Protests In Iraq Continue Into July

July 2011 saw continued protests in Iraq. There was a sit-in in Nasiriyah, Dhi Qar, and a march in Basra over the lack of services. The weekly demonstration on Friday in Baghdad also occurred. While local officials made themselves available in Dhi Qar and Basra, the same was not true in the capital. At the end of Friday’s event there was a scuffle with pro-government forces, plus a few arrests by the security forces that subsequently beat their detainees. The first week of July was one of the few where there were assemblies outside of Baghdad. It also showed that while provincial councils have tried to be accommodating towards activists, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is intent on intimidating them, and breaking them up.

On July 3, 2011, protesters gathered in Dhi Qar’s provincial capital Nasiriyah. They started with a march to the city center where they then held a rally outside the provincial council building. People chanted for the release of prisoners, to not allow Baathists in the government, (1) for better security, economic development, to end corruption, for jobs and services, and for the governor, the head of the council, and Dhi Qar’s police chief to all resign. The protesters also called for Dhi Qar to become its own region as the best way to achieve these goals. They said that they would stay until their demands were met. They then set up tents and shanties outside the council headquarters for a sit-in. (2) A member of the council said that they had meetings with protesters before, and that they planned on consulting with this new group, but organizers refused, claiming that the politicians had made plenty of promises before, but never followed through with them. That led the governor to come out and talk with the demonstrators. He promised to pass on their list of demands to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad. Dhi Qar has been one of the most active provinces in the country outside of Baghdad. Most recently, assemblies were held there on July 2 and June 24, but there were also protests over the lack of electricity back in June 2010.

Protesters in Nasiriyah making their demands (Al-Sharqiya TV)

March in Nasiriyah (Al-Sharqiya TV)

Setting up tents in Nasiriyah (News Network Nasiriyah)

Sit-in, Nasiriyah (News Network Nasiriyah)

Two days later, people came out onto the streets of Um Qasr in Basra against the lack of services. They complained that they did not get an adequate supply of electricity and drinking water. Some local politicians also joined in. The city council even issued a statement in support of the event saying that Basra was rich with oil, but that it lacked the basic necessities and infrastructure to be wealthy. The governor of the province sent a delegation to meet with the organizers, while the deputy governor said that the people had legitimate complaints. Basra province has also seen its spate of demonstrations this year as part of Iraq’s Arab Spring, and was also the catalyst for the protests last year about electricity. The governorate is the home to most of the country’s oil fields, and its only major ports, yet services are still poor, and there is widespread poverty. Those have been major points of contention for years, and have finally boiled over.

Finally, July 8 was the day for the weekly gathering at Tahrir Square, Baghdad. Hundreds turned out voicing a variety of issues as usual, but one of the main ones was the visit of Iran’s Vice President Mohammad Rahimi. The protesters demanded that the government stop Iranian interference in the country such as their support for Special Groups. They also criticized Baghdad for doing nothing about Iranian shelling of Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, and sending polluted water into Basra and Maysan. Others complained about corruption, demanded that early elections be held, and that the U.S. withdraw its forces immediately. Some workers from the Election Commission showed up again, asking for full time contracts. The crowd also burned U.S., British, and Israeli flags, and tried to torch an Iranian one as well. Some of the chants heard were “Friday after Friday until we rid of al-Maliki,” “We haven’t seen oil, but only poverty,” and “They’re all thieves.” This eclectic mix of demands has been the normal fare at the Tahrir protests. Several hundred also showed up this week, which was more than pervious weeks. That might show that activists in the capital at least, may be growing bolder after the government’s steps to repress them.

Banners seen at Tahrir Square, Bahgdad (Al-Sharqiya TV)

Protesters at Tahrir Square (National Iraqi News Network)

Chanting at Tahrir Square

Everything was going peacefully until the end of the protest. Some supporters of the prime minister showed up, and began harassing some of the demonstrators. Then when the people were leaving the square, security forces arrested several participants. First, several plainclothes officers began beating one activist, before throwing him a truck of a car and driving off. A woman who was taking picture of the assault had another group of plainclothes men drag her out of a bus, and take her away. A worker for the Al-Mada newspaper was also arrested and beaten, and a protester had his house raided. In total, the Popular Coordination Movement claimed that seven of its members were arrested that day. Five of them were later released, and claimed that they were beaten and abused by the security forces. July 8 turned out to be like many other Friday’s, with Maliki trying to intimidate and break-up the demonstration. He has organized members of his Dawa and the tribal support councils as counter demonstrators, and has carried out a wave of arrests of activists. That has shut down most of the protests in the country, but organizers have still been able to bring people out every Friday in Baghdad despite the premier’s best efforts.

Maliki’s attitude towards the protest movement was shown in two recent meetings. First, on July 7, the Dawa Party held a conference with tribal support councils in Karbala. They thanked those that went to Tahrir Square, and helped suppress demonstrators on June 10, while threatening those that hadn’t been cooperative. Then on July 8, Maliki gave a speech to sheikhs in Baghdad saying that the changes occurring in the rest of the Arab world would not occur in Iraq. He claimed that the country was “immune” from the Arab Spring, and that the nation had to stand together to maintain stability. Rather than answer the people’s demands or simply use the riot police to break up demonstrations, the premier has increasingly turned to extra-legal means. Maliki originally created the tribal support councils to counter Moqtada al-Sadr’s militia, but now they are simply becoming a group of vigilantes to be used by the prime minister against his opponents. Maliki’s remarks about Iraq not being like other countries in the region also showed that he is completely unwilling to accept the legitimacy of the demonstrators.

July has started off much like previous months. On the one hand, the prime minister is attempting to use force to end the protests, while on the other provincial officials have either done nothing since the demonstrations started, or lack the capabilities to meet any of their demands. That represents one major dilemma for activists. Neither the local nor central authorities have the will or means to bring about any meaningful reforms in the country. At the same time, the protest movement has been largely repressed by the prime minister’s tactics meaning that outside pressure on the government is diminishing, and so are the hopes for any real change to come out of the nation’s demonstrations.

FOOTNOTES

1. Hamid, Murtaza, “The governor of Dhi Qar met with a  number of demonstrators in Nasiriyah, looking to meet their demands,” Voice of Iraq, 7/4/11

2. Al Aalem, “Demonstration for the Mujahideen for federalism in the south turned to the military barracks in Nasiriyah,” 7/3/11

SOURCES

Al Aalem, “Demonstration for the Mujahideen for federalism in the south turned to the military barracks in Nasiriyah,” 7/3/11

Alsumaria, “Hundreds of protests in Baghdad Tahrir Square,” 7/9/11

Aswat al-Iraq, “4 demonstrators arrested – Activist,” 7/8/11
- “Burning flags, 4 detained in today’s demonstration,” 7/8/11
- “Civilian Organization charges government with arresting 7 of its activists in Baghdad demonstration,” 7/9/11
- “February gathering sit-in in Nassiriya,” 6/24/11
- “Nassiriya demonstration demands Federalism in South Iraq,” 7/3/11

Hamid, Murtaza, “The governor of Dhi Qar met with a  number of demonstrators in Nasiriyah, looking to meet their demands,” Voice of Iraq, 7/4/11

Al-Kadhimi, Bahaa, “Umm Qasr protesters decry lack of basic services,” AK News, 7/6/11

Al-Mada, “Head of government: Iraq is immune from the Arab spring,” 7/8/11

National Iraqi News Agency, “Demonstrators denounce Iran’s Vice President visit, demanding Iran stop violations of Iraqi sovereignty,” 7/8/11

Saadi, Ahmed, “Threatening some tribal support councils in the chapter to not participate in the repression of demonstrations in Tahrir Square,” Shatt al-Arab, 7/7/11

Sharqiya Television,” Dozens of people from the city of Nasiriyah, begin a sit-in,” 7/3/11
- “Tribal elders in Dhi Qar: the deterioration of services and lack of the most basic requirements of the Simple Life,” 7/2/11

Shatt al-Arab, “Liberation Square: government forces glaciation young demonstrators,” 7/9/11

Tawfeeq, Mohammed, “Activists: Protesters beaten in Baghdad,” CNN, 7/8/11

Iraq’s Maliki Using Infiltrators And Tribal Support Councils Against Demonstrators

Iraq’s protest movement has struggled to maintain its numbers and consistency. One of the main reasons has been the repressive tactics of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. There are reports that the premier is still intent on breaking up future demonstrations using a mixture of infiltrators and the Tribal Support Councils that he created two years ago.

Human Rights Watch released a report on June 30, 2011 that detailed how the government infiltrated one protest in Baghdad last month. Two sources in the Defense Ministry told Human Rights Watch that an order had been issued for up to 150 plainclothes security officers from the army and police to infiltrate the June 10 protest in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square. Maliki was worried that there would be a large event in the capital on that Friday as his 100-day deadline for evaluating the performance of the government had just ended. It was easy to place the infiltrators within the square on the 10th because Maliki’s Dawa Party organized a counter demonstration of 3,000 people. The pro-government crowd ended up attacking the protesters. Human Rights Watch saw four plainclothes officers assault protesters during the melee. Two of them even showed their Interior Ministry police ID badges. The Facebook group The Great Iraqi Revolution also has a photo page of six people they believe to be security officials who have attended the weekly assemblies in Tahrir Square. Infiltrating the crowd serves several purposes, the most important of which is probably to identify leaders who can be followed, harassed or arrested, which has happened to some of them before. 

Some of the men the Great Iraqi Revolution accuses of being government infiltrators 

Shatt al-Arab also ran a story that Maliki is preparing to counter demonstrations throughout the country with his Tribal Support Councils. The paper claimed that the Prime Minister had issued orders for his Dawa Party to get the Support Councils organized to suppress any protests that occur against the government. Maliki’s operatives were to appoint one tribal leader in each province, provide them with a salary and spending money to keep them loyal to the premier. Beginning in March 2008, Maliki began setting up the Tribal Support Councils. Originally, they were used against Moqtada al-Sadr’s followers during the government’s crackdown upon them, but later the prime minister used them to counter the Sons of Iraq, and to create a new patronage system to build up his support. Maliki now appears to be using them once again for his political means, by shaping them into an anti-demonstration force to be deployed in any province where activists may stage an assembly.

The Prime Minister is intent on breaking up the protest movement, and these are just two more examples of how he plans on doing it. He started off by promising reforms, and then sending the security forces to crackdown on activists and the media that were trying to cover them. Recently, he has become more sophisticated and organized his own events full of his supporters, and tried to seize the headlines from the demonstrators. These two reports show that he is trying to keep tabs on the movement’s activities through infiltrators, and that he is organizing the Tribal Support Councils into a nationwide force to counter any anti-government assemblies that may break out. Maliki was first caught by surprise when the Arab Spring came to Iraq in January, but since then, he has played a very shrewd game, and taken back the momentum. Organizers are fighting an uphill battle to keep up with his tactics, and they may ultimately lose as previous demonstrators did in 2010, which Maliki successfully put down. This does not bode well for Iraq’s emerging democracy that the country’s leader is willing to use such means, and violate people’s rights to end what have largely been peaceful demands for reform in the economy and politics.

SOURCES

Human Rights Watch, “Iraq: Attacks by Government-Backed Thugs Chill Protests,” 6/30/11

Saadi, Ahmed, “Maliki begins the reorganization of support councils in preparation for the suppression of any popular opposition,” Shatt al-Arab, 6/28/11

Overview of Iraq’s Tribes

Much of the commentary about Iraq is driven by U.S. experiences, which are not always the reality in Iraq. When the sectarian war took off in 2006 for example, much of the writing about the country was focused upon the Sunni-Shiite divide. A common argument was that these two interpretations of Islam had always been in conflict, and could not coexist in Iraq. Later, when the U.S. began working with the tribes in Anbar, which became known as the Awakening, a new line of thinking opened up claiming that Iraq was at heart a tribal society. This ignored the fact that many of the country’s largest tribes were a mix of Sunnis and Shiites. If the first argument held true, than the sectarian fighting should’ve destroyed many of Iraq’s tribes. Neither was completely true nor false. A quick review of Iraq’s tribal history shows that they are but one form of social organization and identity within the country amongst others. Their influence is usually directly related to the power of the state.

Many of Iraq’s tribes migrated there from the Arabian peninsula. Iraq’s tribes are divided into sub-tribes, clans, and their most basic unit, the extended family. Sheikhs are leaders within these communities. They control local economies, settle disputes, etc. The problem is there are so many it’s hard to determine which ones have real standing. About 75% of Iraq’s 26 million people belong to a tribe. There were originally nine tribes in Iraq, the Mutafiz, Zubayd, Dulaym, Ubayd, Khazal, Bani Lam, Al Bu Muhammad, Rabia, and Kab. By the 1800s there were several new groups included the Shammar, Anaza, Bani Tamim, and Zafire. Many of these groups have divided over the years leading to about 150 different tribes in the country, and around 2,000 clans today. The larger tribes are usually a mix of Sunnis and Shiites.

The power and role of Iraq’s tribes have gone up and down depending upon the rulers of the country. When the Ottomans originally ruled Iraq they had very loose control over the area, so the tribes held the real authority. By the mid-19th Century however, the Ottomans began encouraging people to give up their semi-nomadic lifestyle by settling in towns and cities, and instituted land reform, both of which diluted the standing of the tribes. That changed when the British took over and created Iraq in the wake of World War I. They turned to sheikhs as local partners to institute a form of indirect rule in the country. Many tribes became connected to specific villages at this time based upon extended families. Beginning in the 1920s when the monarchy tried to establish itself that again withered the power of the tribes. In 1968 when the Baathists took power they had a mixed policy towards the tribes. On the one hand the party wanted to modernize the state, and banned tribal names, encouraged migration from rural areas to the cities, again instituted land reform, which broke up the traditional structures many tribes relied upon, and emphasized Iraqi nationalism over other identities. At the same time, top Baathist leaders privileged their own personal kinsmen and gave them top positions in the new government.

Saddam ended up turning to the country’s tribes in the 1980s because of the wars and uprisings he faced, which eventually came back on him. First he looked to the tribes to organize soldiers to fight in the Iran-Iraq war. It was during this time that the Dulaym tribe in Anbar for example, gained privileged status from the government. After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam relied even more upon the tribes to control the country after the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings. He gave tribes more autonomy and services, and in return, they agreed to provide security in their areas. He also played the tribal leaders off against each other, and created new tribes in a divide and rule policy. The sheikhs’ authority then was dependent upon the amount of support they received from the state. At the same time, their growing power was a sign that the Iraqi state was crumbling from the wars and sanctions. By the 1990s in fact, there were at least two tribal coup attempts against Saddam.

Immediately after the invasion in 2003, the U.S. had a contradictory attitude towards Iraq’s tribes. On the one hand, Paul Bremer wanted to get rid of the old order, which included the tribes. At the same time, in an attempt to create a sectarian and ethnically balanced Iraqi Governing Council and interim Iraqi government the Coalition Provisional Authority selected a few sheikhs to represent the Sunnis. Ghazi Ajil al-Taware of the Shammar tribe for example, was appointed Iraq’s interim president in 2004. The U.S. military also reached out to selected tribes to provide security, but many of those efforts proved futile. Many of the leaders the U.S. worked with proved largely powerless, unpopular, or were playing both sides in the conflict.

In the provinces, the overthrow of Saddam not only led to resistance, but the collapse of the Iraqi state. The situation was made worse when the Sunnis decided to boycott the January 2005 elections. Only 2% of Anbar for example, participated. The Iraqi Islamic Party came to power despite lacking any mandate or legitimacy. The provincial government only operated where U.S. forces could protect them, which was few and far between. Into this vacuum stepped in the insurgency and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Playing upon a sense of loss by the Sunni community, Iraqi nationalism, anti-Americanism, and cash, the militants recruited many young men to fight.

At first the tribes of Anbar aligned themselves with the insurgents, but then came to see Al Qaeda in Iraq as a threat. At first both had a common enemy in the Americans, but then a few tribes felt that the Islamists were attempting to take control of Anbar for themselves. This eventually led to the Anbar Awakening, which aligned itself with the United States. The Americans in turn gave them jobs in the local security forces, and directed reconstruction money to them. This gave rise to a new generation of sheikhs who replaced the old ones. The U.S. in fact, became the new patrons of the tribal leaders, playing a similar role to what Saddam did.

In the south, many tribes were co-opted by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and of Shiite parties. When the U.S. tried to replicate the Awakening with Shiite tribes during the Surge they met stiff resistance by the Supreme Council who controlled many of the provincial governments in the region, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Both considered the tribes their constituents. Maliki began winning over many from the Supreme Council in 2008 with his Tribal Support Councils. Like Saddam and the Americans, the Prime Minister created a patronage system to keep these tribes under his control.

The majority of Iraqis claim membership in tribes, but that is not their only identity. Urbanism, Islam, and Iraqi nationalism are other factors that shape Iraqis. Throughout the country’s history the tribes have risen and fallen in relation to the power of the central authorities. During the early Ottoman period, British rule, and after the U.S. invasion, the government was weak and the tribes were strong, while in the other periods their power was diluted. Today, the tribes have found a new space in Iraq, but it appears still conditional. In Anbar the Awakening tribes are trying to form themselves into a new political force, but in southern Iraq many have been co-opted by Prime Minister Maliki. Again, it is the strength of the government that seems to determine the influence of the tribes.

SOURCES

Burns, John and Glanz, James, “Iraqi Shiites Win, but Margin Is less Than Projection,” New York Times, 2/14/05

Byman, Daniel, “An Autopsy of the Iraq Debacle: Policy Failure or Bridge Too Far?” Security Studies, October 2008

Eisenstadt, Lieutenant Colonel Michael, “Iraq Tribal engagement Lessons Learned,” Military Review, September-October 2007

Gordon, Michael, “The Last Battle,” New York Times, 8/3/08

Hassan, Hussein, “Iraq: Tribal Structure, Social, and Political Activities,” Congressional Research Service, 4/7/08

International Crisis Group, “Iraq After The Surge I: The New Sunni Landscape,” 4/30/08

Long, Austin, “The Anbar Awakening,” Survival, April 2008

McCary, John, “The Anbar Awakening: An Alliance of Incentives,” Washington Quarterly, January 2009

Otterman, Sharon, “IRAQ: The Role of Tribes,” Council on Foreign Relations, 11/14/03

Smith, Major Neil and MacFarland, Colonel Sean, “Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point,” Military Review, March-April 2008

Argument For Maliki Being Iraq’s Next Strongman

Reports that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki may be becoming a strongman have become part and parcel of Iraq reporting today. In the Spring 2009 edition of World Policy Journal Los Angeles Times’ reporter Ned Parker laid out a good argument for this in an article entitled “Machiavelli in Mesopotamia.” Parker’s position is that Maliki has successfully used a divide and conquer and carrot and stick approach with various groups across the country that is a move towards authoritarian government. The Prime Minister has also promised security and stability for a population that has been traumatized by the invasion and civil war. This has them looking towards a leader, Maliki, rather than institutions or democracy to provide a normal life, allowing the Prime Minister to become an autocrat.

This change in Iraq began with the end of the sectarian war in 2007. The Shiites won, and the Sunnis were defeated. This was shown when the majority of the insurgency switched sides to the Americans to escape the pressure from the Surge, Iraqi forces, Shiite militias, and Al Qaeda in Iraq. With the threat of the insurgency largely contained, Maliki was freed to move against his former supporter Moqtada al-Sadr. In 2008 Maliki sent the Iraqi army and police to crush the Mahdi Army in Basra, Sadr City, and Maysan. By mid-2008 the government was now free of two of its largest threats. In turn, this changed Maliki’s image from a weak and feckless leader to a nationalist one willing to impose order from the chaos that was engulfing Iraq.

Parker provides three examples of how Maliki has used his newfound power and position since then. First, the Prime Minister built up his own independent base by forming Tribal Support Councils across southern Iraq. These became a huge patronage system for Maliki, which helped his State of Law list win a majority in Basra, and pluralities in the rest of the south in the 2009 provincial elections. In Diyala, the Prime Minister used force to try to break the alliance between the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Sons of Iraq. In July 2008 and May 2009, he used the security forces to arrest and intimidate Sunni leaders, while trying to peel others away to join his Tribal Support Councils. Finally, in the Saydiya district of Baghdad, Maliki convinced the local Sunnis there that he was the center of power. At first, they felt intimidated into electing a Shiite from the SIIC’s Badr Brigade to head the local council, but later when that same official was arrested, the Sunnis took it to be a sign that Maliki had turned against the Shiite militia, and that he was becoming a fair and just ruler. All of these moves are examples of the carrot and stick, divide and conquer strategy Maliki has employed since 2008. He has wooed both Sunnis and Shiites to his side, while threatening others with the security forces and the threat of arrests. It shows that the new status quo in Iraq is not based upon the rule of law or institutions, but rather the relationship between individuals and groups to the Prime Minister. He is now the center of Iraqi politics, able to wield his power to give some jobs and position, or to send others to jail.

Parker believes that the new Iraq that has emerged from the sectarian war is actually a return to its autocratic tradition. After the bloody years of the past, the most important thing to Iraqis is stability so that they can return to their normal lives. This is what Maliki has offered them. He has crushed or wooed his opponents including the Shiite militias and the Sons of Iraq, while offering protection, jobs and patronage to those that side with him such as Iraq’s tribes. It’s one man, Maliki that the people now look to. He represents the Iraqi state, much as Saddam or other past Iraqi leaders did. This is what makes “Machiavelli in Mesopotamia” one of the better arguments for the strongman theory that is becoming popular in analyses of Iraq. It is still up to debate however, whether Maliki is really moving in this direction. Many of the powers he is assuming are those that the government should have, but that it was not able to exert since it was so weak after the U.S. invasion. A regular government for example, should have a monopoly on force, so Baghdad should’ve cracked down on the Shiite militias. At the same time, Maliki has built up organizations like the Tribal Support Councils, which are outside the authority of the government, and used the security forces to take care of his opponents. Iraq seems to have gone from one extreme where the state had no real authority to where Maliki is using it everywhere for his own ends. Now however, the new speaker of the parliament is trying to strengthen the legislature to provide a check on Maliki’s power. This will be the real test as to whether the Prime Minister can become an autocrat. If he can shape the parliament after the 2010 elections then there will be no others in the country that can limit him.

SOURCES

Nordland, Rod and Santora, Marc, “Iraq Leader Omits a Bit in Lauding U.S. Pullout,” New York Times, 6/11/09

Parker, Ned, “Machiavelli in Mesopotamia,” World Policy Journal, Spring 2009
- “U.S. prepares to withdraw, Iraqi resistance prepares for battle,” Los Angeles Times, 5/25/09

Rosen, Nir, “The big sleep,” The National, 4/24/09

Russo, Claire, “Countdown To Diyala’s Provincial Election: Maliki & The IIP,” Institute for the Study of War, 1/30/09

Serwer, Daniel and Parker, Sam, “Maliki’s Iraq between Two Elections,” United States Institute of Peace, May 2009

Shadid, Anthony, “In Iraq, a Different Struggle for Power,” Washington Post, 6/25/09

Wiseman, Paul, “U.S.-supported Iraqi militias clash with government,” USA Today, 5/27/09

Baghdad-Kurdistan Divide Could Lead To Break Up Of Iraq Argues Journal Piece

In the Spring 2009 edition of the journal Middle East Policy, Professors Gareth Stansfield and Liam Anderson in their article “Kurds in Iraq: the struggle between Baghdad and Erbil,” argue that the growing conflict between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) could bring down the government, and possibly lead to the break-up of Iraq. Many commentators have pointed out the seriousness of this issue, but still think that the sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites is more important. Stansfield and Anderson believe that no other problem is as central to the future of Iraq. The oil law, the constitution, Kirkuk and other disputed territories, and federalism are all tied to the differences between the central government and Kurdistan. The relations between the two sides has only grown worse since 2008 as both have become distrustful of the others’ intentions. That leaves little room for compromise, and increases the chance for violence.

Many western views of Iraq are based upon past experiences, which makes analysis of newer ones sometimes difficult. For example, many believe that reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites is the most important issue due to the sectarian war of 2006-2007. If that’s not resolved many believe that Iraq will fall back into civil war. Iraqi nationalism is also making a comeback, which some hope will unify the country and balance outside influences like Iran’s. Commentators do note the conflict between Baghdad and Kurdistan, but think its secondary to sectarianism. They also think that because Turkey and Iran are opposed to Kurdish independence, that it will never happen. Stansfield and Anderson counter that no other issue as important as this one.

After the 2005 provincial and parliamentary elections the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and the two main Kurdish parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) emerged as the dominant forces in Iraqi politics. The two had been allies since the Iran-Iraq War when both joined with Iran to fight against Saddam Hussein. The U.S. also played a role, supporting the Kurds after the Gulf War, and selecting the SIIC as their main Shiite partner after the 2003 invasion. Together the SIIC and Kurdish parties became the backbone of the Ibrahim al-Jaafari premiership. They were also the main authors of the 2005 constitution, which included federalism, an issue dear to both, and Article 140 that created a process to annex Kirkuk. Later they helped put Nouri al-Maliki in power.

Maliki was considered weak and ineffectual at first, but after the Surge took care of his main rivals, Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni insurgency, and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia, the state was strengthened, and the Prime Minister began flexing his muscle in 2008. In the process he began moving away from the SIIC, KDP and PUK to assert his independence. He has now fashioned himself as an Iraqi nationalist that wants to stop the Kurds from annexing the disputed territories, including Kirkuk, and amend the constitution to strengthen the central government. Sunni Arabs, Turkmen, and independent Shiites have supported Maliki’s efforts. This has led to increasing tensions with the Kurds, who feel threatened by Maliki’s actions.

The first real confrontation between Baghdad and Kurdistan occurred in the summer of 2008. In July Maliki launched Operation Promise of Good in Diyala. It was supposed to target insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq, but quickly turned into a political move by the Prime Minister. In August 2008 he sent the Iraqi Army into the Khanaqin district in northern Diyala. That area had been under Kurdish control since March 2003, and was home to about 4,000 peshmerga. Kurdistan considered it a disputed territory, which they wished to annex. On August 10, the Iraqi Army told the peshmerga they had 24 hours to leave the area, and a week later began forcing out Kurdish parties from government owned buildings. Finally, on September 27 Iraqi police and peshmerga got into a shoot out in the town of Jalawlaa. Things seemed headed for a military confrontation until KRG President Massoud Barzani flew to Baghdad to hold talks with Maliki. With the assistance of the Americans they came up with a deal where the peshmerga and Iraqi security forces would withdraw from the town of Khanaqin, turning over duties there to the local police, while the Iraqi Army would take up patrolling the Arab areas to the south, and the peshmerga the Kurdish areas of the north.

This was the opening shot in changing the dynamic between Baghdad and Kurdistan. After Khanaqin, Maliki went on to confront the Kurds across the disputed territories that stretch from Diyala to Ninewa, to Tamim to Salahaddin. In Mosul, Maliki ordered the Interior Ministry to take over responsibility for security from the peshmerga in November 2008, and began reaching out to the Arab population by offering them reconstruction money. He also set up tribal support councils across all four provinces, and began transferring predominately Kurdish units and Kurdish officers out, and replacing them with Arab ones. This was not only a way to push the Kurds, but for Maliki to build up his own independent power base and armed supporters independent of both the government and the SIIC and Kurds.

The major disputed territory of course is Tamim province, home of Kirkuk. The Kurds claim that Kirkuk is historically theirs, and was Turkified under the Ottomans. When Iraq gained independence the Arab governments, and especially Saddam went on to Arabize the area. Since 2003 the Kurdish leadership has promised their constituency that they would annex the area. During the U.S. invasion they occupied Kirkuk, and then handed it over to the Americans when local Arabs and Turkmen complained about their presence. In 2004 they set up a process of normalization, a census, and then a referendum on the future of Kirkuk in Article 58 of the Transitional Administration Law created by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Then the Kurds had the same measures included in the 2005 constitution in Article 140. The Kurds claim this was a huge sacrifice for them because they could have just kept Kirkuk after 2003. Instead they have tried to work within Iraq’s new political system to legally annex it. The referendum on Kirkuk was supposed to happen by December 31, 2007, but didn’t. It was then extended until June 2008 but with nothing done again. Now the United Nations is supposed to handle Tamim’s future.

The Kurds say the solution to Kirkuk is for Article 140 to be implemented, but other groups in the province would not be happy with that. If there were a referendum, Kirkuk would assuredly be annexed. The problem is that Arabs and Turkmen there would object. They favor equal power sharing amongst the three main groups in the provincial council, and making Tamim an autonomous region. They have become increasingly angered by the Kurds’ expansionist ideas, and treatment by the Kurdish peshmerga and security service the asayesh. Rather than gaining friends to support their aims, the Kurds have created enemies with their policies in the province.

Maliki has inserted himself into this process as well. He has come to the side of the Arabs and Turkmen to frustrate the Kurds’ aspirations for Kirkuk. Like the other disputed areas, the Prime Minister began setting up tribal support councils and Sons of Iraq units in Tamim. This especially angered the Kurds because the councils included many Arab tribes that had fought alongside Saddam’s troops during the Anfal campaign in the 1980s where the government tried to ethnically cleanse the Kurds from northern regions. To drive the point home even more, Maliki helped orchestrate a demonstration of Arabs in two of Tamim’s districts in November 2008 where they chanted an old Baathist slogan replacing Saddam’s name with Kirkuk, “With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Kirkuk.” The result of Maliki’s actions has been to ignore Article 140.

This has increasingly frustrated the Kurdish leadership. The KRG has run an extensive public relations campaign in Kurdistan assuring their constituency that Kirkuk would be annexed, and to a lesser extent the other disputed areas. Beginning with Khanaqin, then the other disputed territories, and finally Kirkuk, the Kurds came to distrust Maliki. They openly compared him to Saddam, and said the Prime Minister could no longer be trusted since he wasn’t following the constitution and Article 140. At one meeting, President Barzani even told Maliki, “You smell like a dictator.” As a form of protest, the Kurds held up major legislation in parliament like the provincial election law, the oil law, and amending the constitution. The Kurds were eventually successful in making Maliki back off, but the relationship between Baghdad and Kurdistan, especially between the Prime Minister and President Barzani were ruined in the process. By December 2008, ties between the two sides were at an all time low.

The other major conflict is over politics. Beginning in 2008 Maliki began calling for revisions to the constitution that would strengthen the central government vis a vis the provinces and the KRG. He claims that the constitution reflects the sectarian divide and instability of 2003-2005, and should therefore be amended to reflect the new status quo in Iraq. Maliki would especially like to curtail the Kurds’ oil policy, where they have passed their own law and signed over 20 independent contracts. For the Kurds’ part, they and their allies the Supreme Council were able to dominate the drafting process, and include provisions in it to ensure federalism and Article 140. They claim that this was a major sacrifice because they agreed to a legal framework to annex Kirkuk, rather than take it by force, and shows that they wish to remain part of Iraq in a federal system.

It seems unlikely that Maliki and the Kurds will be able to reconcile on any of these issues. The Prime Minister has pushed and shoved the Kurds over the disputed territories, and allied himself with many of the anti-Kurdish forces in the north, including ones that evoke a dark memory for the Kurds. This has allowed Maliki to create an independent base as well that he used well in the provincial elections. He is also challenging the Kurds’ autonomy by calling for amending the constitution. It’s believed that the 2010 parliamentary elections will only strengthen the Prime Minister more. The question then is what will happen next?

Many believe that Maliki has time on his side. Eventually the central government will have the power to force the Kurds out of the disputed areas for example. Stansfield and Anderson write that ironically, in fashioning himself as the nationalist leader of Iraq, calling for the unity and strength of his country, Maliki may actually lead to its break-up. The Kurds have repeatedly said that they want to stay part of Iraq, but if they are losing on every front, then what motivation will they have to remain part of the country? They will only take losing out on their aspirations and power for so long. Add to this the fact that the conflict could lead to violence. Iraqi forces and the peshmerga have faced off several times since Khanaqin. So far, nothing has come of it, but each time the two sides practice brinkmanship it increases the likelihood of something going wrong.

This is an obvious situation where the United States could play a mediating role. The U.S. has tried to calm nerves in military situations, but on the political side there’s little evidence of much pressure to resolve this growing dispute. On Kirkuk for example, the Americans are now deferring to the United Nations, but they have no hope of bringing the various sides together without the U.S. The policy seems to consist of keeping a lid on possible flashpoints, while letting the Iraqis try to solve their own problems. If something is not done, this feud will only grow in intensity until it reaches the breaking point, and that could either lead to the fall of the Maliki government, or worse, the secession of Kurdistan from Iraq.

SOURCES

Aswat al-Iraq, “Kurdish official condemns Iraqi army raid on Peshmerga HQ,” 8/24/08
- “Military units should be under central govt. control,” 8/19/08

International Crisis Group, “Iraq After The Surge II: The Need for a New Political Strategy,” 4/30/08
- “Shiite Politics In Iraq: The Role Of The Supreme Council,” 11/15/07

Jakes, Lara, “Key UN report to suggest power-sharing plan in Iraq’s divided Kirkuk,” Associated Press, 3/29/09

Paley, Amit, “Strip of Iraq ‘on the Verge of Exploding,’” Washington Post, 9/13/08

Parker, Sam, “Guest Post: Behind the Curtain in Diyala,” Abu Muqawama Blog, 8/20/08

Peterson, Scott, “US referees Iraq’s troubled Kurdish-Arab fault line,” Christian Science Monitor, 10/21/08

Serwer, Daniel and Parker, Sam, “Maliki’s Iraq between Two Elections,” United States Institute of Peace, May 2009

Stansfield, Gareth Anderson, Liam, “Kurds in Iraq: the struggle between Baghdad and Erbil,” Middle East Policy, Spring 2009

The On-Going Kurdish-Arab Dispute

Part of Iraq’s new political dynamic is the increasing feud between the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad. The dispute began when the constitutional article on the city of Kirkuk was never followed through with at the end of 2007. The future of the city has been put on hold indefinitely. In 2008 Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also began confronting the Kurds by moving troops into the Khanaqin district in Diyala, and forming Tribal Support Councils across northern Iraq. Now every month Kurdish officials attack the central government, and they respond in kind. The latest event happened when the Associated Press (AP) interviewed the Kurdish Prime Minister and deputy speaker of the Kurdish parliament who claimed Maliki was dangerous, and that the argument over Kirkuk could lead to war.

The AP article was another example of the growing frustration the Kurds are feeling. The Kurdish officials began by complaining about the United States doing nothing about Kirkuk. Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani said that unless the Americans stepped in there could be war with Baghdad over the issue. The deputy speaker of the Kurdish parliament added that Maliki was dangerous and becoming more autocratic. The speaker said that Maliki was acting like Saddam, something other Kurds have claimed before. Both were afraid this dispute with the central government could escalate after Maliki’s victories in the provincial elections.

As could be expected, these statements led to some heated responses. A member of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance said the Kurds were being counterproductive. A member of Maliki’s Dawa Party tried to turn the tables by accusing the Kurds of trying to annex northern regions of the country. A State Department spokesman made the most cogent remark by stating that Iraqis needed to solve their problems using their own institutions rather than always turning to the U.S. A few days later, the Kurdish deputy speaker denied that he said anything about Maliki, and claimed that he had never even spoken to the Associated Press.

Every few weeks the Kurds have made similar statements. In the beginning of February 2009, Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani warned Baghdad about moving the 12th Iraqi Army Division towards Kirkuk. At the end of January, Kurdish President Massoud Barzani gave a speech in Dohuk where he said that the government was using the security forces to create a dictatorship. In the second week of that month, President Barzani also gave an interview with the Los Angeles Times where he claimed that Maliki was becoming drunk with power, which was making him authoritarian and autocratic. Barzani warned that if things did not change the Kurds could declare independence. At the very beginning of the year, President Barzani released an open letter that said Iraqi Arabs were showing their prejudice against Kurds and stirring up trouble. He implied that this could lead to the same kind of persecution the Kurds faced under Saddam.

The warnings about Kirkuk and Maliki’s growing power have been the major themes of the Kurds’ attacks on Baghdad. The 2005 constitution included Article 140 that said there should be a census and referendum on the future of Kirkuk by the end of 2007. As reported before, this deadline was at first extended, and then in effect dropped. The United Nations is supposed to be dealing with the issue, but has made no headway. A special election committee hasn’t even started its work to set up a process to hold a vote there for the provincial council. This has caused immense frustration amongst KRG officials. The International Crisis Group argued that the Kurds have held up major legislation in the parliament as a result.

The Prime Minister also began directly confronting the Kurds in the disputed territories when he moved troops into the Khanaqin district of Diyala in the summer of 2008, and then formed Tribal Support Councils in Ninewa and Kirkuk’s Tamim province. This stoked fears in Kurdistan that Maliki was not only going to refuse to allow any resolution of Kirkuk, but block the Kurds’ desire to add a series of other areas in northern Iraq. The Kurds feel that any area that has a large Kurdish population or that they lay historical claim to should be annexed, while Maliki wants to contain them to their current borders of Dohuk, Irbil, and Sulaymaniya.

Neither side has shown any willingness to compromise or negotiate. At the end of 2008 five committees were created of the five ruling parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), the Dawa Party, and the Iraqi Islamic Party, to work out differences within the government. By December 2008 only two committees had done anything however, and those were on finances and natural resources. The more important ones on foreign policy, disputed territories, and the armed forces had gone nowhere. The lack of checks and balances in the Iraqi government has also meant the Kurds could do nothing about Article 140 being put on permanent hold, or Maliki organizing tribes. The only thing they could do is try to organize a no confidence vote in parliament and bring down Maliki’s government. This has been a hotly debated issue in recent months, but nothing has happened.

At the heart of the matter is that the Kurds and Maliki have diametrically opposed views of how to run the country. As the recent provincial election showed, those parties like Maliki’s that advocated Iraqi nationalism, and a strong central government did the best. The Kurds on the other hand want decentralization, and more autonomy. Iraqi nationalism has also been increasingly fashioned as being anti-Kurdish, opposed to giving Kurds more freedom or to allow them to annex any territories. The Kurds were once in a strong position to fight off their opponents when they were allied with the Supreme Council that also wanted an autonomous Shiite region in the south. With no strong prime minister, the Kurds and SIIC could cut deals in parliament and create facts on the ground through their control of provincial councils and the local security forces to back their positions. Now that time is over as Maliki is asserting his control over all the security forces, and has used them and ad hoc organizations like the Tribal Support Councils to impose his will on the country.

With Prime Minister Maliki on the rise, the Kurds can only look forward to more frustration in achieving their goals of expanding and gaining more autonomy. So far the dispute has been kept in the political arena with the two sides trading verbal jabs at each other. During the summer of 2008 the two sides almost came to blows however, with only American intervention preventing it from escalating. The recent election has only made things worse from the Kurds’ perspective as they lost control of both Ninewa and Salahaddin, two things they could’ve used as trading chips in any negotiations. At the same time Maliki’s party did very well improving his position, while an anti-Kurdish party Al-Hadbaa won in Ninewa. Violence is also a threat in Iraq, but a more likely result will be the Kurds pushing for independence as Kurdish President Barzani has already warned of. If they can’t get what they want within the Iraqi system, the urge to secede will probably increase. This conflict will be one of the major issues of 2009.

SOURCES

Abbot, Sebastian, "Iraq's stability threatened by Arab-Kurdish rift," Associated Press, 2/8/09

Agence France Presse, “Maliki, Kurd Leader Trade Barbs Ahead of Polls,” 1/26/09

Ali, Ahmed and Knights, Michael, “Kirkuk: A Test for the International Community,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1/14/09

Alisha, “Iraqi Kurds Leader Blames Arabs for Growing Rift,” UAE Daily News, 1/2/09

Alsumaria, “Barzani warning of war spurs major reactions,” 2/17/09

Associated Press, “Iraqi Kurds want U.S. help to avoid war with Arabs,” 2/15/09

Aswat al-Iraq, “Kurdish Lawmaker Denies Reports on Describing Maliki As ‘new Saddam,’” 2/18/09

Hiltermann, Joost, “Iraq’s elections: winners, losers, and what’s next,” Global Democracy, 2/10/09

International Crisis Group, “Oil For Soil: Toward A Grand Bargain On Iraq And The Kurds,” 10/28/08

Kurdish Globe, “Negotiations Ongoing Between Erbil and Baghdad,” 12/4/08

Parker, Ned, “Kurdish leader sees authoritarian drift in Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, 1/11/09

Rubin, Alissa, “Ahead of Election, Iraq’s Leader Pushes for Gains,” New York Times, 1/26/09

The Islamic Party’s Victory In Diyala

There was a time when many observers believed that the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) would be one of the big losers in the January 2009 provincial election. The IIP had broken the Sunni boycott in 2005 and run anyway causing resentment amongst many. The formation of the Anbar Awakening, and then the Sons of Iraq across many of the Sunni areas directly challenged their rule as they had a popular base the IIP lacked. Instead the IIP and its Accordance Front coalition finished first in two provinces in the January balloting, and third in three others, plus a surprising fifth in Basra. One of those victories came in northern Diyala. The turn of events there showed how the IIP was able to turn the Sons of Iraq program to their electoral advantage.

Diyala province is in northern Iraq, and remains one of the most violent in Iraq. The population is roughly 55% Sunni Arabs, 30% Shiite Arabs, and 15% Kurds. In 2005 the Sunnis boycotted the election there allowing an alliance of the Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council to take power with twenty of the 41 council seats. The Islamic Party did run there, coming in second with fourteen seats. That led to sectarian fighting and the growth of Al Qaeda in Iraq in Diyala. In April 2006 Abu Musab al-Zarqawi announced Diyala as the center of his Islamic Caliphate. That brought in Shiite militias from Baghdad to fight for their brethren, who began receiving arms and weapons from Iran. The Kurdish peshmerga had also moved into the Khanaqin district shortly after the U.S. invasion.

Things looked bleak in Diyala until 2007. That was the year members of the 1920s Revolution Brigades, and several other insurgent groups, along with the Karki and Shimouri tribes began turning on their former allies Al Qaeda in Iraq. These became the first Sons of Iraq (SOI) units in the province. What was at first seen as a threat by the Islamic Party to their claim to stand for the Sunni population, turned into an opportunity. In February 2007 Hussein al-Zubaydi the head of security in the Diyala provincial council and a member of the Islamic Party volunteered to work with the Americans to help organize the SOI. Zubaydi’s position allowed him to determine the make-up of the SOI. Later, when the U.S. began distributing aid through the SOI, the Islamic Party took advantage of that as well claiming responsibility. Through their maneuverings they were able to co-opt the SOI program, and build up a popular base that they never had before. This put them in a good position heading into the provincial elections that were originally scheduled for 2008.

It was just then that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki became concerned about the growth of Sunni power there. In mid-2007 Baghdad created the Diyala Support Council that was supposed to ensure security in the province. It was not connected to the provincial council or security forces however, and worked explicitly to build up support for the Prime Minister. They were given control of recruiting locals into the security forces, which was a major form of patronage at Maliki’s disposal. The purpose of the council was to win over members of the SOI and weaken the Islamic Party’s new base. The U.S. quickly became concerned about the council's activities and complained to Baghdad about it saying that it might destabilize Diyala even more. In late October 2007 for example, the U.S. general in command of northern Iraq complained that Baghdad refused to take in 6,000 Sunnis into the Diyala provincial police. The general said that the Interior Ministry had turned down his request. Of course, the Diyala Support Council was able to deliver names directly to the Ministry and get them hired.

In 2008 Maliki upped the ante in Diyala. In January 2008 Baghdad formed the first Tribal Support Council in the province. Like the Diyala Support Council, the new Tribal Councils were meant to take fighters away from the SOI, create support for Maliki, divide the Sunnis, and weaken the Islamic Party. In July the Prime Minister launched the Omens of Prosperity security offensive there. The operation was aimed as much at the insurgents as the Islamic Party and their Sons of Iraq allies. By the end of August five top SOI leaders had been arrested along with hundreds of their followers, while others had fled the province. In the provincial capital Baquba for example, all of the SOI checkpoints were shut down by August, along with all but one of their offices. Members of the Islamic Party were also rounded and harassed. To underline the political nature of Omens of Prosperity the government arrested three SOI members as they were going to register as candidates for the provincial election. Their arrest made them ineligible to run. The SOI went to the U.S. for help, but they weren’t able to stop Maliki. This was a classic use of the carrot and the stick. At first, Maliki offered SOI jobs through the Diyala and Tribal Support Council programs in return for their support. He then went after those that had not joined him using the Iraqi Army and police.

The Islamic Party headed into the 2009 elections at a seeming disadvantage. There were over forty-five parties and lists running in Diyala, but the four major ones were expected to take most of the votes. Those were the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council’s Diyala Coalition, Maliki’s Rule of Law List, the Kurdistan Alliance, and the Accordance and Reform Front. The last was led by Ezze Addeen Ibrahim Yaseen Muhammed, and was made up of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the Iraqi Commission for Civil Society, the General Conference of Iraqi People, and the Iraqi Arab Assembly. It also included many members of the SOI. Concerned about their political future the SIIC controlled provincial council called for a delay in the election there for six months in December. That didn’t happen and the Islamic Party’s list began campaigning. That was tough in a province where there are still insurgent pockets. The List’s candidates rarely crossed sectarian lines, and one was kidnapped and killed. The Reform Front was also competing with Tribal Support Councils that were expected to deliver the tribes to Maliki’s list, along with Saleh al-Mutlak, a Sunni independent who was appealing mostly to Baathists.

When January 31, 2009 came along, the Islamic Party came out victorious. Despite the insurgency, and Maliki’s moves 57% of the province’s voters turned out, one of the highest in the country. They gave the Islamic Party’s list 21.1% of the vote, good enough for first place. The Kurdish Alliance came in second with 17.2%, Saleh al-Mutlak’s Iraqi National Project got 15%, while former Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s Iraqi National List was fourth at 9.5%. Maliki’s State of Law list came in fifth with 6%. That means the Islamic Party’s List will have to cut deals with at least two others to gain a majority to rule the province.

The Islamic Party’s moves allowed it to take advantage of Iraq’s two provincial elections. In 2005 they ran basically uncontested in Diyala because of the Sunni boycott and came in second place. In 2009 they were able to come in first. Their size, organization, access to money and the media, and the election law, which favored large parties all worked to the IIP’s advantage. More importantly they were able to co-opt the former insurgents that became the Sons of Iraq as they were first being organized in 2007, while surviving Maliki’s crackdown in 2008. The IIP can now claim that they speak for many of Iraq’s Sunnis having done well in two ballots. They have to exert their power in Diyala carefully however, as they will have coalition partners and be ever vigilant of Maliki’s willingness to use the security forces for his political gain.

Early Election Results In Diyala
Iraqi Accordance Front: 21.1%
Kurdish Alliance: 17.2%
Iraqi National Project: 15%
Iraqi National List: 9.5%
State of Law: 6%
Coalition of Diyala: 5.3%
National Reform Party: 4.3%
Independent Free Movement List: 3.1%
National Movement: 2.6%
Fadhila: 2.3%
TURNOUT: 57%

SOURCES

Abdullah, Muhammed, “calls to postpone diyala election,” Niqash, 12/10/08
- “Diyala Sees Early Campaigning,” Niqash, 12/8/08

Alsumaria, “Iraq Awakening Councils in Diyala end strike,” 3/4/08

Dagher, Sam, “Risky US alliances in Iraq,” Christian Science Monitor, 7/17/07

DPA, “Head of Iraqi provincial council calls for elections postponement,” 12/9/08

DVIDS News, “Paramount Sheiks Sign Peace Agreement,” 5/2/07

Farrell, Stephen, “Election: Preliminary Results,” Baghdad Bureau Blog, New York Times, 2/5/09

Garcia-Navarro, Lourdes, “Iraq Paramilitary Group Targeted, Despite Success,” Morning Edition, NPR, 9/4/08
- “Sunni Group Says It’s Being Harassed,” Morning Edition, 9/29/08

Goetze, Katharina and Salman, Daud and Naji, Zaineb, “Could Awakening Fighters Rejoin Insurgency?” Institute for War & Peace Reporting, 10/31/08

Gordon, Michael, “Iraq Hampers U.S. Bid to Widen Sunni Police Role,” New York Times, 10/28/07

Hendawi, Hamza, “Iraq moves against some US-backed Sunni fighters,” Associated Press, 8/18/08

Iraqi News, “Three Support Councils established in Diala,” 1/24/08

Kagan, Kimberly, “The Anbar Awakening: Displacing al Qaeda from Its Stronghold in Western Iraq,” Institute For The Study of War and WeeklyStandard.com, 8/21/06-3/30/07

Kimmons, Sean, “Hashing out their differences,” Stars and Stripes, 8/29/08

Knights, Michael and McCarthy, Eamon, “Provincial Politics in Iraq: Fragmentation or New Awakening?” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, April 2008

Levinson, Charles, “Awakening Councils in hiding as arrests on rise,” USA Today, 9/22/08

Multi-National Corps – Iraq, “Diyala leaders meet to establish tribal support councils (Diyala),” 3/21/08

Niqash, “accord and reform bloc,” 1/28/09

Oppel, Richard, “Iraq Takes Aim at Leaders of U.S.-Tied Sunni Groups,” New York Times, 8/22/08

Parker, Ned, “Baqubah a minefield of Iraqi sectarian tensions,” Los Angeles Times, 12/7/08
Parker, Ned, “Iraq seeks breakup of U.S.-funded Sunni fighters,” Los Angeles Times, 8/23/08

Roggio, Bill, “1920s Revolution Brigades turns on al Qaeda in Diyala,” Long War Journal.org, 6/12/07
- “Operation Omens of Prosperity begins in Diyala,” Long War Journal.org, 7/29/08

Russo, Claire, “Countdown To Diyala’s Provincial Election: Maliki & The IIP,” Institute for the Study of War, 1/30/09
- “The Maliki Government Confronts Diyala,” Institute for the Study of War,” 9/23/08

Shadid, Anthony, “Iraq’s Diyala Province Puts Power of Ballot to the Test,” Washington Post, 2/1/09

Al-Tuawijri, Ali, “Iraq’s anti-Qaeda fighters fear for their future,” Agence France Presse, 9/6/08

Tyson, Ann Scott, “Iraq Is Criticized for Slow Hire of Police,” Washington Post, 10/27/07
- “Sunni Fighters Find Strategic Benefits in Tentative Alliance With U.S.,” Washington Post, 8/9/07
- “Tribal Members Join in Effort To Assist U.S., Iraqi Forces,” Washington Post, 9/30/07

Zavis, Alexandra, “Residents wary as Iraq police blanket Baqubah,” Los Angeles Times, 7/31/08

The Anbar Awakening Splits

As Iraq’s provincial elections approached it was widely believed that the Anbar tribes would unseat the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) from power. The IIP was the only major Sunni party to take part in the provincial balloting back in 2005, and took all of the seats in Anbar as a result. When the province’s tribes began turning on Al Qaeda in Iraq later that year, and became known as the Anbar Awakening it was assumed they would eventually take over the province. Now the tribal groups have split, making the outcome of the January 2009 elections unpredictable.

The Anbar tribes were always divided between a variety of leaders and groups. Sheikh Abdl Sattar Abu Risha founded the Anbar Salvation Council in September 2006. He successfully organized 41 of the provinces tribes behind him to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq. In September 2007 the Islamists assassinated him. His death led to the first major split amongst the Anbaris. Sattar’s brother Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha formed the Awakening Conference of Iraq, while Sheikh Ali Hatem al-Suleiman of the al-Anbar Tribal Council and Sheikh Hameed Farhan al-Hayes formed the National Front for the Salvation of Iraq. By June 2008 the two groups had come together under the umbrella of the Al-Anbar Salvation Council expressly to run in the upcoming elections.

This alliance has now broken apart due to the maneuverings of the Islamic Party. Seeing their demise on the horizon, the IIP successfully played a divide and conquer strategy. They convinced Sheikh Abu Risha and his Awakening Conference to join them in the National Gathering of Independents. In October 2008, the Islamic Party also formed the Intellectuals and Tribes for Development that includes the Gathering of Anbar’s Tribal Leaders and Intellectuals, Iraq’s People’s Conference, and the Independent Tribal National Gathering. Abu Risha’s defection led 40 tribal leaders to walk out of his group and join al-Suleiman and al-Hayes. They in turn formed a rival coalition, the Iraq’s Tribes List, which is made up of Risha’s original group the Anbar Salvation Council, the Ambition Party, and Hayes’ and Suleiman’s National Front for the Salvation of Iraq. Sheikh Suleiman is also trying to reach out to Baghdad for support. He formed a Tribal Support Council aligned with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The divisions amongst the tribes could complicate the voting in January. A member of Iraq’s Election Commission said that while a large number of people registered to vote, he feared a low turnout. He told the Berlin and Amman based on-line weekly Niqash that many people don’t trust the Islamic Party because of their poor rule of Anbar, but also don’t believe in the tribes because they are divided, and always bicker with each other. He continued that voters couldn’t tell one tribal group from another, and this confusion will lead them to select none of them as a result.

Because of these divisions, there might not be a clear winner come January in Anbar. The Tribes List and the Islamic Party coalition will probably split the vote. That will likely mean a power sharing deal between two bitter rivals. Neither side trusts nor respects the other, so this will be a real test. The Islamic Party has not done a god job running the province. In 2007 it only spent 3.7% of its budget. By October 2008 they had improved to 42%. There is also widespread poverty with six of the province’s seven districts having 25-50% of the population living in the poorest of six wealth groups according to the United Nations’ World Food Program, and the seventh with 50-75% in poverty. With divided rule, and budget cuts expected, it’s unlikely that the province will do any better in the immediate future.

For more on Anbar see:

Iraqi Weekly Interviews Sheikh Ali Hatem
Finding A Historical Precedent For The Sons Of Iraq, But Not A Solution
A More Complicated Picture of Iraq’s Tribes
Anbar Under Iraqi Control, But Political Disputes Continue
Anbar Dispute Between Sunnnis Growing
The Demise, But Not Death of Al Qaeda In Iraq
SOURCES

Ali, Fadhil, “Sunni Rivalries in al-Anbar Province Threaten Iraq’s Security,” Terrorism Focus, Jamestown Foundation, 3/11/08

Fayad, Ma’ad, “Al-Anbar Salvation Council to Run in Parliamentary Elections,” Asharq Al-Awsat, 9/21/08

Hamid, Nirmeen, “anbar’s Islamic party and tribes vie for power,” Niqash, 12/12/08
- “Political Fight Threatens Anbar Peace,” Niqash, 11/20/08

Lynch, Marc, “Iraqi Sunnis after the Awakening,” Abu Aardvark Blog, 6/20/08

Parker, Ned, “Iraq’s Nouri Maliki may gain power with U.S. security agreement,” Los Angeles Times, 11/24/08

Partlow, Joshua, Tyson, Ann Scott and Wright, Robin, “Bomb Kills a Key Sunni Ally of U.S.,” Washington Post, 9/14/07

Pitman, Todd, “Sunni Sheiks Join Fight Vs. Insurgency,” Associated Press, 3/25/07

Raghavan, Sudarsan, “A New Breed Grabs Reins in Anbar,” Washington Post, 10/21/08

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, “Quarterly report to the United States Congress,” 10/30/08

World Food Programme, “Comprehensive Food Security And Vulnerability Analysis In Iraq,” November 2008

Importance Of The Upcoming Provincial Elections

The December 2008 issue of the Arab Reform Bulletin had an article by Michael Knights on the importance of the upcoming Iraqi provincial elections. Knights is a Middle East specialist from England that works for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Knights’ main argument was that while the elections will not be perfect, they are an important sign of progress for Iraq’s political system. They will give a sense of how popular Iraq’s parties are, show that the government is committed to democracy, but Knights’ point may be undermined by the fact that actual governance might not improve.

Iraq’s elections are due at the end of January 2009. They will occur in fourteen of the country’s eighteen provinces. The Kurdish Regional Government will decide when the three Kurdish provinces of Dohuk, Irbil, and Sulaymaniyah will hold their vote. Tamim, home of the disputed city of Kirkuk, will have its polling delayed as well until a committee can come up with a power sharing agreement, and a separate election law is drafted for it. The committee is supposed to finish their work by March 31, 2009. Even with these exceptions around 75% of the Iraqi public will still be voting.

The election law this time is more open than 2005, but still has limits. The new voting system is an open list, proportional one. In 2005 Iraq had a closed list vote. People picked from coalitions of parties, and then those parties decided what politicians would fill the provincial council seats. Many of these people were unqualified as the parties relied upon cronies, family ties, and patronage to dole out the seats. The new system will allow Iraqis to pick from individuals, parties or coalitions. The votes will be tallied to see how much each individual or party gets across the entire province, and then positions on the council will be given by the percentage each received. The top vote getters for each list will receive the actual seats, meaning the parties will not get to pick them as happened in 2005. This method favors the large parties that are better organized, funded, and already control the councils because they can operate across the entire province, which is necessary to win seats. There are also no campaign financing rules, which will allow rich individuals and foreign countries to also play a role in influencing the outcome. In November for example, an Iranian agent was arrested in Wasit hiding in a fuel truck carrying forged Iraqi IDs. An Iraqi source believed the Iranian was planning to use them in the elections to fake votes. The election law also sets aside a quota for women candidates with the top vote getting women getting every 3rd seat on the councils. The councils in turn pick the governors of each province and the provincial police chiefs. They also get to control the provincial budgets and local reconstruction projects.

The January elections will also be different from the 2005 one because of who’s running and how. In the 2005 provincial elections, the major Shiite parties the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and the Dawa ran together as part of the United Iraqi Alliance. This time they will be running against each other. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has already made his move to improve his situation vis-a-vis the much larger SIIC that already controls most of the southern provinces by creating Tribal Support Councils aimed at gathering votes from sheikhs and their followers in rural areas. The Sunnis and Sadrists also largely boycotted the first 2005 elections. On the Sunni side, only the Iraqi Islamic Party ran, which now controls Anbar, while the Sadrists only really competed in Maysan, which they have sway over. The tribal Awakening forces in Anbar are hoping to unseat the Islamic Party, while the larger Iraqi Accordance Front coalition is looking to gain seats in central and northern Iraq. The Sadrists on the other hand, are handicapped by the series of government crackdowns that began in March 2008. Sadr said his followers would run with smaller parties. As reported earlier, this probably means they will not do well. Dozens of independents and individuals are going to run as well, even though their chances of victory are slim due to the voting system. The head of Iraq’s Election Commission announced that there were 14,800 individuals, 36 coalitions, and 366 political parties running for office this time.

In the end, Knights believes that the elections will only shuffle the seats between the current ruling parties. He predicts that the Shiite south will be evenly divided between the Dawa and SIIC after the election, with independents being the swing votes as to who is named governors. The Anbar tribes will split the vote with the Islamic Party, and the Accordance Front could take Salahaddin, which is currently ruled by the Kurds. The Sunnis might also gain seats in Diyala and Baghdad, while the Kurds could retain control of Ninewa, which has the disputed city of Mosul. Knights warns that violence and fraud might also influence the vote, both real and imagined. There have already been several reports of an uptake in assassinations and the use of sticky bombs to kill officials that could be linked to the elections.

When the election is over, the new councils may face opportunities and difficulties as well. The new governors could have more power as the provincial powers act gives them wide ranging authority. They could also be severely limited by two factors as well. First, the change in ruling parties could also hamper the local government as bureaucrats are likely to be replaced with a brand new set of family members and cronies that have little to no experience running anything. Second, Baghdad is planning on slashing the provincial budgets in half because of the drop in oil prices. Much of Iraq lives in poverty, and many citizens are cynical about the political system that has failed to improve their lot even as violence has declined in the last year. Because of these experiences and financial constraints, the new provincial governments may be no better than their predecessors in delivering on any of their election promises.

Despite all of these faults, Knights still believes that the elections are important. Iraq is still formulating its political system after years of dictatorial rule. The same parties may end up in power, just with different positions vis-à-vis each other, and they may not be able to improve the provinces’ lot much, but Knights argues the vote will be significant symbolically. He thinks that Baghdad needs to instill in the public the fact that there will be regular elections, and the people will have a say in who rules the country. Of course, if it leads to the same type of incompetent and corrupt governance couldn’t that corrode the populace’s belief in democracy just as much? There are plenty of developing countries that have regular votes, but little changes. Ultimately, simply carrying out balloting is not enough to transform a nation. Elections need to be more than symbolic victories. They need to lead to real substantive changes as well.

For more on the upcoming provincial elections see:

Controversy Could Be Growing Over Ban On Using Religious Symbols During Provincial Elections

Iraqi Al-Amal Association and Baghdad University’s Public Opinion Poll On Poverty In Iraq

Maliki’s Tribal Support Councils Appear To Be Paying Off

Iraq Center for Research & Strategic Studies’ Survey Of Iraqis

Maliki Responds To His Critics On Tribal Support Councils

Disputes Over Tribal Support Councils

Iraq’s Displaced Not Excitied About Election

Iraq’s New Voting System

Election Law Passed, Now To Get People To Vote

SOURCES

Aswat al-Iraq, “Iranian with forged Iraqi IDs arrested in Wassit,” 11/22/08
- “Next year elections made by Iraqis – IHEC,” 12/4/08
- “No decrease in salaries because of oil prices – planning minister,” 12/19/08

Fadel, Leila, “Assassinations replacing car bombs in Iraq,” McClatchy Newspapers, 10/9/08

Goode, Erica, “Iraq Passes Provincial Elections Law,” New York Times, 9/25/08

Institute for the Study of War, “Fact Sheet on Iraq’s Major Shi’a Political Parties and Militia Groups,” April 2008

Knights, Michael, “Significance of the Provincial Elections,” Arab Reform Bulletin, December, 2008

Middle East Reference.org, “Governorate elections held in Iraq on 31 January 2005”

Parker, Sam, “not so open,” Abu Muqawama Blog, 9/25/08

Could Maliki Be Deposed?

Since March 2008 Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been forming Tribal Support Councils. Originally, these were created to help the security forces crackdown on the Mahdi Army militia of Moqtada al-Sadr. Beginning in the summer however, Maliki has been creating councils across the south and north to establish his control over the country, and increasingly to challenge the rule of his main coalition partners, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and the Kurdish parties, in the provinces. This is coming to a boiling point as both groups are increasingly criticizing Maliki’s rule, and rumors are beginning that they might even make a move to unseat him from power.

There have been several reports that the SIIC and Kurds might be looking to replace Maliki as prime minister of Iraq. First, Nibras Kazimi, former Iraqi National Congress member, New York based writer, member of the Hudson Institute, and operator of the Talisman Gate blog, wrote that he had heard that the Kurds and Supreme Council were considering replacing Maliki with either current Vice President Adel Abdel-Mahdi of the SIIC, former prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari who broke away from the Dawa Party and formed his own National Reform Party this summer, or Ali al-Adeeb of the Dawa Party. Al-Quds al-Rubi reported that while Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan was meeting with members of parliament he said that Maliki’s government needed to be reformed, while Iraq-Ina wrote that Talabani was trying to depose the Prime Minister.

That followed a public dispute between Maliki and the Presidential Council, which consists of President Talabani, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi of the Iraqi Islamic Party, and Vice President Abdel-Mahdi. On November 18, they sent a letter to Maliki suggesting that the government should stop wasting money forming Tribal Support Councils, and instead use the funds on the existing security forces. They also said that the Prime Minister should stop forming the councils until there is a formal framework to integrate them into the government. Two days later, Maliki gave a televised speech in which he said that Talabani was picking on the Support Councils, while the Kurds were breaking the constitution by deploying their Peshmerga militia outside of Kurdistan, and signing oil contracts without government approval. Maliki also said that the constitution needed to be amended so that the central government could have more power, implying that the Kurdish Regional Government needed its authority to be curtailed. That was an empty threat since the changes to the constitution have been held up for over a year, but upped the war of words between the two sides. The Presidential Council was not pleased by Maliki’s comments, and told him on November 21 that he shouldn’t have made their differences public.



Tribal Support Councils have been formed in 4. Wasit, 5. Maysan, 6. Basra, 7. Dhi Qar, 8. Muthanna, 9. Qadisiyah, 10. Babil, 11. Karbala, 12. Najaf, 17. Tamim, and others to support Prime Minster Maliki

All of this began back in March 2008 when the government moved against the Sadrists. During the crackdowns in the south, Maliki reached out to various tribes to help deal with the Mahdi Army. This first happened in Basra when Maliki gave 10,000 tribesman jobs in the provincial police in return for fighting the militias. Tribal Support Councils were also formed in Babil, Karbala, Maysan, and Dhi Qar as the fighting spread across the south. After that initial wave, the Prime Minister moved ahead creating councils in Qadisiyah Wasit, Najaf, Kirkuk, Muthanna, and other areas. Each was paid $21,000 by the government, and then $10,000 a month afterwards. They reported to the Committee for National Reconciliation in Baghdad, although there is talk of forming a National Tribal Support Council. Tribal sheikhs have been eager to join these councils because it gives them power and new standing, as well as jobs for their followers. As reported earlier, many of the country’s tribes were weak after the invasion because they had become dependent upon Saddam and his patronage to maintain their positions. Working for Maliki then, is an all too familiar relationship for many of these sheikhs. Many of these tribes are also national in character, which means that the Prime Minister is building up support not only in the individual provinces where the councils are, but across the country.

The Supreme Council was the first to object to this policy. As they rule most of the south, they saw the Support Councils as a brazen attempt by Maliki to build up his support and challenge their authority in the upcoming provincial elections, scheduled for the end of January 2009. SIIC officials in Babil, Wasit, Karbala, Dhi-Qar, Basra, Muthanna, and Qadisiyah have all protested the tribal groups. Governors and provincial councils have all complained that Maliki never consulted with them when forming the Support Councils, and that they are not part of the local governments, answering to Baghdad rather to them.

The Kurds became concerned later in the year when Maliki began focusing upon the north. As mentioned several times before, in August 2008 government forces moved into the disputed Khanaqin district in Diyala province, which the Kurds have occupied since the 2003 invasion. That caused a confrontation between Baghdad and the Kurdish Regional Government that could have led to violence. By September, Kurdish President Massoud Barzani gave an interview where he accused Maliki of acting like an autocrat, never following through with their promises to the Kurds, and questioning whether Kurds should stand behind the Prime Minister’s government. Maliki then set up Support Councils in Kirkuk and Mosul, and attempted to form one in Khanaqin, while also trying to move Kurdish forces out of Mosul.

As a result, the Kurds have stepped up their attacks upon Maliki. Beginning in November, they have said that Maliki is acting like a totalitarian, and that the Support Councils are illegal and unconstitutional. The Patriot Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party issued a joint statement that compared the tribal groups to Kurds that fought for Saddam in the 1980s and 90s. Kurdish President Barzani followed that up with a TV interview with al-Jazeera in which he said that the the councils were mercenaries and would be treated as enemies by the Kurds. Maliki responded by organizing two days of protests by his new tribal allies. On November 15, tribes came out on the streets to support Maliki and the Support Councils and protest against the Kurds in Tikrit in Salahaddin, Hawijah in Tamim, Karbala, Najaf, Nasiriyah in Dhi Qar, Samawah in Muthanna, and Hilla in Babil. Demonstrators said that Kirkuk, Mosul, and Diyala were parts of Iraq, responding to the Kurd desire to annex districts in those areas.

The Kurds and SIIC have been close allies since before the 2003 U.S. invasion. They were the main reason why Maliki was able to stay in power in 2007 when various factions were trying to unseat him. The Prime Minister has been emboldened after his successful crackdowns on the Sadrists earlier this year however, and now feels as if he can take on his allies in the provinces that they control. He is building up support across the country before the provincial elections, but it could come at a cost. If the Kurds and SIIC want, they can depose him in parliament with a no confidence vote. Worse, his moves could lead to violence between the Tribal Support Councils and local police and Peshmerga controlled by the SIIC and Kurds. So far these disputes have stayed verbal, but the rhetoric is increasing, and shows the deep divisions that remain in Iraq.

For more on the Tribal Support Councils, Inter-Shiite Power Struggles, and the Kurdish-Baghdad Dispute see:

Cold War Between Baghdad and Kurds Turns Hot

Deal Struck To Defuse Kahanqin Issue

Disputes Over Tribal Support Councils

Khanaqin Deal Off?

Kurdish-Baghdad Tensions Over Diyala

The Kurds Come Out Swinging

Maliki Responds To His Critics On Tribal Support Councils

Maliki Still Pushing The Kurds On Khanaqin District

Maliki Ups the Ante in Khanaqin District of Diyala

Maliki’s Tribal Support Councils Appear To Be Paying Off

Shiite Rivalries Increasing As Provincial Elections Near

SOURCES

Agence France Presse, “Iraqi Sunni And Shiites Demonstrate In Favour Of US Pact,” 11/19/08

Alsumaria, “Al Maliki defends tribal awakening councils,” 10/9/08
- “Maliki meets Kirkuk’s tribes’ leaders,” 11/5/08
- “Rows growing between two major Iraqi parties,” 9/18/08

Aswat al-Iraq, “Barazani criticizes al-Maliki on al-Jazeera,” 11/16/08
- “Diwaniya sahwa council meets in defiance of protests,” 11/10/08
- “Gov’t seeks national support council,” 11/6/08
- “Karbala governor says no-confidence vote proposal is political pressure tool,” 10/1/08
- “Meeting to Discuss Disagreement over Forming Support Councils,” 11/12/08
- “MP’s decision to cancel partisan support councils welcomed,” 10/9/08
- “PM Accuses Kurdish Leadership of ‘violating’ the Constitution,” 11/20/08
- “Premier to cancel partisan support councils,” 10/9/08
- “Pro-sahwa protests in Thi-Qar,” 11/15/08
- “Sahwa councils could stir sedition, says key legislator,” 11/12/08
- “Thi-Qar governor slams govt’s plan of installing support councils,” 10/3/08
- “Tribal chieftain announces opening 20 Supports Councils offices in Thi-Qar,” 10/1/08
- “Wassit province refuses to establish support councils,” 9/24/08

Farrell, Stephen and Glanz, James, “More Than 1,000 in Iraq’s Forces Quit Basra Fight,” New York Times, 4/4/08

Garcia-Navarro, Lourdes, “Competition Between Iraqi Shiites Gains Strength,” All Things Considered, NPR, 10/22/08

IraqSlogger.com, “Najaf Forms Tribal ‘Support Council,’” 10/27/08
- “New Tribal Groups Buck Wishes of Wasit Council,” 10/23/08

Kazimi, Nibras, “Ousting Maliki, Maybe,” Talisman Gate Blog, 11/21/08

Krauss, Joseph, “Iraqi PM feuds with Kurds over militias,” Agence France Presse, 11/12/08

KurdishMedia, “Massoud Barzani on Kurdistan Region’s conflict with Baghdad,” 9/5/08

Levinson, Charles and Nabhan, Ali, “Iraqi tribes caught between rival Shiite parties,” USA Today, 10/20/08

Missing Links Blog, “What’s up with Maliki’s latest tribal-council proposal,” 7/1/08

Mohsen, Amer, “Iraq Papers Mon: Australian Troops to Depart,” IraqSlogger.com, 6/1/08

Muhammed, Ako, “Kirkuk Tribal Militias Trouble for Kurds,” Kurdish Globe, 11/13/08

Niqash, “southern tribes: security or politics?” 11/6/08

al-Obeidi, Hassan, “Thousands of Iraqi Arabs attend anti-Kurdish protests,” Agence France Presse, 11/15/08

Parker, Sam, “ISCI/Da’wa alliance showing strain,” Abu Muqawama Blog, 9/17/08

Roads To Iraq Blog, “Talabani’s attempt to oust Maliki, demonstrators hanged a statue of George Bush,” 11/21/08

Rubin, Alissa, “Rejection of Oil Law and Move to Create Tribal Councils Add to Tensions With Kurds,” New York Times, 10/28/08

Russo, Claire, “The Maliki Government Confronts Diyala,” Institute for the Study of War, 9/23/08

Ryan, Missy, “Kurd-Arab tension may threaten Iraq calm,” Reuters, 11/12/08

Weiner, Scott, “Maliki Makes a Play for the Southern Tribes,” Institute for the Study of War, 11/6/08