The state of Iraq

Corey Gannon, one of my Johns Hopkins/SAIS master’s students this term, offers the following account of a Carnegie Endowment discussion earlier this week on “The State of Iraq.”  Speakers included Ad Melkert, former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Marina Ottaway, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Lt. Col. Joel Rayburn, Senior Military Fellow at the National Defense University.  The focus was on current governance issues in Iraq and on political prospects over the next several years.

Melkert stressed the need to be humble in predicting the political future of Iraq.  Open competition for office has not been a feature of Iraqi politics since 1958.  The country is still defining its policies and asserting its constitutional sovereignty.  There is reason for cautious optimistism, as the current political situation in Iraq is a “fragmented reality” without the cover of unified authoritarianism.  The central question is whether the constitution will hold.  Despite ongoing Sunni-Shia, intra-Sunni, and intra-Shia tensions, Iraqi politicians still view “sticking to the rules of the game” as advantageous.  More people, he said, are invested in the state, financially and otherwise.  In the regional context, Turkey is increasingly important and is beginning to feel the tension of being a regional broker.  The situation in Syria will provide reduced opportunities for spoilers from that country to disrupt the Iraqi political process.

Marina Ottaway is “cautiously pessimistic.”  She thinks Iraq is likely headed toward heightened sectarian violence.  The problem is an “unhealthy pluralism.”  Democratic institutions are possible partially because people can change their minds, but unchanging ethnic and religious identities dominate Iraqi politics.  Despite their claims, all Iraqi political parties are sectarian.  It is questionable whether there is time for the rules to develop before the country returns to conflict, including rules regarding the degree of autonomy of parts of Iraq.  Top leaders are not known for their democratic tendencies and historically leaders have held power for long periods of time.  Syria and other countries in relative disarray in the region are likely to exacerbate the problems in Iraq, in contrast to Melkert’s prediction.

Lt. Col. Rayburn is pessimistic in the short term, but optimistic over the long-term, which he described as roughly fifteen years.  He anticipates a “painful” five to seven-year period after which Iraq may achieve a stable political outcome.  The Iraqi economy could grow three to four times its current size.  In the meanwhile, Maliki is neutralizing checks and balances in government, co-opting the Dawa party and establishing “anti-coup” forces in the police and military.  Government posts are filled with family, close associates, former Baathists, and “Dawa orphans” all dependent on Maliki remaining in power.  Maliki can seize the state but not the country.  In a worst-case scenario, the trend would be an Iraqi society increasingly alienated from the state, partially because the latter fails to provide services, and the eventual use of violence by the Maliki regime to keep the country in line.  Despite the views of many in the region, Iraq distrusts Iran.  While generally agreeing with Iran on foreign policy, Maliki’s is not a puppet government.

Questions from the audience raised additional points.  Melkert mentioned that during the 2014 national elections, Iraqi politicians will have to show what they have done for their constituencies, perhaps for the first time.  The UN role is already shifting to monitoring human rights, assisting the central government, and helping to resolve border issues with Kuwait.  Ottaway said that “after sectarian identities are out of the bag, it’s difficult to put them back in.” She sees only a small chance for nationalism to transcend sectarian and ethnic identities.  Rayburn commented that the public sector still dwarfs the private sector economically.  He also mentioned that the US role was different than previously planned.  Poor security means US officials will rarely be able to leave the embassy.