’s al-Maliki Proposes Early Elections, al-Sumaria Reports. Bloomberg News, December 30, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Kirkuk Referendum. There is also to be a vote on a Kirkuk referendum at some point, if a
negotiated settlement is reached. However, a settlement does not appear within easy reach as of
early 2012 and no referendum is scheduled.
District and Sub-District Elections. District and sub-district elections throughout Iraq were
previously slated for July 31, 2009. However, those have been delayed as well, and no date has
been announced.
Constitutional Amendments. 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 has been no movement on this issue for at least
three years, and no indication such a referendum will be held in the near future.
Next COR Elections. The term of the existing COR expires no later than early 2014. That
schedule could change if the political crisis leads to early elections, as discussed above. If there
were a decision to hold the COR elections concurrent with the April 2013 provincial elections, the
COR would need to act quickly on an election law governing the COR vote.
Broader Sunni Community Grievances and Escalating Violence
The 2012-2013 Sunni unrest has again exposed the simmering, unresolved sense among Sunnis
that they are now “second-class citizens” in Iraq. The political disputes are discussed above, but
there is also a violent component to the Sunni grievances.
Sunni Insurgent Violence/Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQ-I) and Naqshabandis
The continuing Sunni resentment of the distribution of power might account for some of the high-
profile attacks that continue in Iraq, including those carried out by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQ-I). 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.15 An antecedent of AQ-I
was named by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in March 2004 and the
designation applies to AQ-I.
Since then, AQ-I and other Sunni insurgent groups have escalated their attacks with numerous
high-profile suicide and other attacks. The primary targets have been Shiite religious pilgrims and
Shiite neighborhoods, as well as members and installations of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).
These attacks are perceived as an effort by Sunni insurgents and AQ-I to undermine Maliki’s
leadership; to retaliate against his perceived actions against Sunnis; to undermine the confidence
of the ISF; and to possibly reignite sectarian conflict. The attacks have not, to any significant
extent, accomplished those objectives to date. Some assert that AQ-I and other Sunni insurgent
groups have been emboldened by the civil conflict in Syria, in which Sunni insurgents are
challenging the Assad regime, which is linked to Shiite Iran. In sympathy with the Sunni-led
“Free Syrian Army” armed opposition in Syria, some Iraqi groups have begun referring to
themselves as the “Free Iraqi Army.”

15 Michael Schmidt and Eric Schmitt. “Leaving Iraq, U.S. Fears New Surge of Qaeda Terror.” New York Times,
November 6, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

As examples of escalating violence, on February 7, 2012, the AQ-I affiliate Islamic State of Iraq
claimed responsibility for two attacks on Shiites—January 5 and January 14, 2012—that killed 78
and 53 Shiite pilgrims, respectively. On February 23, March 20, April 19, June 12, and July 4,
2012, AQ-I conducted multiple-city, complex attacks that killed 50, 40, 35, 65, and 50 people,
respectively.
Attacks later in the summer of 2012 were even more deadly. On July 23, 2012, AQ-I conducted
numerous attacks in several cities, killing about 115 Iraqis; the attacks came a day after AQ-I
leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi announced a “Breaking Down Walls” offensive against government
targets. Shortly thereafter, Iraqi insurgents downed an Iraqi helicopter. In late July 2012, the AQ-I
offensive compelled 15 Diyala Province “mukhtars”—chosen community liaisons with the
central government—to resign, claiming the government is not able to protect them. In mid-
August, AQ-I insurgents briefly captured a local government building in Haditha (Anbar
Province) and raised an Al Qaeda battle flag over it. On August 17, 2012, 93 Iraqis, mostly in
Shiite areas, were killed in a wide range of attacks around Iraq. On September 9, 2012, bombings
in numerous cities, and attributed to AQ-I, again killed more than 100 Iraqis. Another 26 Iraqis
were killed on September 30, 2012, a few days after insurgents attacked a jail in the Sunni-
inhabited town of Tikrit (Saddam Hussein’s home town) and freed 47 suspected AQ-I militants.
Observers say that more Iraqis (more than 200) were killed in militant attacks in September 2012
than any time in the past two years. On November 6, 2012, a blast at a military base in Taji, north
of Baghdad, killed more than two dozen persons seeking to be recruited into the ISF. On
November 30, 2012, and despite optimism over relative calms during the Shiite commemoration
of Ashura one week earlier, bombings in several cities killed 48 persons, mostly Shiites. A total of
32 Shiite pilgrims were killed in multiple incidents around Iraq on January 4, 2013. A member of
the COR was killed by a suicide bomber on January 15, 2013.
Prior to the spate of major attacks in summer of 2012, U.S. officials asserted that, by U.S.
measures of “security incidents” (attacks against diplomats, the government, or civilians) levels
of violence had not increased since the U.S. pullout, and remained roughly at a post-2003 low of
about 100 such incidents per week. However, the intensity of the summer 2012 attacks produced
a reassessment of that analysis. A visit to Iraq by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin
Dempsey on August 21, 2012, appeared intended to respond to Iraqi overtures to re-engage of
some of the U.S. military and police training programs that have languished throughout 2012—
overtures motivated by increasing Iraqi nervousness about the ability of the Iraq Security Forces
(ISF) to prevent further such incidents. This issue is discussed further below.
Many Iraqi Sunnis do not want the AQ-I campaigns to succeed and are inclined to work with the
government against AQ-I. In early 2012, more than 60 leaders of tribes in Sunni-dominated areas
of Iraq—with the concurrence of local government and security officials—reached agreement to
authorize tribal leaders to enforce strict codes of justice against insurgents and their accomplices.
Suggesting that the attacks may be intended to dissuade moderate Sunnis from engaging with the
government, one such moderate Sunni cleric, Shaykh Mahdi al-Sumaidaie, was seriously injured
in a bomb attack against his convoy on August 19, 2012.
Since early 2012, there have been indications that AQ-I might be intervening in the unrest in
Syria.16 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified on February 16, 2012, that it
might have been responsible for several suicide bombings against security targets in Damascus.

16 Sahar Issa. “Iraq Violence Dips Amid Rise in Syria.” Philadelphia Inquirer, February 21, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Iraq’s position on the Syria unrest is discussed in greater detail below. In July 2012, Iraqi Foreign
Minister Hoshyar Zebari corroborated the U.S. accusations about AQ-I movement into Syria.
Other press reports indicate that, in late October 2012, Jordanian authorities disrupted a plot by
AQ-I to bomb multiple targets in Amman, Jordan, possibly including the U.S. Embassy there. On
December 11, 2012, the United States designated a Syrian jihadist rebel group, the Al Nusrah
Front, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), asserting that it is an alias of AQ-I.
Another Sunni group, linked to ex-Baathists, is the Naqshabandi faction, based in northern Iraq.
Former Ambassador-nominee to Iraq Brett McGurk said in his June 6, 2012, confirmation
hearings that the Naqshabandis are responsible for most of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic
facilities in northern Iraq (particularly Kirkuk), although such attacks number only about 2-3 per
week, a relatively low level compared to periods at the height of the U.S. military mission in Iraq.
The attacks might have contributed to the State Department decision in mid-2012 to close the
Kirkuk consulate.
Sons of Iraq Fighters
Another Sunni grievance has been 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 cooperated with U.S. forces against Al Qaeda in Iraq and other
militants) into the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) or provide them with government jobs. During
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, according to Ambassador-nominee Brett McGurk in confirmation
hearings on June 6, 2012, about 70,000 have been integrated into the ISF or given civilian
government jobs, while 30,000 continue to man checkpoints in Sunni areas and are paid about
$300 per month by the government.
KRG-Central Government Disputes17
Since the end of the U.S.-led war to liberate Kuwait in early 1991, the United States has played a
role of protecting Iraq’s Kurds from the central government. Iraq’s Kurds have tried to preserve
this “special relationship” with the United States and use it to their advantage. Iraq’s Kurdish
leaders have long said they do not seek outright independence or affiliation with Kurds in
neighboring countries, but the Iraqi Kurds seek to preserve and expand on the autonomy they
have achieved. The issues dividing the KRG and Baghdad include not only KRG autonomy but
also disputes over territory and resources, particularly the ability of the KRG to export its oil.
That difference underpins KRG-Baghdad disagreements over proposed national oil laws. The
KRG has a directly elected President, Masoud Barzani, and elected Kurdistan National Assembly,
and an appointed Prime Minister. Since January 2012, the KRG Prime Minister has been
Nechirvan Barzani (Masoud’s nephew), who returned to that post after three years in which the
post was held by PUK senior figure Barham Salih.
To ensure their autonomy, the two main Kurdish factions (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, PUK, and
Kurdistan Democratic Party, KDP) continue to field their own force of peshmerga (Kurdish

17 For more information on Kurd-Baghdad disputes, see CRS Report RS22079, The Kurds in Post-Saddam Iraq, by
Kenneth Katzman.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

militiamen) numbering perhaps 75,000 fighters. They are generally lightly armed. Kurdish
leaders continue to criticize Maliki for opposing paying the peshmerga out of the national budget,
leaving the KRG to fund its operations. KRG President Barzani, during his U.S. visit in April
2012, discussed the reform of the peshmerga into a smaller but more professional and well
trained force.
The increasing disillusionment of Kurdish leaders with Maliki could produce lasting political
realignment. During 2012, Kurdish leaders have adopted the Sunni Arab criticisms of Maliki.
KRG President Masoud Barzani, who was directly elected by the residents of the Kurdish region
in July 2009, hinted at a potential break with Maliki on March 20, 2012, accusing him of
monopolizing power. Following a visit to Washington, DC, in early April 2012, Barzani indirectly
threatened to allow a vote on Kurdish independence unless Maliki resolves the major issues with
the KRG. 18 In June 2012, the Kurds in the COR joined Iraqiyya in an unsuccessful to oust Maliki
through a no confidence vote. This joint effort came despite Iraqi Kurdish hesitancy to side with
the Sunni Arabs because of the legacy of repression of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein and other
Sunni Iraqi leaders in the past.
In late 2012, the growing KRG-Baghdad animosity nearly produced all-out violent conflict
between the KRG and Baghdad. In August 2012, as noted above, Maliki formed a Tigris
Operational Command out of ISF units in the north. In mid-November 2012, a commercial
dispute between an Arab and Kurd in Tuz Khurmatu, a town straddling the Baghdad-KRG
territorial border, caused a clash and a buildup of ISF and Kurdish troops facing off. Several
weeks of U.S. and intra-Iraq mediation resulted in a tentative agreement on December 6, 2012,
for both sides to pull back their forces and for local ethnic groups to form units to replace ISF and
peshmerga units along the Baghdad-KRG frontier. The agreement has not been implemented,
although tensions seem to have calmed somewhat as 2013 began.
Territorial Issues/“Disputed Internal Boundaries”
The November 2012 KRG-peshmerga clash also relates to the lack of any progress in recent years
in resolving 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) is “Kurdish land” and must 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 for October 24, 2010, but then postponed until at
least December 2010 to allow time for a full-term government to take office. It still has not
begun, in part because of the broader political crisis (discussed below) as well as differences over
how to account for movements of populations into or out of the Kurdish controlled provinces.
In the absence of movement on formally integrating Kirkuk into the KRG, the Kurds have
attempted to steadily assert control in the province. The current governor of Kirkuk is Najmaddin
Karim, a longtime Kurdish activist in the United States before he moved back to Iraq following
the fall of Saddam Hussein. The Property Claims Commission that is adjudicating claims from
the Saddam regime’s forced resettlement of Arabs into the KRG region is functioning. Of the
178,000 claims received, nearly 26,000 were approved and 90,000 rejected or ruled invalid, as of

18 Interview with Masoud Barzani by Hayder al-Khoie on Al-Hurra television network. April 6, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

the end of 2011, according to the State Department human rights report for 2011. Since 2003,
more than 28,000 Iraqi Arabs settled in the KRG area by Saddam have relocated from Kirkuk
back to their original provinces.
Nineveh Province, which is mostly Arab but includes many villages where Kurds predominate, is
a component of the dispute. In the provincial elections of 2009, Sunni Arabs wrested back control
of the Nineveh (Mosul) provincial council from the Kurds. The Kurds had 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 al-Nufaiji, is the governor (brother of
2010-2014 COR speaker Usama al-Nujaifi), and the Kurds have been preventing his visitation of
areas of Nineveh where the Kurds’ peshmerga militia operates. 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.
Attempts to Resolve or Mitigate the Dispute
Attempting to resolve this dispute has been part of the work of the U.N. Assistance Mission—Iraq
(UNAMI), which has been consultations with all parties for several years.19 The mandate of
UNAMI—which is also to facilitate national reconciliation and civil society, and assisting
vulnerable populations—was established in 2003 and has been renewed every year since. U.N.
Security Council Resolution 2061 of July 25, 2012, renewed the mandate for another year (until
July 24, 2013).
During the U.S. military presence, the United States had set up mechanisms to prevent the
tensions from flaring into conflict, but these mechanisms may be deteriorating now that all U.S.
troops are out of Iraq. In August 2009 then-top U.S. commander in Iraq General Raymond
Odierno developed a plan to partner U.S. forces with peshmerga units and with ISF units in the
province to build confidence along the frontier between the two forces. 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, consisting of joint (ISF-U.S-
Kurdish) patrols, maintenance of 22 checkpoints, and U.S. training of participating ISF and
peshmerga forces. The mechanism has been administered through provincial level Combined
Coordination Centers, and disagreements were referred to a Senior Working Group and a High
Level Ministerial Committee.20
U.S. military involvement in the mechanism declined as U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq during
2011, but the United States continues to participate in it despite the absence of U.S. combat forces
from Iraq. Through Office of Security Cooperation—Iraq (OSC-I) facilities in Nineveh Province,
some U.S. military personnel attached to that office, assisted by U.S. diplomats and contractors,
help coordinate the joint patrols and checkpoints. Previously, some experts 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.

19 Meeting with congressional staff, February 24, 2011.
20 “Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops.” Rand Corporation, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

KRG Oil Exports/Oil Laws
The KRG and Baghdad have had repeated disputes over the ability of the Kurds to export oil that
is discovered and extracted in the KRG region. The Kurds view it as their right to develop their
resources, whereas Baghdad fears that Kurdish oil exports can potentially enable the Kurds to set
up an economically-viable independent state. Baghdad calls the KRG’s separate energy
development deals with international firms “illegal” but still allows KRG oil exports to proceed.
Under a Baghdad-KRG agreement, revenues from KRG oil exports go into central government
accounts, which distributes proceeds to the KRG and pays the international oil companies
working in the KRG.
Oil exports from the KRG have been repeatedly suspended, for varying periods of time, over
central government withholding of payments to the international energy firms. A recent
suspension of oil exports through the national oil grid began in April 2012 after the KRG accused
Baghdad of falling $1.5 billion in arrears to the companies extracting oil in the KRG region. At
the time of the suspension, KRG oil exports had reached about 175,000 barrels of crude oil per
day. The dispute escalated in July 2012 when the KRG began exporting crude oil by road to
Turkey, some of which is being refined and returned as gasoline to the KRG region. The dispute
was defused temporarily and Kurdish exports through the national grid resumed on August 9,
2012, amid a KRG threat to conduct another halt by September 15, 2012 if the international
companies were not paid. A Baghdad-KRG agreement of September 14, 2012, headed off another
shutdown—the pact provided for the Kurds to raise exports to 200,000 barrels per day as of
October 1, 2012, to increase that to 250,000 barrels per day for 2013, and for Baghdad to pay
about $900 million in arrears due the international firms. The agreement held for several months,
but the KRG slashed its oil exports in late November 2012 because of slow Baghdad payments to
the oil firms involved as well as the broader KRG-Baghdad problems discussed above. KRG oil
exports ceased again entirely on December 26, 2012. If this issue is permanently resolved, the
KRG has the potential to increase exports to 500,000 barrels per day by the end of 2013, and 1
million barrels per day by 2019.21
The September 2012 KRG-Baghdad agreement had boosted hope for resolving their differences
over national oil laws. The KRG adopted its own oil laws in 2007. The Kurds opposed 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 to the United States of then KRG Prime Minister Barham Salih,
Kurdish representatives said on November 8, 2011, that it is likely that the oil laws would be
taken up by the COR by the end of 2011.22 In part due to the political crisis, the issue did not
progress. The Baghdad-KRG agreement in September 2012 included a provision to set up a six
member committee to review the different versions of the oil laws under consideration and decide
which version to submit to the COR for formal consideration.
In the absence of adoption of national oil laws, the issue of foreign firm involvement in the KRG
energy sector also remains unresolved. The October 2011 KRG signing of an energy development
deal with U.S. energy giant Exxon-Mobil represents a further dimension of the energy row with
Baghdad. The central government denounced the deal as illegal, in part because the oil fields

21 Jane Arraf. “Iraq’s Unity Tested by Rising Tensions Over Oil-Rich Kurdish Region.” Christian Science Monitor,
May 4, 2012.
22 Author conversation with then KRG Washington, DC, representative Qubad Talabani, November 8, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

involved are in or very close to disputed territories. The KRG has sought to defuse this
consideration by saying that if the territory of the oil fields is subsequently judged to be part of
central government-administered territory, then the revenues would be reallocated accordingly.
Still, the central government threatened to cancel the firm’s existing contract to develop the West
Qurna oil field near Basra, which was signed with the central government. On February 13, 2012,
the central government announced its sanction against the firm as a prohibition on bidding for
work on unexplored fields to be tendered later in 2012. On March 17, 2012, Baghdad claimed
that Exxon-Mobil had frozen the KRG contract, but the KRG denies the company has stopped
work in the KRG region. Energy industry observers corroborate the KRG view and say Exxon
will likely begin production in the KRG in late 2012.23 Further disputes occurred over a July 2012
KRG deal with Total SA of France; in August 2012 the central government told Total SA to either
terminate its arrangement with the KRG or give up work on the central government Halfaya field.
Turkish Involvement
The growing relationship between Turkey and the KRG energy sector introduces additional
tensions into the issue and has raised tensions between Turkey and Baghdad. The KRG and
Turkey are reportedly discussing a broad energy deal that would include Turkish investment in
drilling for oil and gas in the KRG-controlled territory as well as construct a separate oil pipeline
linking KRG-controlled fields to the Turkish border. 24 That would reduce the KRG dependence
on the national oil export grid—the key source of Baghdad’s leverage over the KRG. To try to
head off such a deal, the Iraqi government has blacklisted Turkey’s state energy pipeline firm
(TPAO) from some work in southern Iraq. In December 2012, Iraq turned back a plane carrying
Turkey’s energy minister to a conference in the KRG capital of Irbil. However, Turkey and the
KRG continue to negotiate to finalize the large deal.
Intra-Kurdish Divisions
Further complicating the political landscape are widening divisions within the Kurdish
community. The KRG elections (conducted concurrently with the March 2010 national elections
throughout Iraq), 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 as President
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 have played a role in the popular demonstrations that occurred in
Sulaymaniyah in early 2011. The demonstrations reflected 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 were suppressed by peshmerga.

23 Iraq Oil Report. Exxon to Start Drilling in Disputed Kurdish Blocks. October 18, 2012.
24 International Crisis Group. “Iraq and the Kurds: The High-Stakes Hydrocarbons Gambit.” April 19, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

More recently, the health of Iraq’s President and PUK leader Jalal Talabani is said to be failing.
Barham Salih, mentioned above, is said to be pressing to replace him in that position. Another
PUK stalwart, Kosrat Rasoul, is said to be lining up support to succeed Talabani as PUK leader
should Talabani leave the scene. Talabani’s son, Qubad, had headed the KRG representative
office in Washington, DC, until July 2012, when he returned home to become more involved in
Kurdish and PUK politics as his father’s health fades. Talabani’s wife, Hero Ibrahim Ahmad
Talabani, is also a major figure in PUK politics.
The Sadr Faction’s Continuing Ambition and Agitation
Within the broader Shiite community, the faction of Shiite cleric, Moqtada Al Sadr sees itself as
the main representative for Iraq’s Shiites, particularly the majority of Shiites who are poor or
working class. The large Sadrist constituency has caused an inherent rivalry with Maliki and other
Shiite leaders in Iraq. Although Sadr was part of the anti-Maliki Shiite coalition (Iraqi National
Alliance) for the March 2010 national elections, he reached a political arrangement with Maliki
that paved the way for Maliki’s achieving another term, as noted above.
Suggesting that Sadr often shifts so as to maximize his faction’s leverage, in May 2012 Sadr
himself participated in meetings in the KRG region with other anti-Maliki factions to put pressure
on Maliki to increase power sharing. In June 2012, Sadrist deputies in the COR joined the effort
to vote no-confidence against Maliki, discussed above, only to abandon that effort under Iranian
pressure, by many accounts. Sadr appears to have again shifted against Maliki in the context of
the late 2012-early 2013 Sunni unrest.
Sadr’s shifts against Maliki represent a continuation of a high level of activity he has exhibited
since he returned to Iraq, from his studies in Iran, in January 2011. After his return, he gave
numerous speeches that, among other themes, insisted on full implementation of a planned U.S.
withdrawal by the end of 2011. 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. His followers conducted a large march
in Baghdad on May 26, 2011, demanding a full U.S. military exit. The threats were pivotal to the
Iraqi decision not to retain U.S. troops in Iraq beyond 2011.
Sadr’s threats to instigate violence were considered not idle. In June and July 2011, U.S. officials
accused Shiite militia offshoots of Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia of causing 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 Ahl al-Haq (AAH, League of the Righteous), Khata’ib
Hezbollah (Hezbollah Battalions), and Promised Day Brigade. In June 2009, Khata’ib Hezbollah
was named by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).
U.S. officials accused Iran of arming these militias with upgraded rocket-propelled munitions,
such as Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions (IRAMs), 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 to prevail on Iran to stop aiding the militias, actions that
subsequently, but temporarily, quieted the Shiite attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Some rocket
attacks continued against the U.S. consulate in Basra, which has nearly 1,000 U.S. personnel
(including contractors). However, Ambassador-nominee McGurk stated at his confirmation
hearings on June 6, 2012, that AAH, Khata’ib Hezbollah, and Promised Day Brigade had all
become less active since the U.S. military withdrawal because the U.S. exit removed their
justification for armed activity. Sadr’s Mahdi Army has integrated into the political process in the
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

form of a charity and employment network called Mumahidoon or “those who pave the way.”
Still, on November 8, 2012, the Treasury Department designated several Khata’ib Hezbollah
operatives, and their Iranian Revolutionary Guard—Qods Force mentors as terrorism supporting
entities under Executive Order 13224.
Governance and Human Rights Issues
The continuing political crises discussed above have dashed most hopes that Iraq will become a
fully functioning democracy with well-established institutions and rule of law.
National Oil Laws and Other Pending Laws
Adopting national oil laws has been considered key to establishing rule of law and transparency
in a key sector. Substantial progress appeared near in August 2011 when both the COR and the
cabinet drafted the oil laws long in the works to rationalize the energy sector and clarify the rules
for foreign investors. However, there were differences in their individual versions: the version
drafted 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; there was some expectation
that the COR would take up the issue when it reconvened on September 6, 2011, after the Eid al-
Fitr celebration marking the end of Ramadan. 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 cabinet’s draft law. The opposition and the presence of two
competing versions of the oil laws accounted for the postponement of further COR action until at
least the end of 2011, and the political crisis prevented movement on it subsequently. However, as
discussed above, in concert with a temporary KRG-Baghdad agreement on some aspects of their
dispute over the KRG energy sector, a six member panel has been working since September 2012
to decide which version of draft oil legislation the COR will consider.
Also not passed are laws addressing the environment, other elections, consumer protections,
intellectual property rights, building codes, and the permanent rules for de-Baathification. Others
say that the failure to adopt new laws governing investment, taxation, and property ownership
account for the slow pace of building a modern, dynamic economy, although others say the
success of Iraq’s energy sector is overriding these adverse factors. On the other hand, on April 30,
2012, the COR enacted a law to facilitate elimination of trafficking in persons, both sexual and
labor-related.
Energy Sector Development
The continuing deadlock on oil laws has not, however, prevented progress in the crucial energy
sector, which provides 90% of Iraq’s budget. Iraq possesses a proven 143 billion barrels of oil,
and increasing exports enabled Iraq’s GDP to grow by about 12% in 2012, according to the World
Bank. After long remaining below the levels achieved prior to the ouster of Saddam Hussein,
Iraq’s oil exports recovered to about 2.1 million barrels per day by March 2012, roughly the level
achieved during Saddam’s rule. Production reached the milestone 3 million barrels per day mark
in February 2012, which Iraqi leaders trumpeted as a key milestone in Iraq’s recovery, and
expanded further to about 3.2 million barrels per day in September 2012.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Iraqi leaders say they want to increase production to over 10 million barrels per day by 2017. The
International Energy Agency estimates more modest but still significant gains: it sees Iraq
reaching 6 mbd of production by 2020 if it attracts $25 billion in investment per year, and
potentially 8 mbd by 2035.
What is helping the Iraqi production is the involvement of foreign firms, including BP, Exxon-
Mobil, Occidental, and Chinese firms. U.S. firms assisted Iraq’s export capacity by developing
single-point mooring oil loading terminals to compensate for deterioration in Iraq’s existing oil
export infrastructure in Basra and Umm Qasr.
The growth of oil exports appears to be fueling a rapid expansion of the consumer sector. Press
reports in 2012 have noted the development of several upscale malls and other consequences of
positive economic progress.
Corruption
The State Department human rights report for 2011 contains substantial detail on the continuing
lack of progress in curbing governmental corruption. That assessment was corroborated by the
quarterly report of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), released
October 30, 2012, which said that corruption is one of the main obstacles to democratic progress
and development in Iraq. The reports assess that political and other factors that have caused anti-
corruption institutions, such as the Commission on Integrity (COI) and the Joint Anti-Corruption
Council, to be regularly thwarted or hampered in attempts to investigate and prosecute corruption.
The Joint Anti-Corruption Council is tasked with implementing the government’s 2010-14 Anti-
Corruption Strategy. Another body is the Supreme Board of Audits, which monitors the use of
government funds. The COR has its own Integrity Committee that oversees the executive branch
and the governmental anti-corruption bodies. And, the KRG has its own separate anti-corruption
institutions, including an Office of Governance and Integrity in the KRG council of ministers.
The State Department report states, in a three month period in 2011, over 200 corruption
investigations were halted on the authority of Iraqi ministers—presumably because they did not
want their departments or political allies investigated. However, in September 2012, there was
some cause for optimism on this issue because the Supreme Board of Audits discovered that
about 80% of the $1 billion in weekly government foreign currency purchases was being
transferred out of the country under false pretenses. As a result of the discovery, Maliki removed
longtime Central Bank governor Sinan al-Shabibi.
General Human Rights Issues
The State Department’s report on human rights for 2011 released May 24, 2012, largely repeated
the previous years’ criticisms of Iraq’s human rights record and the attribution of deficiencies in
human rights practices to the overall security situation and sectarian and factional divisions.25 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,

25 http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?dynamic_load_id=186428#wrapper
Congressional Research Service
28

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

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. Many of these same abuses and deficiencies are discussed in the Human Rights Watch
World Report for 2012, released January 22, 2012.
Use of Coercive Force Against Arab Spring-Related Demonstrations
Iraq’s government, although flawed, is the product of democratic choices. Therefore, many
experts were surprised when protests—inspired by the uprisings taking place elsewhere in the
Arab world and distinct from the unresolved ethno-sectarian conflicts discussed above—began in
several provinces of Iraq on February 6, 2011. The protesters expressed frustrated by what they
perceive as a nearly exclusive focus of the major factions on politics rather than governing or
improving services. Many protesters expressed particular outrage at the still severe shortages of
electricity in Iraq, as well as the lack of job opportunities and 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. Twenty Iraqis were killed by security forces in the large February 25,
2011, “Day of Rage” demonstrations called by Iraqi activists.
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 was said to rattle the top Kurdish
leaders, who fear the KRG’s image as an oasis of stability and prosperity was clouded.
The government measures in addition to repression to calm the unrest. In February 2011, Maliki
announced a voluntary cut in his salary (from about $350,000 per year to 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 its effectiveness or face
replacement. That deadline expired on June 7, 2011, without significant incident, although U.S.
diplomats say the government began 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.
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.
In early June 2011, in advance of the June 7 “100 day” deadline, the government detained several
dozen activists in order to preempt protests. Additional steps were taken subsequently to curb
protests, including tolerating pro-government thugs to beat demonstrators on June 10, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Trafficking in Persons
The State Department’s Trafficking in Persons report for 2012, released on June 19, 2012, places
Iraq in “Tier 2 Watch List” for the fourth year in a row. This is one rank short of Tier 3, the lowest
ranking. For 2012, Iraq received a waiver from automatic downgrading to Tier 3 (which happens
if a country is “watchlisted” for three straight years) because it has a plan to make significant
efforts to meet minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is devoting significant
resources to that plan.
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. One issue that troubles human rights activists is a law, passed by the COR in
August 2011, called the “Journalist Rights Law.” The law purports to protect journalists but left
many of the provisions of Saddam-era libel and defamation laws in place. For example, the new
law leaves in place imprisonment for publicly insulting the government. The State Department
human rights report for 2011 noted continuing instances of harassment and intimidation of
journalists who write about corruption and the lack of government services. Much of the private
media that operate is controlled by individual factions or powerful personalities. There are no
overt government restrictions on access to the Internet.
In March 2012, some observers reported a setback to free expression, although instigated by
militias or non-governmental groups, not the government. There were reports of 14 youths having
been stoned to death by militiamen for wearing Western-style clothes and haircuts collectively
known as “Emo” style. In late June 2012, the government ordered the closing of 44 new
organizations that it said were operating without a license. Included in the closure list were the
BBC, Voice of America, and the U.S.-funded Radio Sawa. The COR is also considering an
“Information Crimes Law” to regulate the use of information networks, computers, and other
electronic devices and systems. Human Rights Watch said in July 2012 that the draft law
“violates international standards protecting due process, freedom of speech, and freedom of
association.”26
Labor Rights
A 1987 (Saddam era) labor code remains in effect, restricting many labor rights, particularly in
the public sector. Although the 2005 constitution provides for the right to strike and form 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.
Religious Freedom/Situation of the Christian Religious Minority
The Iraqi constitution provides for religious freedom and the government generally respected
religious freedom, according to the State Department’s report on International Religious Freedom
for 2011, released July 30, 2012. However, reflecting the conservative Islamic attitudes of many

26 Human Rights Watch. “Iraq’s Information Crimes Law: Badly Written Provisions and Draconian Punishments
Violate due Process and Free Speech.” July 12, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
30

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Iraqis, conservative Shiite and Sunni clerics seek to enforce aspects of Islamic law and customs,
sometimes coming into conflict with Iraq’s generally secular traditions as well as constitutional
protections. On September 13, 2012, hundreds—presumably Shiites—took to the streets in
predominantly Shiite Sadr City to protest the “Innocence of Muslims” video that was produced in
the United States and set off protests throughout the Middle East in September 2012.
Concerns about religious freedom in Iraq tends to center on government treatment of religious
minorities. A major concern is the safety and security of Iraq’s Christian and other religious
minority populations which are concentrated in northern Iraq as well as in Baghdad. These other
groups include most notably the Yazidis, which number about 500,000-600,000; the Shabaks,
which number about 400,000-500,000; the Sabeans, who number about 4,000; the Baha’i’s that
number about 2,000; and the Kakai’s of Kirkuk, which number about 24,000. Since the 2003 U.S.
intervention, more than half of the 1 million-1.5 million Christian population that was there
during Saddam’s time have left. Recent estimates indicate that the Christian population of Iraq is
less than 500,000.
The State Dept. report details abuses or restrictions on the freedoms of religious minorities, both
by Baghdad as well as the KRG. In the past, violent attacks on members of the community have
occurred in waves. 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 people, appeared to exemplify the precarious situation for
Iraqi minorities. 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. Many 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 openly. 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 State Dept.
report said that during 2011, U.S. Embassy Baghdad designated a “special coordinator” to
oversee U.S. funding, program implementation, and advocacy to address minority concerns.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Specific Funding for Religious Minorities in Iraq
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. Ambassador-designate to Iraq, Robert Stephen Beecroft,
testified at his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearings on September 19,
2012, that the State Department has spent $72 million total to protect religious minorities in Iraq.
Women’s Rights
Iraq has a tradition of secularism and liberalism, and women’s rights issues have not been as large
a concern for international observers and rights groups as they have in Afghanistan or the Persian
Gulf states, for example. Women serve at many levels of government, as discussed above, and are
well integrated into the work force in all types of jobs and professions. By tradition, many Iraqi
women wear traditional coverings but many adopt Western dress. On October 6, 2011, the COR
passed legislation to lift Iraq’s reservation to Article 9 of the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
Executions
The death penalty is legal in Iraq. In June 2012, Amnesty International condemned the “alarming”
increase in executions, which had by then put 70 persons to death. U.N. High Commissioner for
Human Rights Navi Pillay also expressed shock in 2012 over the high number of executions in
Iraq. On August 28, 2012, the government executed 21 people, including three women, convicted
of terrorism-related charges.
Mass Graves
As is noted in the State Department report on human rights for 2010, the Iraqi government
continues to uncover mass graves of Iraqi 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.
Regional Dimension
Iraq’s neighbors, as well as the United States, have high interest in Iraq’s stability and its
friendship. Iraq’s post-Saddam leadership has affinity for Iran, which supported them in years of
struggle against Saddam. Yet, Iraq also seeks to reintegrate into the Arab fold—of which Iran is
not a part—after more than 20 years of ostracism following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August
1990. That motive mitigates, to some extent, Iranian influence in Iraq because the Arab world is
Congressional Research Service
32

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

primarily composed of Sunni Muslims and much of the Arab world is either at odds with or
highly suspicious of Iran.
Iraq’s reintegration into the Arab fold took a large step forward with the holding of an Arab
League summit in Baghdad during March 27-29, 2012. Iraq hailed the gathering as a success
primarily because of the absence of major security incidents during the gathering. However, only
9 heads of state out of the 22 Arab League members attended, and only one Persian Gulf leader,
Amir Sabah al-Ahmad Al Sabah of Kuwait, attended. Building on that success, and on its
relations with both the United States and Iran, on May 23-24, 2012, Iraq hosted nuclear talks
between Iran and the six negotiating powers (United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia,
and China).
Iraq is also sufficiently confident to begin offering assistance to other emerging Arab
democracies. Utilizing its base of expertise in chemical weaponry during the Saddam Hussein
regime, Iraq has provided some technical assistance to the post-Qadhafi authorities in Libya to
help them clean up chemical weapons stockpiles built up by the Qadhafi regime. It has also
donated $100,000 and provided advisers to support elections in Tunisia after its 2011 revolution.27
Iran
The United States remains at odds with Iran and seeks to limit Iranian influence over the Iraqi
political structure. Some argue that the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq represented a
success for Iranian strategy and that Iranian influence in Iraq is preponderant. Others argue that it
was U.S. policy that created this opportunity for Iran by bringing to power Iraqi Shiite Islamist
politicians long linked to Iran. To counter the impression that Iran might benefit from the
complete U.S. pullout, Secretary of State Clinton said on October 23, 2011, that:
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, saying that the
United States, even without U.S. troops present in Iraq, would be able to counter any threat from
Iranian influence or from Iran-backed Iraqi Shiite militias. These militias have been perceived as
a threat particularly to U.S. personnel in southern Iraq, although that threat abated in 2012.
Prime Minister Maliki has tried to calm fears that Iran exercises undue influence over post-U.S.
military Iraq. In so doing, he has stressed themes that are advanced by many experts that Iraqi
nationalism is resisting Iranian influence. Experts also note lingering distrust of Iran from the
1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, in which an estimated 300,000 Iraqi military personnel (Shiite and
Sunni) died. In his December 5, 2011, op-ed in the Washington Post, entitled “Building a Stable
Iraq,” Maliki wrote:
Iraq is a sovereign country. Our foreign policy is rooted in the fact that we do not interfere in
the affairs of other countries; accordingly, we oppose foreign interference in Iraqi affairs.

27 Tim Arango. “Iraq Election Official’s Arrest Casts Doubt on Prospects for Fair Voting.” New York Times, April 17,
2012.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Defense and security ties between Iran and Iraq have been discussed but little has materialized. 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. After the
U.S. withdrawal that was completed December 18, 2011, Iran announced it would welcome
closer defense ties to Iraq, including training Iraqi forces, although no such training has been
reported to date.
Iraq’s Shiite clerics also resist Iranian interference and take pride in Najaf as a more prominent
center of Shiite theology and history than is the Iranian holy city of Qom. In late 2011,
representatives of Ayatollah Mahmud Shahrudi, an Iraqi cleric long resident in Iraq, opened
offices in Najaf, Iraq. This was widely seen as an effort to promote Shahrudi as a possible
successor as marja taqlid (“source of inspiration,”—the most senior Shiite cleric) to the
increasingly frail Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. During an April 22-23, 2012, visit to Iran,
Maliki met with Shahrudi, in addition to meeting senior Iranian figures. However, observers say
the offices have not created a wave of support for Shahrudi as successor to Sistani.
Some assess that evidence of Iranian influence can be seen in Iraq’s alignment, in general, with
Iranian policy that seeks to keep Bashar Al Assad in power in Syria. This has put Iraq in a
difficult position between its two allies, the United States and Iran, in that the United States seeks
Assad’s ouster and is demanding Iraq not cooperate with any Iranian efforts to keep Assad in
power. This is discussed further below.
There are indications the Shiite-led government of Iraq has sought to shield pro-Iranian militants
who committed past acts of violence against U.S. forces. In May 2012, Iraqi courts acquitted and
Iraq released from prison a purported Hezbollah commander, Ali Musa Daqduq, although he
subsequently remained under house arrest. He had been in U.S. custody for alleged activities
against U.S. forces but, under the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement (discussed below) he was
transferred to Iraqi custody in December 2011. In July 2012, U.S. officials asked Iraqi leaders to
review the Daqduq case or extradite him to the United States, but Iraq released him in November
2012 and he returned to Lebanon, despite U.S. efforts to persuade Iraq to keep him there.
Still others see Iranian influence as less political than economic, raising questions about whether
Iran is using Iraq to try to avoid the effects of international sanctions. Some reports say Iraq is
enabling Iran’s efforts by allowing it to interact with Iraq’s energy sector and its banking system.
In July 2012, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on the Elaf Islamic Bank of Iraq for
allegedly conducting financial transactions with the Iranian banking system that violated the
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA, P.L. 111-
195). On the other hand, Iraq is at least indirectly assisting U.S. policy toward Iran by supplying
oil customers who, in cooperation with U.S. sanctions against Iran, are cutting back buys of oil
from Iran.
Observers also 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. Iranian officials said in mid-September 2012 that Iran’s exports to Iraq will reach
about $10 billion from March 2012-March 2013, a large increase from the $7 billion in exports in
the prior one year.
Congressional Research Service
34

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Iranian Opposition: People’s Mojahedin/Camp Ashraf and PJAK
The Iraqi government treatment of the population of Camp Ashraf, a camp in which over 3,500
Iranian oppositionists (People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, PMOI) have resided, is an
indicator of the government’s close ties to Iran. 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.
In November 2011, Maliki insisted that camp will close at the end of 2011, and the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees, the European Union, and other organizations worked to broker a
solution that avoids violence or forcible expulsion. In late December 2011 Maliki signed an
agreement with the United Nations on December 26, 2011, to relocate the population to former
U.S. military base Camp Liberty. The PMOI later accepted the agreement, dropping demands that
U.S. troops guard the residents during any relocation, and all but a residual 200 Ashraf residents
have completed their relocation to a former U.S. base, Camp Liberty (renamed Camp Hurriya).
There, each case is being evaluated by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees for the
potential for relocation outside Iraq. The relocation was a major factor in the U.S. decision,
formalized on September 28, 2012, to take the PMOI off the U.S. list of Foreign Terrorist
Organizations. Still, the PMOI alleges that Iraq is denying some services to the residents of Camp
Liberty and that these residents are suffering in the conditions there. This issue is discussed in
substantially greater detail in CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses,
by Kenneth Katzman.
Iran has periodically acted against other Iranian opposition groups based in Iraq. The Free Life
Party (PJAK) consists of Iranian Kurds, and it is allied with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party that
opposes the government of Turkey. Iran has shelled purported camps of the group on several
occasions. Iran is also reportedly attempting to pressure the bases and offices in Iraq of such
Iranian Kurdish parties as the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDP-I) and Komaleh.
Syria
Iraq has disagreed with U.S. policy toward Syria—which is to oust President Bashar Al Assad—
in large part because Maliki’s government perceives that post-Assad Syria would be run by Sunni
Arabs. A Sunni-led Syria would then likely align with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan, and not
with Shiite-led Iraq. During March 2011-August 2011, Iraq, as did Iran, refrained from sharp
criticism of Assad for using military force against protests, and Maliki received several high-level
business and other delegations from Syria. In September 2011, Iraq backed Iran’s calls for Assad
to make major reforms, but opposed the 22-country Arab League move in November 2011 to
suspend Syria’s membership. Iraq formally abstained on the vote, with Yemen and Lebanon the
only two “no” votes. Perhaps to ensure Arab participation at the March 2012 Arab League summit
in Baghdad, Iraq voted for a January 22, 2012, Arab League plan for a transition of power in
Syria. As an indication of Iraq’s policy of simultaneously engaging with the United States on the
Syria issue, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has attended U.S.-led meetings of “Friends of
Syria” countries that are seeking Assad’s ouster.
Congressional Research Service
35

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

A major issue that has erupted between Iraq and the United States since August 2012 has been
Iraq’s reported permission for Iranian arms supplies to overfly Iraq en route to Syria.28 Iraq had
been preventing them as of March 2012 but the flights reportedly resumed in August 2012.
Following high level U.S. demands that Iraq request the Iranian flights land in Iraq for inspection,
Iraq stopped a North Korean flight to Syria on September 21, 2012, and announced on September
30, 2012, that it would conduct random searches of Iranian overflights. The first such search of an
Iranian flight was conducted on October 2, 2012, but it was allowed to proceed when no arms
were found aboard. Iraq again compelled an Iranian cargo flight to land for inspection on October
29, 2012, and again allowed it to proceed after determining no contraband was aboard. Some
press reports say that many more Iranian flights to Syria overfly Iraq and are inspected by Iraq
only upon their return, after their cargo has been offloaded in Syria.
Aside from official Iraqi policy, the unrest in Syria has generated a scramble among Iraqi factions
to affect the outcome there. As discussed above, AQ-I members have reportedly entered Syria to
help the mostly Sunni opposition to President Assad and, as noted, on December 11, 2012, the
United States designated the Al Nusrah Front rebel group as an alias of AQ-I, thereby listing it as
an FTO. At the same time, there have been numerous reports that Iraqi Shiite militiamen have
entered Syria to fight on behalf of the Assad regime; it is not clear that the Iraqi government has
sought to prevent these fighters from going there.
The KRG appears to be assisting the Syrian Kurds, who joined the revolt against Assad in July
2012. KRG President Barzani has hosted several meetings of Syrian Kurds to promote unity and a
common strategy among them, and the KRG reportedly has been training Syrian Kurdish militia
forces to prepare them to secure an autonomous Kurdish area if and when Assad falls. On
November 6, 2012, Barzani warned the two major Syrian Kurdish factions—the Democratic
Union Party (PYD) and the Kurdish National Council—to avoid discord after the two had been
clashing inside Syria.
Turkey
Turkey’s concerns have historically focused mostly on the Kurdish north of 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. Turkey continues to conduct periodic bombardments and other military
operations against the PKK encampments in Iraq. For example, in October 2011, Turkey sent
ground troops into northern Iraq to attack PKK bases following the killing of 24 Turkish soldiers
by the PKK. However, suggesting that it has built a pragmatic relationship with the KRG, Turkey
has emerged as the largest outside investor in northern Iraq and is building an increasingly close
political relationship with the KRG as well.
As Turkey’s relations with the KRG have deepened, relations between Turkey and the Iraqi
government have worsened. Turkey’s provision of refuge for Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi has
been a source of tension; Maliki sought his extradition for trial, but Turkey has not turned him
over. On August 2, 2012, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davotoglu visited the city of Kirkuk,
prompting a rebuke from Iraq’s Foreign Ministry that the visit constituted inappropriate

28 Kristina Wong, “ Iraq Resists U.S. Prod, Lets Iran Fly Arms to Syria.” Washington Times, March 16, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
36

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

interference in Iraqi affairs. And, tensions have been aggravated by their differing positions on
Syria: Turkey is a prime backer of the mostly Sunni rebels there where. And, as noted above,
Baghdad has sought to block Turkey’s attempts to broaden energy relations with the KRG.
Gulf States
Iraq also has unresolved disputes with several of the Sunni-led Persian Gulf states who have not
fully accommodated themselves to the fact that Iraq is now dominated by Shiite factions.
However, Iraq has tried, with some success, to settle some of these issues to encourage maximum
Gulf participation in the March 27-29, 2012, Arab League summit in Baghdad. All the Gulf states
were represented at the summit but, among Gulf rulers, only Amir Sabah of Kuwait attended.
Qatar sent a very low-level delegation which it said openly was meant as a protest against the
Iraqi government’s treatment of Sunni Arab factions.
Saudi Arabia had been widely criticized by Iraqi leaders because it has not opened an embassy in
Baghdad, a move Saudi Arabia pledged in 2008 and which the United States has long urged. This
issue was mitigated on February 20, 2012, when Saudi Arabia announced that it had named its
ambassador to Jordan, Fahd al-Zaid, to serve as a non-resident ambassador to Iraq concurrently.
However, it did not announce the opening of an embassy in Baghdad. The Saudi move came after
a visit by Iraqi national security officials to Saudi Arabia to discuss greater cooperation on
counterterrorism and the fate of about 400 Arab prisoners in Iraqi jails. The other Gulf countries
have opened embassies and all except the UAE have appointed full ambassadors to Iraq.
The government of Bahrain, which is mostly Sunni, also fears that Iraq might work to empower
Shiite oppositionists who have demonstrated for a constitutional monarchy during 2011.
Ayatollah Sistani is revered by many Bahraini Shiites, and Iraqi Shiites have demonstrated in
solidarity with the Bahraini opposition, but there is no evidence that Iraq has had any direct role
in the Bahrain unrest.
Kuwait
The relationship with Kuwait has always been considered difficult to resolve because of the
legacy of the 1990 Iraqi invasion. However, a possible indication of greater acceptance of the
Iraqi government by the state it once occupied (1990-1991) came when Kuwait’s then prime
minister visited Iraq on January 12, 2011. Maliki subsequently visited Kuwait on February 16,
2011, and, as noted above, the Amir of Kuwait attended the Arab League summit in Baghdad in
March 2012.
These key exchanges took place after 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 payments process remains intact (and
deducts 5% from Iraq’s total oil revenues). As of the end of December 2012, a U.N.
Compensation Commission set up under Security Council Resolution 687 has paid $38.8 billion
to claimants from the 1990-91 Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, with an outstanding balance of $13.6
billion to be paid by April 2015.
A U.N. envoy, Gennadi Tarasov, remains empowered by the Security Council to clear up the
issues of Kuwaitis and other nationals missing from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the issue of
the missing Kuwaiti national archives that Iraq allegedly took out of Kuwait. Very little progress
Congressional Research Service
37

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

on these issues has been made in recent years, as was made clear in a Security Council statement
of December 15, 2011 (SC/10490) as well as in Security Council documents issued December 14,
2012 (S/2012/931 and S/2012/932). The remains of 236 of the approximately 605 missing
Kuwaitis have been found, but efforts to find 369 missing Kuwaitis have been unsuccessful,
despite continued research and investigation of possible burial sites. On the other hand, the U.N.
reports of December 14, 2012 indicated that Iraq had, in 2012, found and returned to Kuwait
some Kuwaiti media archives, as well as keys to safes from the Central Bank of Kuwait. Still, the
Kuwaiti national archives remain missing. Other mutual suspicions persist—in August 2011 Iraqi
politicians accused Kuwait of intruding on Iraq’s oil through slant drilling at the border.
Some other bilateral issues moved forward during the March 15, 2012, visit of Maliki to Kuwait.
After Maliki’s meetings, the two announced that Iraq had agreed to pay its share of compensation
to maintain border markings between the two. Iraq agreed to pay $300 million to the Kuwaiti
government and to invest $200 million in a joint venture of the two as settlement for Kuwait
Airways’ claim for $1.2 billion in compensation for planes and parts allegedly stolen by Iraq
during the 1990-1991 occupation. These agreements paved the way for Amir Sabah to attend the
Arab League summit in Baghdad. Subsequently, Iraq-Kuwait direct flights resumed, and an
agreement was reached for Iraq to pay its share of the costs of maintaining border markings.
U.S. Military Withdrawal and Post-2011 Policy
A complete U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011 was a specific stipulation of
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. These withdrawal deadlines were strictly adhered to.
Question of Whether U.S. Forces Would Remain Beyond 2011
During 2011, with the deadline for a complete U.S. withdrawal approaching, continuing high-
profile attacks, fears of expanded Iranian influence, and perceived deficiencies in Iraq’s nearly
700,000 member security forces 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 rifts among major ethnic and sectarian
communities were still wide enough that Iraq could still become a “failed state” unless some U.S.
troops remained. U.S. officials emphasized that the ongoing ISF weaknesses centered on lack of
ability to defend Iraq’s airspace and borders. Iraqi comments, such as an October 30, 2011,
statement by Iraqi Army Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Babaker Zebari that Iraq would be
unable to execute full external defense until 2020-2024, reinforced those who asserted that a U.S.
force presence was still needed.29 Renegotiating the SA to allow for a continued U.S. troop
presence required discussions with the Iraqi government and a ratification vote of the Iraqi COR.
Several high-level U.S. visits and statements urged the Iraqis to consider extending the U.S. troop
presence. Maliki told visiting Speaker of the House John Boehner, during an April 16, 2011, visit

29 “Iraq General Says Forces Not Ready ‘Until 2020.’” Agence France Presse, October 30, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
38

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

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.30 Subsequent to Boehner’s visit, Maliki,
anticipating that a vote of the COR would be needed for any extension, stated that a request for
U.S. troops might be made if there were a “consensus” among political blocs, which he defined as
at least 70% concurrence.31 This appeared to be an effort to isolate the Sadr faction, 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 an affirmative decision, and quickly. On August 3, 2011, major factions gave Maliki their
backing to negotiate an SA extension, and Secretary Panetta said on August 20, 2011, that it was
likely that Iraq would request a continued U.S. presence primarily to train the ISF. In September
2011, a figure of about 15,000 remaining U.S. troops, reflecting recommendations of the U.S.
military, was being widely discussed.32 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.33 Many
experts criticized that figure as too low to carry out the intended missions.
President Obama Announces Decision on Full Withdrawal
The difficulty in the negotiations—primarily a function of strident Sadrist opposition to a
continued U.S. presence—became clearer on October 5, 2011, when Iraq issued a statement that
some U.S. military personnel should remain 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 feared that trying any American soldier under the Iraqi
constitution could lead to serious crises at some stage.
On October 21, 2011, President Obama announced that the United States and Iraq had agreed
that, in accordance with the November 2008 Security Agreement (SA) with Iraq, all U.S. troops
would leave Iraq at the end of 2011. With the formal end of the U.S. combat mission on August
31, 2010, U.S. forces dropped to 47,000, and force levels dropped steadily from August to
December 2011. The last U.S. troop contingent crossed into Kuwait on December 18, 2011.
The withdrawal—and perhaps the political crisis that broke out immediately after the completion
of the withdrawal—caused some to argue that U.S. gains were jeopardized and that the
Administration should have pressed Iraqi leaders harder to allow a U.S. contingent to remain.
Those who support the Administration view say that political crisis was likely no matter when the
United States withdrew and that it is the responsibility of the Iraqis to resolve their differences.
Structure of the Post-Troop Relationship
After the withdrawal announcement, senior U.S. officials stated that the United States would be
able to continue to help Iraq secure itself using programs commonly provided for other countries.
Administration officials stressed that the U.S. political and residual security-related presence

30 Prashant Rao. “Maliki Tells US’ Boehner Iraqi Troops Are Ready.” Agence France Presse, April 16, 2011.
31 Aaron Davis. “Maliki Seeking Consensus on Troops.” Washington Post, May 12, 2011.
32 Author conversations with Iraq experts in Washington, DC, 2011.
33 Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers. “Plan Would Keep Military in Iraq Beyond Deadline.” September 7, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
39

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

would be sufficient to exert influence and leverage to ensure that Iraq remained stable, allied to
the United States, continuing to move toward full democracy, and economically growing and
vibrant.
At the time of the withdrawal, there were about 16,000 total U.S. personnel in Iraq, about half of
which were contractors. Of the contractors, most are security contractors protecting the U.S.
Embassy and consulates, and other State Department and Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq
facilities throughout Iraq. However, staff cuts discussed below have left the total number of U.S.
personnel in Iraq at about 12,500 at the end of 2012.
Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I)
The Office of Security Cooperation—Iraq (OSC-I), operating under the authority of the U.S.
Ambassador to Iraq, is the primary Iraq-based U.S. institution that continues to train and mentor
the Iraqi military, as well administer the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programs (U.S. arms sales
to Iraq). OSC-I, funded with the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds discussed in the aid
table below, is the largest U.S. security cooperation office in the world. It works out of the U.S.
Embassy in Baghdad and five other locations around Iraq (Kirkuk Regional Airport Base, Tikrit,
Besmaya, Umm Qasr, and Taji), but OSC-I plans to transfer its facilities to the Iraqi government
by the end of 2013.
The total OCS-I personnel numbers over 3,500, but the vast majority are security and support
personnel, most of which are contractors. Of the staff, about 175 are U.S. military personnel and
an additional 45 are Defense Department civilians. About 46 members of the staff administers the
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and other security assistance programs such as the
International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. Since 2005, DOD has
administered 231 U.S.-funded FMS cases totaling $2.5 billion, and 201 Iraq-funded cases totaling
$7.9 billion. There are a number of other purchase requests initiated by Iraq that, if they all move
forward, would add bring the estimated value of all Iraq FMS cases to over $19 billion.34
The largest FMS case is the sale of 36 U.S.-made F-16 combat aircraft to Iraq, notified to
Congress in two equal tranches, the latest of which was made on December 12, 2011 (Transmittal
No. 11-46). The total value of the sale of 36 F-16s is up to $6.5 billion when all parts, training,
and weaponry are included. Iraq has paid $2.5 billion of that amount, to date. The first deliveries
of the aircraft are scheduled for September 2014.
Another large part of the arms sale program to Iraq is for 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks. Deliveries
began in August 2010 and the last of them were delivered in late August 2012. the tanks cost
about $860 million, of which $800 million was paid out of Iraq’s national funds. Iraq reportedly is
also seeking to buy up to 30 Stryker armored vehicles equipped with gear to detect chemical or
biological agents—a purchase that, if notified to Congress and approved and finally agreed with
Iraq, would be valued at about $25 million. On December 23, 2012, the U.S. Navy delivered two
support ships to Iraq, which will assist Iraq’s fast-attack and patrol boats that secure its offshore
oil platforms and other coastal and offshore locations.

34 Iraq Signs Arms Deals Worth $4.2 Billion. Washington Post, October 10, 2012; Tony Capaccio. “Iraq Seeks Up to
30 General Dynamics Stryker Vehicles.” Bloomberg News, November 19, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
40

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

In addition to administering arms sales to Iraq, OSC-I’s mission—involving about 160
personnel— is to conduct train and assist programs for the Iraq military. Because the United
States and Iraq have not agreed on a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) document (which would
grant legal immunities to U.S. military personnel), the personnel involved in these programs are
mostly contractors. They train Iraq’s forces on counterterrorism and naval and air defense. Some
are “embedded” with Iraqi forces as trainers not only tactically, but at the institutional level by
advising Iraqi security ministries and its command structure. If a SOFA is agreed, some of these
missions could be performed by U.S. military personnel, presumably augmenting the
effectiveness of the programs. In some cases, not limited to OSC-I personnel, Iraq has been
detaining U.S. security contractors at checkpoints, complicating not only the U.S. security
assistance effort but also the U.S. effort to protect its own personnel and facilities.
On October 2, 2012, OSC-I officials said they planned to review their operations because the
Continuing Appropriations for FY2013 (P.L. 112-175), did not reauthorize for FY2013 (that
began October 1, 2012) U.S. funding to train the ISF. Defense Department spokespersons
subsequently said they had identified other funding to continue OSC-I training activities in Iraq
through the end of 2012.
Police Development Program
A separate program is the Police Development Program, which is the largest program that has
transitioned from DOD to State Department lead. An October 2011 audit by the SIGIR (Special
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction) identified deficiencies in the U.S.-funded training
program for the Iraqi police forces (Police Development Program, PDP) as that responsibility was
transferred from DOD to State on October 1, 2011.35 That program draws on International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INCLE) funds. However, Iraq’s drive to emerge from U.S.
tutelage has produced apparent Iraqi disinterest in the PDP. It now consists of only 36 advisers,
about 10% of what was envisioned as an advisory force of 350. Two facilities built with over
$200 million in U.S. funds (Baghdad Police College Annex and part of the U.S. consulate in
Basra) are to be turned over the Iraqi government by December 2012. Some press reports say
there is Administration consideration of discontinuing the program entirely.36
Late 2012: Iraq Rededicating to U.S. Security Programs?
Heightened AQ-I and other insurgent activity since mid-2012 has apparently shaken the Iraqi
leadership’s confidence in the ISF somewhat, and apparently prompted the Iraqi government to
re-emphasize security cooperation with the United States. On August 19, 2012, en route to a visit
to Iraq, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said that “I think [Iraqi
leaders] recognize their capabilities may require yet more additional development and I think
they’re reaching out to us to see if we can help them with that.”37
General Dempsey’s August 21, 2012, visit focused on the security deterioration, as well as the
Iranian overflights to Syria discussed above, according to press reports. Regarding U.S.-Iraq
security relations, Iraq reportedly expressed interest in expanded U.S. training of the ISF, joint

35 http://www.sigir.mil/files/audits/12-006.pdf#view=fit.
36 Tim Arango. “U.S. May Scrap Costly Efforts to Train Iraqi Policy.” New York Times, May 13, 2012.
37 “U.S. Hopes For Stronger Military Ties With Iraq: General” Agence France-Presse, August 19, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
41

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

exercises, and accelerated delivery of U.S. arms to be sold, including radar, air defense systems,
and border security equipment.38 Some refurbished air defense guns are being provided gratis as
excess defense articles (EDA), but Iraq was said to lament that the guns would not arrive until
June 2013. Iraq reportedly argued that the equipment was needed to help it enforce insistence that
Iranian overflights to Syria land in Iraq for inspection.
After the Dempsey visit, reflecting the Iraqi decision to re-engage intensively with the United
States on security, it was reported that, at the request of Iraq, a unit of Army Special Operations
forces had recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence,
presumably against AQ-I.39 (These forces presumably are operating under a limited SOFA or
related understanding crafted for this purpose.) Iraq pressed its attempts to speed up weapons
deliveries during a visit by Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on October 18, 2012.
Reflecting an acceleration of the Iraqi move to re-engage militarily with the United States, during
December 5-6, 2012, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller and acting Under
Secretary of State for International Security Rose Gottemoeller visited Iraq and a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) was signed with acting Defense Minister Sadoun Dulaymi. The five
year MOU provides for:
• high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges
• professional military education cooperation
• counter-terrorism cooperation
• the development of defense intelligence capabilities
• joint exercises
The MOU appears to address many of the issues that have hampered OSC-I from performing the
its mission to its full potential. The MOU also reflects some of the more recent ideas, such as
joint exercises, that were advanced during the August 2012 Dempsey visit. There are no
indications to date, however, that the apparent phase-out of the State Department-run Police
Development Program is being slowed or reversed. However, it is possible that the United States
and Iraq might agree to continue to phase it out and perhaps replace it with a DoD-led program
with similar objectives.
Still, Iraq seeks to diversify its arms supplies. Maliki visited Russia on October 8, 2012, and
signed deals for Russian arms worth about $4.2 billion. The arms are said to include 30 MI-28
helicopter gunships and air defense missiles, including the Pantsir. However, a few days later,
Iraq said it was reviewing the deal because of allegations that corruption was involved in its
negotiation. It is not clear where the deal stands as of December 2012. Iraq might also buy MiG
fighter jets in the future, according to press reports. In mid-October 2012, Iraq agreed to buy 28
Czech-made military aircraft, a deal valued at about $1 billion.40

38 Dan De Luce. “U.S. ‘Significant’ in Iraq Despite Troop Exit: Dempsey.” Agence France-Presse, August 21, 2012.
39 Tim Arango. “Syrian Civil War Poses New Peril For Fragile Iraq.” New York Times, September 25, 2012.
40 Adam Schreck. “Iraq Presses US For Faster Arms Deliveries.” Yahoo.com, October 18, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
42

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Regional Reinforcement Capability
In conjunction with the withdrawal, Defense Secretary Panetta stressed that the United States
would retain a large capability in the Persian Gulf region, presumably to be in position to assist
the ISF were it to falter, and to demonstrate continuing U.S. interest in Iraq’s security as well as to
deter Iran. The United States has about 50,000 military personnel in the region, including about
15,000 mostly U.S. Army forces in Kuwait, a portion of which are, as of mid-2012, combat ready
rather than purely support forces. There are also about 7,500 mostly Air Force personnel in Qatar;
5,000 mostly Navy personnel in Bahrain; and about 3,000 mostly Air Force and Navy in the
UAE, with very small numbers in Saudi Arabia and Oman. The remainder are part of at least one
aircraft carrier task force in or near the Gulf at any given time. The forces are in the Gulf under
bilateral defense cooperation agreements with all six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states that
give the United States access to their military facilities and, in several cases, to station forces and
preposition even heavy armor.
The Diplomatic and Economic Relationship
In his withdrawal announcement, President Obama stated that, through U.S. assistance programs,
the United States would be able to continue to develop all facets of the bilateral relationship with
Iraq and help strengthen its institutions.”41 The bilateral civilian relationship was the focus of a
visit to Iraq by Vice President Biden in early December 2011, just prior to the December 12,
2011, Maliki visit to the United States, which reportedly focused on these issues but also exposed
some U.S.-Iraq disagreements, such as over policy toward Syria.
The cornerstone of the bilateral relationship is the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA). The
SFA, signed and entered into effect at the same time as the SA, presents a framework for long-
term U.S.-Iraqi relations, and is intended to help orient Iraq’s politics and its economy toward the
West and the developed nations, and reduce its reliance on Iran or other regional states.
The SFA provides for the following (among other provisions):
• 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.
• U.S support for Iraqi democracy and support for Iraq in regional and
international organizations.
• U.S.-Iraqi dialogue to increase Iraq’s economic development, including through
the Dialogue on Economic Cooperation and a Trade and Investment Framework
Agreement.
• Promotion of Iraq’s development of its electricity, oil, and gas sector.
• U.S.-Iraq dialogue on agricultural issues and promotion of Iraqi participation in
agricultural programs run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and USAID.
• Cultural cooperation through several exchange programs, such as the Youth
Exchange and Study Program and the International Visitor Leadership Program.

41 Remarks by the President on Ending the War in Iraq.” http://www.whitehouse.gov, October 21, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
43

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

State Department-run aid programs are intended to fulfill the objectives of the SFA, according to
State Department budget documents. These programs, implemented mainly through the
Economic Support Fund account, and based on the State Department budget justification for
foreign operations for FY2013, are intended to:
• Promote Iraqi political reconciliation and peaceful dispute resolution.
• Strengthen the ability of COR deputies to represent their constituents.
• Make the electoral institutions, such as the IHEC, more effective.
• Strengthen the delivery of services to citizens.
• Improve primary education.
• Assist local governing bodies, such as the provincial councils.
• Promote Iraqi economic growth and the development of the private sector,
particularly the financial sector.
• Continue counterterrorism operations (NADR funds).
• Institute anti-corruption initiatives.
U.S. officials stress that the United States does not bear the only burden for implementing the
programs above, in light of the fact that Iraq is now a major oil exporter. For programs run by
USAID in Iraq, Iraq matches dollar for dollar the U.S. funding contribution.
The State Department as Lead Agency
Virtually all of the responsibility for conducting the bilateral relationship falls on the State
Department, which became the lead U.S. agency in Iraq as of October 1, 2011. With the transition
completed, the State Department announced on March 9, 2012, that its “Office of the Iraq
Transition Coordinator” has closed. In concert with that closure, the former coordinator,
Ambassador Pat Haslach, assumed a senior post in another State Department bureau. Of the total
U.S. personnel in Iraq, about 1,200 are U.S. diplomats or other civilian employees of the U.S.
government.42
In July 2011, as part of the transition to State leadership in Iraq, the United States formally
opened consulates in Basra, Irbil, and Kirkuk. An embassy branch office was considered for
Mosul but cost and security issues kept the U.S. facility there limited to a diplomatic office. The
Kirkuk consulate close at the end of July 2012 in part due to security concerns and to save costs.
Not only have U.S. plans for some consulates been altered, but the size and cost of the U.S.
civilian presence in Iraq is undergoing reduction. In part this is because Iraqi leaders chafed at
continued U.S. tutelage and were less welcoming of frequent U.S. diplomatic exchanges. Press
reports say the Iraqis are increasingly displacing foreign firms and contractors from the
International Zone (Green Zone) in favor of Iraqi institutions, and U.S. diplomats have had
trouble going outside the Zone for official appointments because of security concerns.

42 Tim Arango. “U.S. Plans to Cut Its Staff by Half at Iraq Embassy.” New York Times, February 8, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
44

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Former Ambassador-nominee to Iraq Brett McGurk stated in his June 6, 2012, confirmation
hearings that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, built at a cost of about $750 million, is too large and
carries too much staff relative to the needed mission. He said the State Department plan is to cut
the staff at the embassy by about 25% by the end of 2013. The process of reducing staff in part
accounts for the fall in the total number of U.S. personnel in Iraq to about 12,500 as of the end of
2012 from nearly 17,000 at the time of the completion of the U.S. withdrawal at the end of 2011.
As shown in Table 3 below (in the note), the State Department request for operations (which
includes costs for the Embassy as well as other facilities and all personnel in Iraq) is about $2.7
billion for FY2013, down from $3.6 billion requested for FY2012—with FY2012 considered a
“transition year” to State Department leadership, and requiring high start-up costs. In addition,
press reports say the Central Intelligence Agency is planning to reduce its staff to about 40% of
the 700 personnel it had in Iraq at the height of the U.S. military presence there.43
The debate over staff is separate from but related to the debate over whether the State
Department, using security contractors, can fully secure its personnel in Iraq. No U.S. civilian
personnel in Iraq have been killed or injured since the troop withdrawal.
Status of the Ambassador Post. As noted above, Brett McGurk was nominated and had his Senate
confirmation hearings on June 6, 2012. Shortly thereafter, he withdrew after revelations of an
extramarital relationship with an Iraq-based U.S. journalist during his prior service at the U.S.
Embassy in Baghdad. The Administration subsequently named deputy chief of mission in Iraq,
Robert Stephen Beecroft, as Ambassador-Designate. His confirmation hearings were held by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 19, 2012; he was confirmed three days later
and is serving in Baghdad.
No Sanctions Impediments
As the U.S.-Iraq relationship matures, some might focus increasingly on U.S.-Iraq trade and U.S.
investment in Iraq. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, all U.S. economic sanctions against Iraq
were lifted. Iraq was removed from the “terrorism list,” and the Iraq Sanctions Act (Sections 586-
586J of P.L. 101-513), which codified a U.S. trade embargo imposed after Iraq’s invasion of
Kuwait, was terminated. As noted above in the section on the Gulf states, in December 2010, a
series of U.N. Security Council resolutions removed most remaining “Chapter VII” U.N.
sanctions against Iraq, with the exception of the reparations payments to Kuwait. The lifting of
U.N. sanctions allows any country to sell arms to Iraq. However, Iraq still is required to comply
with international proliferation regimes—meaning that it is generally barred from reconstituting
Saddam era weapons of mass destruction programs. On October 24, 2012, Iraq demonstrated its
commitment to compliance with these restrictions by signing the “Additional Protocol” of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Because sanctions have been lifted, there are no impediments
to U.S. business dealings with Iraq.




43 Siobhan Gorman and Adam Entous. “CIA Prepares Iraq Pullback.” Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
45

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights


Table 2. March 2010 COR Election: Final, Certified Results by Province
Elected Seats in
Province
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
Maliki: 87 + 2 compensatory = 89
minority reserved + 7
compensatory)
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
46

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Iraq: FY2003-FY2013
(appropriations/allocations in millions of $)
FY







Total
FY’13

‘03 04 05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
03-12
Request
IRRF
2,475
18,389 —
10
— — — — —
––
20,874

ESF
—
—
— 1,535.4 1,677 429 541.5 382.5 325.7
299 5,190
262.9
Democracy

Fund
— — — — 250 75 — — —
–– 325
IFTA

(Treasury
Dept.
Asst.)
— — — 13.0 2.8 — — — —
–– 15.8
NADR

—
— 3.6
— 18.4 20.4 35.5 30.3 29.8
32
170
30.3
Refugee

Accounts
(MRA and
ERMA)

39.6
.1 — — 78.3 278 260 316 280
–– 1,252
IDA
22 — 7.1 .3
45 85 51 42 17
–– 269

Other

USAID
Funds
470 — — — —
23.8 — — —
–– 494
INCLE

— — — 91.4 170 85 20 702
114.6 500 1,683
850
FMF
–– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 850 850
900
IMET
—
1.2
—
—
1.1
—
2
2
1.7
2
10
2
DOD—ISF

Funding

—
— 5,391 3,007 5,542 3,000 1,000 1,000 1,500
— 20,440
DOD—

Iraq
Army 51.2 — 210
— — — — — —
— 261
DOD—

CERP
— 140 718 708 750 996 339
263 44.0
— 3,958
DOD—Oil

Repair
802 — — — — — — — —
— 802
DOD—

Business
Support
—
— —
— 50.0 50.0 74.0 —
—
—
174
Total

3,859 18,548 6,329 5,365 8,584 5,042 2,323 2,738 2,313
1,683 56,768 2,045.2
Sources: State Department FY2013 Executive Budget Summary, February 2012; SIGIR Report to Congress,
January 30, 2012; and CRS calculations. FY2012 appropriations in Consolidated Appropriation, P.L. 112-74.
Notes: Table prepared by Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, on February 17, 2012. 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 $9.3
billion, including $3.6 billion estimated for FY2012. Approximately $2.7 billion is requested by State Department
for these costs in FY2013. Possible cuts in staff at the U.S. embassy and other locations is addressed in this
report. IG oversight costs estimated at $417 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; FMF=Foreign Military Financing; ISF= Iraqi Security Forces.



Congressional Research Service
47

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Table 4. Recent Democracy Assistance to Iraq
(in millions of current $)

FY2009 FY2010
(act.)
FY2011

FY2012
Rule of Law and Human Rights
32.45
33.3
16.5
29.75
Good Governance
143.64
117.40
90.33
100.5
Political
41.00 52.60 30.00
16.25
Competition/Consensus-Building
Civil
Society
87.53 83.6 32.5
55.5
Totals 304.62
286.9
169.33
202.0
Source: Congressional Budget Justification, March 2011. Figures for these accounts are included in the overall
assistance figures presented in the table above.
Congressional Research Service
48

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Table 5. January 31, 2009, Provincial Election Results (Major Slates)
Baghdad—55 regular seats, plus one
State of Law (Maliki)—38% (28 seats); Independent Liberals Trend (pro-Sadr)—9%
Sabean and one Christian set-aside
(5 seats); Accord Front (Sunni mainstream)—9% (9 seats); Iraq National (Allawi)—
seat
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
State of Law—37% (20); ISCI—11.6% (5); Sadr—5% (2); Fadhila (previously
Christian seat
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
Hadbaa—48.4%; Fraternal Nineveh—25.5%; IIP—6.7%; Hadbaa took control of
set aside each for Shabaks, Yazidis,
provincial council and administration. Governor is Atheel al-Nujaifi (Hadbaa).
and Christians
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%;; Al awi—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%; Al awi—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); Al awi—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); Al awi—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
49

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Table 6. Election Results (January and December 2005)
Seats
Seats
Bloc/Party
(Jan. 05)
(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 al-
140 128
Hakim has 30; Da’wa Party (25 total: Maliki faction, 12, and Anizi faction, 13);
independents (30).
Kurdistan Alliance—KDP (24); PUK (22); independents (7)
75
53
Iraqis List (secular, Allawi); added Communist and other mostly Sunni parties for Dec.
40 25
vote.
Iraq Accord Front. Main Sunni bloc; not in Jan. vote. Consists of Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP,
— 44
Tariq al-Hashimi, 26 seats); National Dialogue Council of Khalaf Ulayyan (7); General
People’s Congress of Adnan al-Dulaymi (7); independents (4).
National Iraqi Dialogue Front (Sunni, led by former Baathist Saleh al-Mutlak) Not in Jan.
— 11
2005 vote.
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 (smal Kurdish, heterodox religious minority in northern Iraq)
—
1
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
50

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Table 7. Assessments of the Benchmarks
Subsequent Actions and Assessments—May
2008 Administration report, June 2008 GAO
July 12,
Sept. 14,
report, International Compact with Iraq
2007,
GAO
2007,
Review in June 2008, and U.S. Embassy
Admin.
(Sept.
Admin.
Weekly Status Reports
Benchmark
Report
07)
Report
(and various press sources)
1. Forming Constitutional
(S)
unmet
S
CRC filed final report in August 2008 but major
Review Committee (CRC)
satisfactory
issues remain unresolved and require achievement of
and completing review
consensus among major faction leaders.
2. Enacting and
(U)
unmet
S
“Justice and Accountability Law” passed Jan. 12, 2008.
implementing laws on De-
unsatisfact.
Al ows about 30,000 fourth ranking Baathists to
Baathification
regain their jobs, and 3,500 Baathists in top three
party ranks would receive pensions. Could al ow for
judicial prosecution of al ex-Baathists and bars ex-
Saddam security personnel from regaining jobs. De-
Baathification officials used this law to try to harm
the prospects of rivals in March 2010 elections.
3. Enacting and
U
unmet
U
Framework and three implementing laws long stalled
implementing oil laws that
over KRG-central government disputes, but draft
ensure equitable
legislation still pending in COR. Revenue being
distribution of resources
distributed equitably, including 17% revenue for KRG.
Kurds also getting that share of oil exported from
fields in KRG area.
4. Enacting and
S partly
S
Regions law passed October 2006, with relatively low
implementing laws to form
met
threshold (petition by 33% of provincial council
semi-autonomous regions
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.
Najaf, Diyala, Salahuddin, and Anbar have asked for a
referendum to become a region.
5. Enacting and
S on (a)
overall S on (a) and Draft law stipulating powers of provincial
implementing: (a) a law to
and U on
unmet; (c)
governments adopted February 13, 2008, took effect
establish a higher electoral
the others
(a)
April 2008. Implementing election law adopted
commission, (b) provincial
met
September 24, 2008, provided for provincial elections
elections law; (c) a law to
by January 31, 2009. Those elections were held, as
specify authorities of
discussed above.
provincial bodies, and (d)
set a date for provincial
elections
6. Enacting and
no rating
unmet
Same as July Law to amnesty “non-terrorists” among 25,000 Iraq-
implementing legislation
held detainees passed February 13, 2008. Most of
addressing amnesty for
these have been released. 19,000 detainees held by
former insurgents
U.S. were transferred to Iraqi control under SA.
7. Enacting and
no rating
unmet
Same as July March 2008 Basra operation, discussed above, viewed
implementing laws on
as move against militias. On April 9, 2008, Maliki
militia disarmament
demanded all militias disband as condition for their
parties to participate in provincial elections. Law on
militia demobilization stalled.
8. Establishing political,
S
met
met
No longer applicable; U.S. “surge” has ended and U.S.
media, economic, and
troops now out of Iraq.
services committee to
Congressional Research Service
51

---

Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Subsequent Actions and Assessments—May
2008 Administration report, June 2008 GAO
July 12,
Sept. 14,
report, International Compact with Iraq
2007,
GAO
2007,
Review in June 2008, and U.S. Embassy
Admin.
(Sept.
Admin.
Weekly Status Reports
Benchmark
Report
07)
Report
(and various press sources)
support U.S. “surge”
9. Providing three trained
S partly
S
No longer applicable. Eight brigades were assigned to
and ready brigades to
met
assist the surge when it was in operation.
support U.S. surge
10. Providing Iraqi
U
unmet
S to pursue
No significant change. Still some U.S. concern over
commanders with
extremists
the Office of the Commander in Chief (part of
authorities to make
U on
Maliki’s office) control over appointments to the
decisions, without political
political
ISF—favoring Shiites. Some politically motivated
intervention, to pursue all
interference leaders remain in ISF. But, National Police said to
extremists, including Sunni
include more Sunnis in command jobs and rank and
insurgents and Shiite
file than one year ago.
militias
11. Ensuring Iraqi Security
U unmet
S
on
U.S. interpreted March 2008 Basra operation as
Forces (ISF) providing
military, U
effort by Maliki to enforce law even-handedly.
even-handed enforcement
on police
Widespread Iraqi public complaints of politically-
of law
motivated administration of justice.
12. Ensuring that the surge
S partly
S
No longer applicable with end of surge. Ethno-
plan in Baghdad will not
met
sectarian violence has fal en sharply in Baghdad.
provide a safe haven for
any outlaw, no matter the
sect
13. (a) Reducing sectarian
Mixed. S
unmet
same as July Sectarian violence has not re-accelerated outright,
violence and (b) eliminating
on (a); U
12
although there are fears the political crisis in
militia control of local
on (b)
December 2011 could reignite sectarian conflict.
security
14. Establishing Baghdad
S
met
S
Over 50 joint security stations operated in Baghdad
joint security stations
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
U
unmet
U
ISF now securing Iraq under the SA. Iraqi Air Force
capable of operating
not likely to be able to secure airspace and DOD has
independently
approved potential sale to Iraq of F-16s and other
major equipment.
16. Ensuring protection of
S
met
S
No change. Rights of minority parties protected by
minority parties in COR
Article 37 of constitution. Minorities given a
minimum seat al ocated in 2010 election law.
17. Al ocating and spending
S partly
S
About 63% of the $10 billion 2007 allocation for
$10 billion in 2007 capital
met
capital projects was spent.
budget for reconstruction.
18. Ensuring that Iraqi
U
unmet
U
Some governmental recriminations against some ISF
authorities not falsely
officers still observed.
accusing ISF members
Source: Compiled by CRS.
Congressional Research Service
52

---

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
53

---