Iraq

Reading selections for the weekend of January 15, 2016.

This article was originally published here on Fortune.com on Wednesday, January 6, 2016.   Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia cut off diplomatic ties with Iran after authorities executed a popular Shiite cleric. Anyone watching this meltdown unfold has every reason to think of worse-case scenarios, as it will only deepen the Middle East’s widening sectarian divide, intensify the region’s multiple conflicts, and set back efforts to defeat the Islamic State and end the bloodshed in Syria.   For years, the Middle East has been defined by political instability, and the execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr and subsequent attack on the Saudi embassy in Teheran is only the most recent episode in a longstanding rivalry between the two powers dominating opposite shores of the Gulf — the world’s most important oil chokehold through which 30% of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows. Each claims to be the face of the true and authentic variant of Islam. Saudi Arabia, custodian of Islam’s two leading holy places in Mecca and Medina, sees in the Islamic Republic of Iran a revolutionary Shiite Persian power expanding its reach into the Sunni Arab heartland. Having seen Tehran spread its influence into Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria, the Saudis, led by a new and more activist king, are sending a strong message to the world that it will not sit by passively. The most immediate casualty of intensified Saudi-Iranian tensions will be the recently launched U.S.-led diplomatic effort to end the horrific Syrian war that has already claimed more than 250,000 dead. Iranian forces are fighting and dying in Syria to preserve president Bashar al Assad’s regime, while Saudi Arabia is actively backing rebels seeking to topple the dictator. Just getting the Iranian and Saudi foreign ministers into the same room last month was touted as a major accomplishment by Secretary of State John Kerry. While Iran and Saudi Arabia profess a desire to cooperate diplomatically, both countries are now sure to double down their support for the opposing sides in Syria’s war. The Syrian opposition, meanwhile, has urged all Arab countries to break relations with Tehran. A second casualty of Iran’s strained relations with Saudi Arabia is likely to be the regional effort to combat the so-called Islamic State, or Daesh, that currently occupies a large swath of territory across Iraq and Syria. While the United States and Europe, reeling from Islamist terrorism, see defeating Daesh as the paramount objective in the Middle East, this sense of priority is not shared by many Arab allies within the anti-Daesh coalition. That a number of Gulf states have followed Saudi Arabia’s lead and suspended relations with Tehran reflects the fact that they see Shiite Iran, not the Sunni Islamists in Daesh, as their paramount enemy.   Continue reading on Fortune.com  

Ten people who passed away this year who shaped world affairs for better or worse.

Yesterday, while being interviewed by Norah O’Donnell of CBS News, President Barack Obama made a revealing statement about the careful manner in which U.S. military interventions are made. O’Donnell asked Obama if he was going back on his word by authorizing an expansion of U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria with the deployment of what the Pentagon calls a “specialized expeditionary targeting force.” The president earnestly replied, “You know, when I said no boots on the ground, I think the American people understood generally that we’re not going to do an Iraq-style invasion of Iraq or Syria with battalions that are moving across the desert.” It is difficult to imagine that the American people misinterpreted Obama’s pledge of “no boots on the ground,” which he only made publicly sixteen times between August 2013 and July 2015. Moreover, it is unclear how he knows how Americans interpret his pledges. However, the obvious reason that all presidents and senior administration officials initially downplay the mission and role of U.S. military interventions is to catalyze domestic political support. This is because opinion polling of Americans reveals that they overwhelmingly do not support wars that they believe will be unilateral, long, bloody, and costly. Obama was simply following the precedent of his predecessors by first downplaying a U.S. military commitment, then incrementally increasing that commitment and approving new missions, all while consistently claiming that there has been absolutely no mission creep and no violation of previous pledges. Each gradual accretion of personnel, weapons, and missions is announced in a “nothing new to see here” manner and packaged as a wise and minor policy adjustment that will bring the United States closer to achieving its strategic objective—in this case, to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the self-declared Islamic State. When the first 275 U.S. troops were sent to Iraq in June 2014, Pentagon spokesperson Rear Adm. John Kirby pledged that the deployment “will be of a limited duration” and be “a discrete, measured, temporary arrangement to help us to get eyes on the ground, to figure out what’s going on and get a better sense of it.” Compare that to the latest deployment of two hundred special operations forces, which Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter described on Tuesday as “a force that will essentially do raids throughout the territory of Syria,” and  is intended “to make ISIL wonder…when they go to bed at night who’s going to be coming in the window?” A puzzling mission set where Navy SEALS are supposed to serve as nightmare fuel for jihadists. Consider that in November 2014 Obama pledged that the sort of circumstance where U.S. troops might be deployed on the ground were, “If we discovered that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands.” Now “specialized” troops will conduct high risk operations to simply attempt to capture and kill a few more Islamic State members, of which there is apparently an inexhaustible supply. On Monday, an anonymous Pentagon official claimed that an estimated 23,000 Islamic State fighters have been killed in 8,600 U.S.-led coalition airstrikes over the past sixteen months. The following day, Secretary Carter was asked, “how many ISIL forces are there in Iraq and Syria?” He replied: “estimates in the neighborhood of 30,000.” That is the exact same estimate for the Islamic State’s size that the U.S. intelligence community provided sixteen months ago. Is this strategy working?

Farah Halime studies how continued violence in Egypt, particularly against the tourism industry, negatively impacts the country’s economy. The blogger Maysaloon discusses teaching identity, philosophy, and Descartes to Syrian refugee children. Aras Ahmed Mhamad reflects on how corruption and nepotism is weakening the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq.

CFR’s Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy (CSMD) Program highlights noteworthy events and articles each Friday in “This Week in Markets and Democracy.”  The Americas’ Refugee Crisis  As Europe struggles to absorb one million refugees this year alone, the United States is facing its own crisis. From October 2014 to September 2015, U.S. officials detained 80,000 people at the U.S.-Mexico border, mostly women and children from Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) where record homicide rates and forcible gang recruitment threaten daily life. A recent United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) report documents the dangers women in particular face, including rape, assault, kidnapping, and extortion. Over the past year Mexico’s migrant detention rate doubled, leading the number of Central Americans reaching the U.S. to fall. Still, tens of thousands of migrants wait in the United States in prison-like facilities of questionable legality, given little if any help navigating the U.S. asylum process. Unlike the Europeans, who are debating how to equitably distribute refugees and manage flows, the U.S. government remains largely silent regarding its own humanitarian crisis. Continued Impunity in Journalist Attacks  Monday’s International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalism memorialized over 1,000 journalists slain since 1992. Over this period the Committee to Protect Journalists counts Iraq, Syria, the Philippines, and Algeria as the deadliest countries for press. With conflicts escalating this year in Yemen and South Sudan, so too did the dangers for reporters; these two nations join Syria and Bangladesh among the top five most perilous places in the world to practice journalism in 2015. Local reporters account for the majority targeted, particularly when investigating corruption or challenging political authority in closed societies. Most attacks against the press go unpunished—only 7 percent of cases are resolved, and less than 10 percent are even investigated. One of the most egregious recent examples is the torture and murder of Mexican photojournalist Ruben Espinosa last summer, a case that remains unsolved. Changes to the World Bank Doing Business Survey The World Bank’s annual Doing Business report, released last week, now measures the quality and strength of judicial systems in scoring the business environment of 189 countries. In addition to measuring efficiency (time and cost) of resolving contract disputes—from filing cases to enforcing judgements—Doing Business added a “good judicial practices” index, looking at court structures, procedures, and whether cases are assigned randomly to avoid corruption. The 2016 report also factors in regulatory transparency in property transactions and electricity tariffs when considering the quality of reforms. Though country rankings changed only slightly with the revised methodology—Singapore ranked number one for the tenth straight year—the shift reflects an effort to incorporate the broader governance issues that affect companies and countries. TPP Debate Begins  On Thursday President Obama notified Congress of his intent to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and released all thirty chapters of the trade pact between twelve countries, covering roughly 40 percent of global GDP. As set by terms of the trade promotion authority (TPA), or “fast-track” legislation passed last summer, the House and Senate now have ninety days to debate the TPP before taking an up-or-down vote. (CFR’s Jim Lindsay explains the voting procedure and TPA rules in detail.) After months of criticism of the TPP’s closed-door negotiations and speculation over more controversial provisions—on the environment, labor rights, and intellectual property (IP)—TPP proponents and detractors can now analyze what the U.S. may gain and lose from the deal.

Aymenn al-Tamimi examines the potential for a unified Syrian opposition as a result of Russian intervention. Harith Hasan al-Qarawee and Matthew Schweitzer outline a strategy to rebuild Iraq’s cultural and historical identity. Abeer Ayyoub explores the reasons why Hamas is, for the moment, avoiding conflict with Israel as tensions in the West Bank and Jerusalem rises.

Natasha Lennard examines the altering dynamics between Turkey and the European Union brought about by the refugee crisis. Read the press release announcing that the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2015. Linda Dorigo explores life in Iraqi Kurdistan’s Qandil Mountains.

Sam Heller discusses the revisionist ideology of Syria’s Ahrar al-Sham and the future of jihadi thought. Marwan Jabbar takes at look at Iraqis translating scientific articles into Arabic in an effort to combat extremism. Deniz Gumustekin investigates how Turkey manipulates intra-Kurdish politics to advance its interests.

CFR’s Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy (CSMD) Program highlights noteworthy events and articles each Friday in “This Week in Markets and Democracy.”  Sri Lanka and Tunisia Struggle with Accountability Recent events in both Sri Lanka and Tunisia show how complicated the balance between accountability for past wrongs and political stability in new democracies can be. This week the United Nations Human Rights Council released a long-delayed report detailing the abuses committed during Sri Lanka’s brutal, twenty six-year civil war (that ended in 2009), and called for the formation of a domestic-international hybrid court to investigate alleged war crimes. The newly-elected government under Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena proposes instead an independent truth and reconciliation commission—similar to the post-apartheid South African body—to investigate crimes and compensate victims. In a process already beset with political maneuvering, critics worry that without international judges, prosecutors, and lawyers’ autonomy and leverage, alleged perpetrators—including former and current government and military officials—will remain free. In Tunisia, citizens are protesting a proposed economic reconciliation law that would enable corrupt officials from the former Ben Ali regime to avoid jail if they reveal their assets and pay fines. Many fear that if enacted, it would undermine the work of the Tunisian Truth and Dignity Commission’s transitional justice efforts, and democratic progress more generally by protecting the nation’s political and economic old guard. Malaysian Corruption Investigation Crosses Borders The globalization of finance includes illicit transactions. An ongoing Malaysian corruption scandal has moved into the international realm, after the government hindered domestic investigations into allegations that Prime Minister Najib Razak received nearly $700 million from the failing state-owned investment fund, 1Malaysia Development Berhad (or 1MDB). The money came to his private accounts from a British Virgin Islands-registered company and via Singapore branches of Swiss banks. So far, the Swiss Attorney General’s office has frozen tens of millions in 1MDB assets, and the United Arab Emirates is following the trail of over $1 billion dollars in missing state investment funds linked to 1MDB. If Malaysian civil society, multiple foreign authorities, and private banks can successfully come together to uncover the truth, it could prove a useful model to achieve the anti-corruption goals within the United Nations’ post-2015 development agenda being finalized next week in New York. Democracy Day: Where We Are in 2015 The United Nations’ International Day of Democracy (#DemocracyDay) celebrated the year’s advances and setbacks. The positive side counts recent citizen-led calls for government accountability. In Guatemala, citizen protests combined with sophisticated corruption investigations brought down President Otto Pérez Molina on charges of fraud, conspiracy, and bribery. In Lebanon and Iraq, citizens and civil society groups are demanding better public services and an end to corruption and political patronage. Yet more sobering trends multiplied as well—in particular government efforts to silence those who question public officials. In Azerbaijan, lauded investigative reporter Khadija Ismayilova was sentenced to nearly a decade in jail on trumped-up charges after criticizing President Ilham Aliyev and exposing pervasive corruption. Ahead of 2016 elections, Uganda’s parliament is debating a bill that would allow the government to shutter NGOs that threaten the vaguely-defined “public interest.” Similar legislation is under consideration in China and already in effect in Cambodia, Russia, and Egypt. Scholar Larry Diamond goes as far as calling the lack of progress a “democratic recession”—his timeline of democratic transitions petering out with the euphoria of the “Arab Spring.” Still, while regime change may have stalled, the clamor for better governance within existing democracies seems to be growing.

Ever since the self-declared Islamic State overran Mosul in June 2014, virtually everyone has made it fairly clear in mostly unintended ways that we do not understand a lot about the group. Perhaps that is a bit unfair. There are a number of talented scholars who have done great work on the origins and worldview of the Islamic State. Both Will McCants and Dan Byman have new books on the group and Aaron Zelin has long been a terrific resource on all things extremist. Their work should help Washington understand how to meet the challenge the Islamic State presents, yet I keep hearing the same things about the Islamic State that I have been hearing since everyone discovered it and rediscovered Iraq fifteen months ago. One of the most dissatisfying is this, or some variation of it: “The Islamic State cannot provide services in the areas that it controls thereby sowing the seeds of its own demise.” This strikes me as one of those things that make a lot of sense to those of us here, but seems erroneous in the context of the Islamic State. It is pretty clear to me that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi does not care about guaranteeing services, that failing to provide things like electricity will not actually undermine the Islamic State, and that the inability (or unwillingness) to extend services to people living in IS-land does not make it all that different from any number of states in Middle East. There may very well be opposition to the Islamic State because electricity is unreliable and fuel is short. People in Raqqa, Mosul, or Ramadi could be seething, but the Islamic State’s leaders have a number of other pressing priorities. The first, of course, is their own security. The United States is hunting from the air and, if reports that have leaked out from Islamic State-controlled areas are accurate, there is significant dissension in the ranks. The spokesman for the Kurdistan Regional Government claims that al-Baghdadi has had 140 people put to death recently for plotting a coup, though there is no confirmation that this happened. Then, of course, there are the central goals of the organization: Extending and defending its domain, and recreating what they imagine to be the way of life of the original community of believers—even though we know that the Islamic State more closely resembles a death cult. The claim that they are returning the areas the Islamic State controls to Islam’s roots is the ontological basis for the organization. Finally, there is also, as some claim, the desire to bring about the “end of days.” It is unclear where the provisions of services fit when it comes to the theological exigency of these goals. The funny thing about the assertion that the Islamic State is on the verge of instability because of its failure to turn on the lights completely overlooks the fact that an inability to provide basic services does not make it exceptional in a region where being a diesel-powered generator dealer is a very good thing. There has long been an erroneous assumption that Middle Eastern states are “strong.” Yes and no. It seems obvious that many of them can bring a lot of force to bear on their own populations, but coercion is a crude and distorting indicator. Force alone does not tell analysts all that much about state strength—an admittedly slippery concept. In many places throughout the region there is scant evidence of the state outside the capital and politically important cities. If you hang out in Cairo or Alexandria, you could reasonably conclude that the Egyptian state is strong, but it is hard to deduce the same in Damanhour, Zagazig, or Edfu. I remember being in Palmyra in 1993, but I do not remember seeing even a single policeman. There must have been, right? There were security personnel everywhere in Hafez al-Assad’s Syria, but outside Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs, I cannot recall one. There were even power outages in Damascus then. Saddam Hussein secured Baghdad, Tikrit, and a few other places, but not much else. Even in Turkey, where the state is regarded to be far more capable than in the Arab Middle East, the folks in Uzungol seem to be largely on their own. Of course, Middle Eastern leaders are concerned with services. Part of the reason why the Justice and Development Party has dominated Turkish politics for so long has been its investment in infrastructure, transportation, and health care. This year, Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, was apparently quite worried that expected electricity outages during a long, hot summer would prompt large-scale protests. Piles of uncollected trash have recently shaken Lebanon. Yet these examples seem to be the exception that proves the rule. Aside from the wealthy Gulf states, creaky physical infrastructure and unreliable or nonexistent government services are the norm where most people in the Arab world—including the Islamic State—live. Like the other states in the region, we should stop overstating the Islamic State.

CFR’s Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy (CSMD) Program highlights noteworthy events and articles each Friday in “This Week in Markets and Democracy.” Anti-Corruption Conference Coincides with Malaysian Corruption Scandal With prescient timing, Transparency International is holding its biennial International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) this week in Malaysia as a massive corruption scandal unfolds. Prime Minister Najib Razak (who pulled out of his planned IACC keynote speech) faces public pressure to step down after government investigations into a collapsing state-run investment fund uncovered $630 million in transfers to Najib’s personal bank account. Najib and his supporters claim the money in question was a political donation from an unnamed Arab benefactor for his 2013 election campaign, but few Malaysian citizens are convinced. Last weekend, the Malaysian pro-democracy group Bersih led tens of thousands in protest, calling for the prime minister’s resignation. Najib denies wrongdoing and vows to remain in power. Transparency International board chair José Ugaz called out the prime minister in his opening remarks at IACC, linking Malaysia’s progress against corruption to his answering questions about the funds. Migration Crisis Calls EU Borders into Question Beyond the grave humanitarian implications, Europe’s migrant and refugee crisis could threaten European Union (EU) unity. Starting on Tuesday, Hungary blocked migrants from traveling on trains to Germany and Austria by requiring them to show documentation—undermining the EU’s passport-free travel (a right for EU citizens and a pillar of the single market system). British Prime Minister David Cameron signaled on Wednesday that the UK will limit border crossings as well, in advance of a planned 2017 referendum on whether Britain will remain in the EU. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in contrast, defended Europe’s open border policy. This week she called on other EU countries to share the burden in accepting more refugees as Germany announced it expects 800,000 migrants and asylum seekers this year—the largest influx in its post-war history. EU officials now plan to meet in Brussels on September 14 for an emergency session in attempt to forge a coordinated response. If unable to agree on rules for who is permitted to stay and where they can settle, deeper EU integration and plans for a political union could falter. Lebanon and Iraq: Public Service Failures Reveal Weak Governance In Lebanon and Iraq, protests over failing government services are morphing into broader calls against political ineptitude, graft, and sectarian-based patronage. Disgust with Beirut’s garbage-filled streets, due in part to the corrupt process of awarding collections contracts, has ignited deeper frustrations with Lebanon’s political gridlock and stagnant growth. So far, demonstrators have overcome historic partisan divides to unite in demands for the environment minister’s resignation and for greater government accountability. In Iraq too, initial frustration with basic public services is expanding to challenge the political system. Power outages during a record heat wave led to broader protests over corruption, sectarianism, and incompetence. The reforms Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced in response were met with skepticism—many citizens distrust the political establishment and its capacity for change. Migrant and Refugee Crisis: What We Are Reading… Carnegie Europe’s Judy Dempsey asked eleven leading Europe experts–including former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt and Thomson Reuters European Affairs Editor Paul Taylor–if now is the time to pursue a European political union. Quartz questions why Arab governments are not doing more to resettle Syrian refugees, helping shoulder the burden facing their war-torn neighbors. The Washington Post argues that Europe’s travails are drawing attention away from a larger crisis in the Middle East. Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey have received the vast majority of an estimated four million Syrian refuges, posing risks for wider political and economic destabilization. The Conversation provides an explainer of The Dublin Rules and the “Schengen area” at the heart of European debates over which states have responsibility for migrant protection, and whether migrants have the right to move within the EU to seek asylum. In a special section covering the crisis, The Atlantic shows in three charts where asylum seekers are coming from, where they are heading, and which countries are granting asylum to first-time applicants. A CFR Backgrounder on Europe’s Migration Crisis explains conditions refugees and migrants face, the EU response, and proposals for managing the crisis.