Paul KeenanThe slow pace of political agreement in Iraq threatens all
“Thank God our prayers are being heard.” With this short prayer, uttered on July 15 Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako of Iraq gave voice to a small measure of relief felt at news that his country’s parliament had made some progress towards electing its unity government, that much desired and required entity for facing down the threat posed by the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
That progress, the election of Salim al Jabouri – described as a moderate Sunni – as parliamentary speaker, stands as a virtual ‘baby step’ on the road to what is actually needed, offering an illustration of the agonising sloth in Baghdad since ISIS appeared on the horizon to threaten Iraq’s stability.
Such has been the pace of affairs that Patriarch Sako felt compelled to pen a letter to all parliamentarians urging them to “work hard to elect the three [leadership roles] very quickly because the lives of the Iraqis and the unity of Iraq is in danger”.
Headlines
Pushed far down news lists since Israel and Gaza began to dominate headlines in recent weeks, matters political have continued in Baghdad just as matters religious have in Mosul, even as they eyes of the world are diverted elsewhere.
In truth, while crucial to the future of the Iraqi nation, those political issues in Baghdad have been less than enthralling for media observers as elected officials there continue with the perhaps inevitable and entirely predictable tribal divisions even as ISIS hovers barely 100kms away, ready with its Caliphate answer to any failings in democratic processes.
Helping those failings is interim Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, at once the champion of elections in April – offering the Shiite representative a potential third term in power – but despised at the same time as a divisive figure by non-Shiite’s and indeed by some within his own bloc.
Even in the face of an existential threat to his nation, al Maliki has refused to step aside towards fomenting unity.
His destructive defiance led, last week, to another religious intervention, when the Shiite Sheikh Ali al Najafi, spokesperson for Grand Ayatollah Bashir Al Najaf, stated publicly that al Maliki’s departure would be “an important part” of the ultimate solution to Iraq’s woes. Muslim clerics, including the senior Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, have previously urged the formation of a unity government for the benefit of all Iraqis, but, while al Sistani went as far as stating that such a government should “avoid the mistakes of the past”, al Najafi’s direct referencing of the prime minister and offering of an opinion on his political future is a new departure, offering a glimpse of those frustrations felt at the slow pace of political action.
'Working mistrust'
For the record, it is worth presenting a summation of the factors affecting political thinking in Baghdad.
Under the 2005 constitution Iraq’s parliamentary speaker must always be drawn from the Sunni Muslim community, while the prime minister must be a Shiite (reflecting the country’s majority community) and the president must be drawn from the Kurdish community.
As a ‘balancing act’ in this arrangement, deputies drawn from two communities support the role held by a member of the third.
So far, so noble.
This ‘rainbow’ state of affairs is, on paper at least, the end result of the democratic process in Baghdad. Sadly, however, it simultaneously stands as a clue to the cut and thrust of politics between Iraq’s diverse groups, who have progressed from being at each other’s throats in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s fall in 2003 to something of a ‘working mistrust’ ever since.
And the clock is ticking. Under Iraqi law, having now picked their speaker, legislators have just 15 days to nominate a prime minister and 30 days to elect a president.
Meanwhile, the Christian community of northern Iraq (and, to be fair, Shiite Muslims among other minority groupings now trapped in the so-called Caliphate) continues to suffer.
Far more rapid than southern parliamentarians in capitalising on its gains has been ISIS. Since its capture of Mosul on the night of June 9-10, the movement has quickly implemented its literal interpretation of Sharia law. In a dispatch to the al Jazeera network last week, one anonymous Mosul resident admitted of the new regime: “When the Islamic State came we welcomed them. But now we want the army to come.”
The workings of Sharia have now been turned on the city’s civil servants, with their ISIS rulers warning that its recent instruction not to offer rations to Christians and other minorities should not be ignored under pain of sharia judgement being passed on them. Floggings are now reportedly commonplace in the Caliphate.
Redesignated
Meanwhile, ISIS members have not been slow in touring Mosul to lay claim to homes vacated by Christians who have fled. With a painted ‘N’ over doorways, militants mark homes as Nazarat (Christian) and therefore forfeit. Churches have been similarly seized and redesignated.
The cross once atop the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral of St Ephrem has been torn down and replaced with the black flag of ISIS.
Military action to oust ISIS from the great swathe of territory it now holds continues, but gains by Iraq’s military have been few thus far. On July 15, as the parliamentary speaker was named, the army was forced to settle for a consolation prize with the recapture of Dhuluiya from militants. The main goal had been the bigger city of Tikrit, but ISIS proved too well embedded to be forced into retreat. At the same time, both Tikrit and Dhuluiya are very far from Mosul, but just 100kms north of Baghdad.
Salvation for Iraq’s northern Christian appears geographically as far off as any political solution now.
Patriarch Sako will, sadly, have cause for more prayers yet.