A Stillborn Initiative

The Saudi king’s invitation to the Iraqi parties to hold talks in Riyadh after Hajj raises numerous questions and alarm bells for the Iraqi people about their future. It also serves as a reminder of the dangers and challenges that lie ahead for the new Iraq.
On Saturday, 30 October 2010, as the various Iraqi parties were preparing to meet in Arbil and Baghdad to settle the political crisis and form a government, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia invited President Jalal Talabani and other Iraqi leaders for talks in Riyadh after Eid Al-Adha.
The irony here is that a country which has never seen an election, does not allow for a Shia presence, and does not have, or recognize, any ethnic minorities is trying to fix the problems of a new democracy with a Shia majority and a sizeable Kurdish, Turkoman and Chaldo-Assyrian population.
The manner in which the invitation was drafted was a clear indication that the Saudis do not have a clue about the new Iraq, nor do they intend to solve the country’s problems.
The invitation mentions President Jalal Talabani by name and “the rest of the parties that took part in the election” -- as if the problem here is President Talabani and the other parties, or is over the presidential post, or is between Kurds and Arabs.
The reality is that the dispute is between the Arabs. One day it is an internal conflict between the Shia; another day it is between the Sunnis; and at other times, it is between Shia and Sunnis.
Given their impartial position, the Kurds were paving the way for a settlement of the dispute.
Many here in Iraq recognize that the Saudi invitation was timed to spoil these attempts by driving a deeper wedge between the Arabs and the Kurds of Iraq while at the same time prolonging and deepening the Sunni-Shia conflict.
By its very nature, Saudi Arabia is not fit to either mediate in Iraq or even understand the nuances of this complex and diverse country.
Their predominant position is an anti-Shia one. During his entire time as prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, who is Shia, did not receive a single invitation to visit Saudi Arabia. Given examples such as this, how can Saudi Arabia overnight become a mediator or an arbitrator between the Shia and the Sunnis?
The Iraqi reactions to the initiative were a clear demonstration of the limited credibility Saudi enjoys. The Shia and the Kurds refused the mediation, while the Sunnis welcomed it.
Every now and then, the people of Iraq hear of Saudi preachers insulting Shia symbols, including the revered Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, as well as disparaging comments toward the Shia faith in Saudi Arabia’s mosques and satellite TV channels. Most Iraqis believe that ending these practices would be a goodwill gesture before helping to form the government.
As opposed to dressing their initiatives with an all-Iraqi solution to form the government, the Saudis would have been much better off if they were more open and truthful by solely expressing concerns about the status of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs. They could have also been more open in expressing their concerns about the extent of Iran’s influence or interference in Iraq.
The initiative also could have been better prepared. As things stand, it seems that Saudi minimized Iraqiya’s chances of positioning themselves well in the next government. They instead managed to draw the Kurds and the Shia closer to each other, while further enhancing Iran’s role in Iraq.
If tomorrow Mahmoud Ahmadinajad makes a similar invitation as the one extended by King Abullah (who, it should be noted, has not even appointed an ambassador to Iraq) surely many more people -- including Sunnis -- would attend the Tehran meeting rather than one in Riyadh.
But Ahmadinajad would not interfere so blatantly, because he seems to understand the new Iraq better than the Saudis. The past seven months have proven that any interference in negotiations over the government formation will only further complicate Iraq’s deeply polarized political environment.
When the people of Iraq went to the polls to vote for their MPs, they did so with the understanding that the Iraqis are the only ones who should form the government, and that the only place where it can be formed is Iraq. If Iraq veers from this principle, the political blocs will be responsible – and the citizens will be the ones to pay the price.

Kingmakers again!

The Kurds have once again found themselves the kingmakers of Iraq, but this time, the stakes are much higher. Iraq’s political paralysis has earned it the world record for the longest period of time in which a country has gone without forming a government after holding an election. Given that all of the other parties have taken sides, it is clear that it is up to the Kurds to decide who will lead the country.
The good news is that this time, the political picture and the leadership options are clearer. After months of indecision, incumbent Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki finally won his battle to secure the National Alliance’s nomination for the premiership. Two months ago, I wrote about players and spectators and encouraged the Kurds and other smaller blocs to make up their mind about the next prime minister. The Sadrists and the others seem to have made their decision by nominating Maliki; luckily for the Kurds, it did not change the equation much.
To be sure, Iraqi politics remains dysfunctional and paralyzed. The country is unable to move in any definitive direction because of its politics. The Kurds should not be influenced by the political quagmire, however. Their choices are simple today: Allawi or Maliki.
The ongoing conflict over the prime minister’s post was a clear symptom of the paralyzed politics of Baghdad. It became clear that the conflict is one between lists, and not about policies. Sadly, the conflict is centered on the interests of the blocs rather than to the public interest.
Breaking the world record and not feeling the sense of urgency to form the government or make concessions is a clear example.
The Kurds are different from other blocs because they are not embroiled in Baghdad’s difficult and divisive politics.
External pressures could be placed on the Kurds to not support a seemingly sectarian government led by powerful Shia parties. But the reality is the other options are not much better.
In the early stages of negotiations, a national unity government could have been an answer. But today it is not. The bad relationship created over the past six months has in my opinion destroyed any potential for trust between the two main lists to create a national unity government. Maliki remained a strong candidate so did Allawi.
As one of the more neutral groups in Baghdad’s vicious political fight, the Kurds have an opportunity today to make a real difference in the political process and for themselves.
Although they are a list and an alliance, their politics are more mature and clearer in terms of hierarchy, goals, interests and objectives. The main reason for this is that they are from one region. Their aims and demands were not created yesterday; they were developed after decades of struggle.
Many observers believe that the ball is in the Kurds’ court, but this should not be seen as a burden. In fact, it could be an opportunity.
The Kurds cannot afford to play the political game without having a clear idea as to their demands. The 19-point list should be the basis for the Kurds to negotiate a deal with either Allawi or Maliki.
Other characteristics, like the leadership, vision, strength of the candidates, should also be considered.
In dealing with the blocs, the Kurds should consider the composition, unity and sustainability of each bloc and their historic relationship with -- or animosity toward -- the Kurds and their demands.
During the months-long political game, the Kurds have thus far been spectators. As we approach the final stretch, it is now their time to play, and to score the winning goal.

A digital democracy is emerging

A pioneering conference in Erbil last week provided a much-needed look at Iraq’s technological future.
It offered unprecedented discussion of how Iraq can use technology, information and e-governance to re-establish its strong economic, intellectual and political standing in the region.
The two-day conference, organized by international media development agencies the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) and IREX, explored the innumerable ways Iraq can develop its emerging democracy by utilizing technology to harness the information revolution.
Information and communication are keys to creating a healthy society; one in which the public is engaged, informed and empowered, while the government is responsive, transparent and accountable.
At the heart of this “revolution” is a free and unfettered flow of information to the public. This info-stream cannot happen by leaving technological advancement to take its own course; the process must be managed.
The use of communication technologies is increasing by the second. Iraq is well placed to benefit from this accelerated pace. By handling this transition wisely, chaos and confusion can be avoided.
It is the duty of the government, the media and the public to see this transition through and develop Iraq’s “digital democracy.”
This new technological landscape is changing old ways of receiving and transmitting information. We, too, should change. The public, the media and government can all play important roles in shaping the future.
Information empowers the public and enables individuals to learn their rights as well as how exercise and protect them. Information is always a key tool in combating corruption.
With today’s technologies, individuals have increasingly become information providers. Any citizen can take a picture, record a video or write something, and then post it immediately on the Internet for the entire world to see.
The media in Iraq can promote public awareness about the need for information and its benefits. It can also disseminate information on public services and rights awareness.
Public media provide a forum to voice dissatisfaction, as well as demand accountability and action. It is, after all, a forum for public debate. The most important role of media, however, is to create a public that is informed enough to be critical and analytical of any information received.
Our media market is saturated with low quality, and often downright bad, products. Even so, no authority can or should close them down.
The only party that can do this is the public. If credible and professional media creates a media-literate public that can interpret, analyze and use the information, there would be no market for bad media in Iraq.
The best avenue for the government to take is to lift all obstacles on communication and access to information. For example, develop legislation for the people’s right to information, strengthen the mechanisms for access to information through e-governance, and work on increasing Internet access by allowing the private sector to enter the service provision market.
In the new technological landscape, fair play is the only way to win in the long run.