Category Archives: ما بعد التجربة

مذكرات فكرية

ما بعد التجربة
Leave a comment
        دولة علي بابا  : في تشريح سلطة الفساد والمحاصصة في العراق 
                                               
5)
                                                  وللفساد تأصيل شرعي
تثير مسألة تفاقم الفساد في العراق الذي يتولى قيادة حكومته المركزية واغلب محافظاته الجماعات السياسية الاسلامية الشيعية تساؤلات حول الموقف الشرعي الذي تتبناه هذه الجماعات من قضايا الفساد من نهب المال العام والرشاوي والابتزاز والسرقة وغير ذلك مما عالجته ابواب الشريعة الاسلامية المختلفة.واذا كان الفساد ظاهرة سياسية واخلاقية عابرة للاديان والمذاهب والمعتقدات فان التساؤل بشأن الموقف العقدي والفقهي لهذه الجماعات حول الموضوع يبقى جوهرياً طالما انها تؤسس شرعيتها على اساس ديني ومذهبي اولا كما انها تطرح مشروعها الاسلامي الذي يستوجب ان يكون لمماراسات السلطة فيه تأصيل شرعي محكم.
في البداية لا بد من القول ان الاسلام وقف موقفا حديا من الفساد الذي اعتبره بكل اشكاله من الكبائر وحفل القرأن الكريم بتحذيرات عديدة للمؤمنين من مغبة الوقوع فيه كما توعد مرتكبيه بعذاب الدنيا والاخرة والطرد من رحمة الباري وبركاته.بل وفي عبارات قاطعة حذر القرأن الكريم ممن يحاول ان يغطي على فساده بالادعاء والكذب كما ورد في سورة البقرة: (وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لاَ تُفْسِدُوا فِي الأَرْضِ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ.اَلاَ إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ المُفْسِدُونَ وَلَكِن لاَّ يَشْعُرُونَ).وترسخت في العقيدة ان الفساد من الرذائل التي ينبغي على المسلم تجنبها كما شرع بتجريمها ووضع لها العقوبات الرادعة بشكليها الالهي والدنيوي.اذ بينما يحفل القرأن بالكثير من الايات التي تنذر الفاسدين وتضع افعالهم في الاخرة موضع الموبقات فان جزائهم في الدنيا كان اشد وضوحا. قال تعالى (إنما جزاءُ الذين يحاربون اللهَ ورسولَه ويَسعَونَ في الأرضِ فسادًا أن يُقتَّلوا أو يُصلَّبوا أو تُقطَّعَ أيديهم وأرجلُهم من خِلافٍ أو يُنفَوا من الأرضِ ذلك لهم خزيٌ في الدنيا ولهم في الآخرة عذابٌ عظيم-المائدة). 
غير ان من الواضح ان التفسيرات الفقهية ذهبت بعد ذلك مذاهب شتى بشأن الفساد ومعانيه حيث تباينت التؤيلات والاجتهادات التي ينسب بعضها الى الاحاديث النبوية وبعضها الاخر الى رؤيا الخلفاء الراشدين والصحابة والفقهاء.واذا كان الفساد في معناه المعاصر اكثر شمولية مما ورد في النصوص القديمة فان هذه النصوص اخذته بالمعنى الضيق باعتباره سرقة للمال كما ميزت بين السرقة التي جاءت عقوباتها واضحة في الاسم وبين سرقة المال العام.اضافة الى ذلك فقد طال الاجتهاد ما يتعلق بسرقات المال بالتخفيف من العقوبات التي فرضوها عليه باعتبارها لم تحدد بالاسم في النصوص وايضا تحت ذريعة انه مال عام وللناس نصيب منه وهي نظريات استغلها الفاسدون والمفسدون عبر التاريخ الاسلامي.ان خير دليل على وجود مثل هذا الاتجاه هو ما اشار اليه بيان لهيئة النزاهة صدر في 9/3 يحمل فتوى لاية الله السيد على السيستاني بتحريم الرشوة تقول فيها الهيئة “ان السيستاني يسلط الأضواء على محرمات عدة توهم بعض وانخدع بعض آخر بأنها رزق حلال”. صدور الفتوى واشارة هيئة النزاهة تأكيد واضح على الضبابية التي تحيط بالموقف من الفساد لدى الجماعات الحاكمة واتباعها المتورطين فيه.
واذا ما كان يعنينا هنا بالدرجة الاولى هو موقف الجماعات الشيعية من مسألة الفساد فان الامر يبدو حتى لغير اهل الاختصاص ان فقهاء الشيعة لم يهتموا كثيرا بهذه المسألة حيث تكاد كتبهم ورسائل المجتهدين تخلوا من ابواب خاصة باظهار الاحكام بشأن الفساد بانواعه المالي والاقتصادي والادراي، وبالذات نهب الاموال العامة وسؤ استخدامها وعدم المحافظة عليها.صحيح ان البعض تناول قضايا الرشوة المعنوية والمادية وحرمها من باب السحت الحرام، الا ان البعض الاخر اجازها، او احتاط بشأنها، اذا ما كانت، حسب قولهم،  في “مورد الحاجة”، وهو تفسير او بالاحرى فتوى اباحة غريبة، توفر لنا تفسيرا لما يجري في عراق اليوم.
ان اكثر ما نراه في التفسيرات الفقهية الشيعية الحديثة بشأن الفساد هو انه يدخل في باب “اكل المال بالباطل” (وََلا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَتُدْلُوا بِهَا إِلَى الْحُكَّامِ لِتَأْكُلُوا فَرِيقًا مِنْ أَمْوَالِ النَّاسِ بِالْإِثْمِ وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ-البقرة)وهو مصطلح فقهي مستحدث يراد له ان يشمل النهي عن كل انواع  الفساد مع الاقرار ممن صكه ان بعض المفاسد المالية والاقتصادية ليست لها عقوبة دنيوية في الاسلام وانما تترتب عليها عقوبات اخروية فقط. 
ان جزءا اساسيا من هذا الموقف الشرعي الشيعي من مالية الدولة والعلاقة بينها وبين الناس، يعود، في ما اظن، الى جوهر النظرية الشيعية المتعلقة بالامامة وايامانهم عبر التاريخ الاسلامي ان السلطة في العالم الاسلامي السني كانت مغتصبة من قبل الحكام من صاحبها الاصلي اي الامام وورثته.اذ ما دامت الدولة تحكم من قبل سلطة مغتصبة فلا حدود ولا تعزير فيها لانها ليست اسلامية وتفتقد للشرعية، ولربما اعتبر البعض من فقائهم ايضا ان اموال الدولة (غير الشرعية لانها ليست دولة الامام) انفالا والتي يعرفها اية الله السيد محمد محمد صادق الصدر في كتابه “ما وراء الفقه” بانها “كل ما كان ملكا للامام من اموال.
واذا كانت تلك هي الفلسفة المتعلقة بشكل الملكية في دولة غير الامام فان السؤال هو كيف تعاملت الجماعات الشيعية العراقية مع الدولة التي يتولون حكمها، او يقودون حكومتها، منذ سقوط صدام.لاتتوفر هنا اجابات نظرية في مجالات الفقه والتشريع بشان المفهوم الفقهي او الموقف الشرعي من مالية الدولة وهو موقف غريب لانه يطرح السؤال الاهم وهو موقف المرجعية الشيعية العليا من الدولة العراقية الحالية ومدى علاقاتها بدولة الامام المتصورة، او على الاقل هل هي من وجهة النظر الشرعية دولة شيعية.ان عدم التحديد هنا يثير اشكالات بشأن الموقف من التعامل مع الدولة وبضمن ذلك ماليتها وقوانينها ومعاملاتها وبطبيعة الحال الموقف من الفساد باشكالة المختلفة.
وخلاف المفهوم الفقهي، فان الكيفية التي تعاملت بها الحركات والقيادات الاسلامية السياسية الشيعية العراقية مع المال العام عمليا تكشف انها اعتبرت المال العام مالا سائبا ومباحا.فحتى قبل ان تتولى السلطة كانت الحركات الشيعية تنظر للدولة باعتبارها ارثا تستحقحه على نحو شرعي.كانت معظم هذه الحركات ترفع الاية القرأنية ( ونريد أن نمن على الذين استضعفوا في الأرض ونجعلهم أئمة ونجعلهم الوارثين–القصص) شعارا سياسيا لنضالها السياسي ضد نظام صدام بكل ما ينطوي عليه من دلالات بوراثة النظام التي كانوا يتطلعون اليه بعد صدام، وايضا الدولة ذاتها.في هذا السياق ايضا تلجأ هذه الجماعات الى التوسع المفرط في تفسيراتها الخاصة بشأن قضية الملكية وهي ان الارض ومن عليها هي ارث في هذه الحياة وفقا للاية ( ولقد كتبنا في الزبور من بعد الذكر أن الأرض يرثها عبادي الصالحون-الانبياء) حيث تعتبر هذه الحركات نفسها بانها وارثة وان الله قد نصرها في هذه الارض ومكنها من ثرواتها. 
يشكل استيلاء السيد حسين الشامي المقرب من رئيس الوزراء نوري المالكي وحزب الدعوة على مباني وارض جامعة البكر للدراسات العسكرية العليا نموذجا صارخا للفساد الذي تقوم به هذه الجماعات.وقصة هذه المنشأة التي تعود ملكيتها الى وزارة الدفاع وتحولت الى مؤسسة تحمل اسم الامام الصادق اصبحت موثقة بسبب الجدالات التي دارت بشأنها وكيفية تحويلها الى مؤسسة تدر ارباحاً هائلة لاصحابها الجدد والتي لم تنفع كل المحاولات الى اعادتها الى ملكية الدولة.ولم يحاول الشامي وهو رجل دين بارز ان يبرر شرعياً كيفية استيلائه على المبنى ومن ثم شراءه بسعر بخس ودون اجراءات سليمة كعرضها في مزاد علني، او التقيد بالشفافية، مستغلا مركزه وعلاقاته مع السلطات الحاكمة، سوى وصفه للمشروع الذي اقامه بانه اسلامي.
ولم يكن ممكنا ان تتوالى عمليات نهب مماثلة جرت للمال العام منذ بداية الاحتلال الامريكي الا بعد ان ضربت قيادات شيعية بارزة مثالا على ذلك باستيلائها على مباني واراضي ومنشئات الدولة حين احتلت قصوراً ومباني تتبع ملكيتها رجالات نظام صدام، او الدولة بحجج رد المظالم التي تعرضوا لها وبالتالي اباحوا شرعية استباحة المال العام.ولقد شجع ذلك العامة من الناس على الاستيلاء على اراضي الدولة والتجاوز عليها بالبناء في واحدة من اكبر عمليات انتهاك المال المال العام في تاريخ الدولة العراقية والتي تم تشريعها لاحقا من خلال الاقرار بالكثير من تلك التجاوزات رسميا.
تلك كانت بداية رحلة الفساد التي شرعت فيها الجماعات السياسية الشيعية الحاكمة والتي اسست لدولة علي بابا لاحقا والتي ان لم تكن قد وفرت لها الغطاء الشرعي، فانها عجزت عن ان ترفع هذا الغطاء عمن يمارسونه وهو امر كان سيحدث فرقا كبيرا في حجم الفساد الذي ترسخ وتغول وطغى.
ملاحظة/هذا فصل اخر من السلسلة سيتم التوسع فيه لاحقا حين تصدر في كتاب.
—— 
ما بعد التجربة
Leave a comment
الانتخابات العراقية بين ملهاة السياسة ومأساة الواقع
12 أبريل 2014

صلاح النصراوى

تتجاوز الانتخابات التشريعية العراقية المزمع إجراؤها نهاية الشهر الحالى نتائجها المباشرة إلى تقرير مآلات العراق نفسه، حيث يغرق البلد بعد أحد عشر عاما من الغزو الامريكى له فى مستنقع لا قرار له من الفوضى والأزمات، وتنسد أمامه كل افاق المستقبل.ففى الوقت الذى تنغمس فيه الجماعات السياسية التى تمكنت من السلطة اثر الغزو فى سباق محموم من أجل الفوز مجددا بنصيبها من كعكة الثروة والسلطة من خلال صناديق الاقتراع، يبدو العراقيون أنفسهم أكثر اقتناعا الآن مما مضى بأن الانتخابات هى مجرد تمرين عبثى آخر على طريق انهيار الدولة والمجتمع الذى سلكته الجماعات المهيمنة. 
هل يبدو هذا التقييم متشائما، بالأقل إزاء فكرة أن إجراء الاقتراع بحد ذاته يبدو فعلا إيجابيا يستحق التثمين، كما يجادل المتفائلون، حيث تشكل الانتخابات السد الأخير أمام ذلك الانهيار ومنح الشرعية الضرورية لحمايته وتحصينه.شخصيا لا أعتقد ذلك، إذ أن كل عراقى يدرك بالتجربة الآن أنه وفى ظل قواعد المحاصصة الاثنوطائفية التى أقيم عليها نظام ما بعد صدام حسين فإن الانتخابات الثالثة ستعيد انتاج نفس تلك المنظومة من الجماعات والسياسات والقيم المسئولة عما وصلت إليه الأوضاع فى العراق من ترد جعلت منه واحدا من أسوأ اماكن العيش فوق كوكبنا هذا.
تأتى الانتخابات وسط تدهور أمنى فظيع وأزمات سياسية ودستورية وخلافات حول السلطة والموارد وصراعات طائفية وقومية هى بمجملها نتاج فشل المرحلة الانتقالية التى اعقبت الغزو الامريكى عام 2003 فى العبور بالعراق إلى مرحلة إعادة بناء الدولة والمجتمع.والعامل الأساسى الذى يقف وراء ذلك الفشل هو ذات الطبقة السياسية التى قادت العملية السياسية بعد انتخابات عامى 2005 و2010 والتى تسعى الآن إلى تجديد رخصة هيمنتها على السلطة من خلال الانتخابات المقبلة.
ان أزمة العراق المستفحلة خلال أكثر من عقد هى أزمة قيادة بالدرجة الأولى حيث عجزت هذه الطبقة عن تقديم حلول بارعة للمشكلات العويصة التى واجهتها المرحلة الانتقالية، وذلك لأسباب عديدة منها افتقادها الخبرة والرؤية والخيال السياسى والنظرة الاستراتيجية، ومنها تخندقها وراء العصبيات الطائفية والاثنية.كان العراق فى ذلك المنعطف الخطير من تاريخه بحاجة إلى قيادات حكيمة ونزيهة وواعية وشجاعة تقود مشروعا وطنيا للبناء والنهضة وبرنامج ــ ديمقراطى ــ للتغير والتنوير إلا أن الزمن لم يجد إلا بطغم لم تجلب للعراق سوى المبائس والآلام والخراب.
هنا تكمن الأزمة العراقية بالذات حيث تحول برنامج التغير والتحول لمرحلة ما بعد صدام إلى مشروع سيطرة وتحكم فى الدولة وفى الموارد وانتصار لطائفة معينة على الطوائف والأعراق الأخرى، وإطلاق معارك الهويات الصغرى، فى حين تلاشت بالتدريج أهداف المشروع الوطنى وعناصر الهوية الوطنية المتميزة، وتبخرت معها، بطبيعة الحال، الأطر الديمقراطية والدستورية التى تمت صياغتها لتوجيه وإدارة العملية الانتقالية، وما كان ينبغي أن توفره من عدالة وتكافؤ ومشاركة.
النتيجة الأسوأ لأزمة المشروع الوطنى العراقى هى ظهور المشكلة الطائفية التى أصبحت العقبة الكأداء أمام عملية إعادة بناء الدولة وإنجاح الفترة الانتقالية، ليس فقط من خلال الفشل فى تحقيق أى إجماع وطنى وتوافق سياسى وبالتالى مصالحة وطنية، بل بسبب الإخفاق أيضا فى الوصول إلى مشاركة حقيقية وتقاسم فعلى للسلطة والثروة فى عراق قائم على أساس التعددية والتنوع.إن أسوأ ما فى نهج المحاصصة الاثنو لطائفية هو تحوله إلى نظام سياسى قائم على مبدأ الأغلبية والأقلية فى المجتمع، وليس فقط فى السلطة، دون اعتبار لمفهومى المواطنة والشراكة، والحقوق والواجبات المترتبة عليهما.
ما أنتجته سياسات التمكين واستراتيجيات الهيمنة التى مارستها الأغلبية بحق الأقلية هو التهيمش والإقصاء والعزل والتقزيم، مما أدى إلى فشل جهود المصالحة الوطنية، وكشف عن استحالة تحقيقها، كما أخل بالتوازن الوطني، وأفرز خطابات وممارسات مذهبية، وأوجد صراعا طائفيا أخذ بالنهاية منهجا مسلحا.ولا غرابة أن النهج الإقصائى التعسفى امتد ليشمل كل العراقيين من مختلف المذاهب والاعراق الذين يرفضون وضع الوطن فى حجرة هوية ضيقة ويأنفون عن ركوب الموجة الاثنوطائفية وما يصاحبها من برامج جهنمية وردات فعل غرائزية.
كل هذا يدفع إلى الاعتقاد بأن إجراء الانتخابات البرلمانية فى ظل المشهد الطائفى الزاحف يعد تهربا سرياليا من الواقع يصل إلى حد كونه ملهاة ساخرة يدعون إليها العراقيين بهدف إعادة التصديق على صيغة المحاصصة الطائفية وتجديد شرعية العملية السياسية القائمة عليها.ما ستتمخض عنه هذه الجولة الانتخابية هو إعادة إنتاج نفس السياسات وذات الأشخاص الذين كانوا سببا فى وقوع العراق فى هذا الشرك البنيوى المحكم الذى سيظل العراق عالقا فيه والمتمثل فى الفصل الطائفى الزاحف على كل مناحى الحياة.
إن القول بأن الانتخابات استحقاق دستورى وطريق ديمقراطى وآلية اختيار حر، هو فى السياق العراقى الحالى بضاعة بالية ولغو فارغ، بل واذا شئنا ميكافيلية سافرة، في ظل حقائق مزرية على رأسها الكلام المكشوف حول الاهداف الطائفية للجماعات السياسية المتنافسة وانماط القوائم والدعوات للتصويت للسياسات الطائفية والغياب الصارخ لخطاب الوطن والمواطنة.ما تكشف عنه المعسكرات الانتخابية هو ان العراق اصبح اشبه بدول الفصل العنصري، حيث جماعة واحدة محددة الاصول، تسيطر “ديمقراطيا” على الفضاء العام، وحيث الامن والموارد تشكل الاداتين الرئيسيتين لحرمان الاخرين من المساواة في السلطة والثروة.
فالمأزق الذى ستتمخض عنه الانتخابات المقبلة هو حالة مستدامة من الانقسام الجغرافى والسياسي، سيظل يدور فى الفضاء الصراعى الطائفي، ما لم يتم إجراء تحولات إساسية فى الخطوط الحمراء الموضوعة من قبل الجماعات الطائفية لإعادة بناء الدولة على أسس من العدالة والمساواة.العراق بحاجة إلى بنية سياسية جديدة يتخطى من خلالها حالة الصراع، إذ لا ديمقراطية، ولا معنى للانتخابات مع استمرار الاحتراب الأهلى الذى يوسع من شقة الخلافات ويضع البلد برمته على حافة التفكك والانهيار.
—
ما بعد التجربة
Leave a comment

Iraq’s futile elections

With their hopes for change dashed by chaos, Iraqis are losing interest in another meaningless set of elections, writes Salah Nasrawi
Shortly before Iraq kicked off the election campaign for the 2014 parliamentary polls last week, the Shia-led government sent a draft emergency bill to parliament that introduces draconian anti-democracy measures.
The National Safety Law, as it is billed, raises serious questions about the viability of the parliamentary elections as the government plans to twist the constitution and take unrelenting actions against its critics and opponents.
The proposed law gives the government the right to impose sweeping restrictions on the freedoms of movement, travel, speech and political activities.
Under the law, the government can impose censorship on media, personal letters, cables and emails as part of larger restrictions if it deems these necessary “to confront security threats from military or non-military actions”.
It can also declare curfews, issue house arrests, limit the opening hours of shops, take control of state economic assets and delay payments of government debts.
The law has yet to be ratified by the parliament, but concerns have been raised that Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, who is seeking a third consecutive term in office, might be planning the emergency measures in order to manipulate the elections. 
The elections, scheduled for 30 April, also come amid political turmoil, constitutional disputes and increasing instability in the country, which have cast heavy shadows over the polls.
Violence has risen sharply in the past year, fuelling fears that Iraq is slipping back into the all-out communal conflict that plagued the country following the US-led invasion in 2003 and left hundreds of thousands dead.
UN figures put the overall toll for 2013 at 8,873 deaths in violent attacks across Iraq, while nearly three thousand people have been killed this year alone, not including in the rebellious Sunni-populated town of Fallujah.
On the other hand, Iraq’s annual budget has been languishing in parliament over a dispute between the Baghdad central government and the self-ruled Kurdistan region. Political stalemate has gripped the country as ethno-sectarian bickering and disagreements over sharing power and oil revenues have continued vigorously.
Parliamentary elections are required to be held once every four years. In the event a group or coalition wins a majority of the seats, it can then go on to form a government.
More than 9,000 candidates are vying for the 328 seats in parliament. Dozens of hopefuls, including four current MPs, have been disqualified either for links with the former regime of former president Saddam Hussein, for their bad reputation, or for having criminal records. 
But the race still appears to be a wide-open competition between Iraq’s three main communities, the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds, whose candidates run on ethnic and sectarian tickets.
Iraq has been ruled by a Shia-led coalition government for the last decade, and questions now largely centre on whether the new parliament can ever hope to change the hopelessly dysfunctional ethno-sectarian based political system created by the Americans for the post-Saddam era.
Even before the election campaign officially kicked off on 1 April, the main contenders in the increasingly bitter battle to lead the violence-torn country had been intensifying their mobilisation and personal duels.
The polls are expected to worsen Iraq’s already fragile communal ties, as political parties typically conduct election campaigns by appealing to voters’ sectarian, ethnic or tribal backgrounds rather than to national issues.
The UN envoy to Iraq, Nickolay Mladenov, has warned that the elections seem to be “highly divisive” as parties have been appealing to their sectarian bases at a time of worsening violence.
Al-Maliki is also eyeing a third term in office, even as he faces criticisms from opponents who accuse him of an authoritarian style of government at odds with Iraq’s post-Saddam constitutional system of political compromise and consensus-building.
They have also been attempting to capitalise on his failure to provide security and basic services in the country, as well as to curb the rampant corruption which has combined to make Iraq one of the most deadly and miserable places on earth.
Since the campaign started, the rhetoric against Al-Maliki has increased, with key politicians and religious leaders picking on his mistakes and political follies.
Top Sunni politician and speaker of the parliament Osama Al-Nujaifi warned on Sunday that Iraq’s failure would have far-reaching consequences, including serious “repercussions for the entire world”.
Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani has warned that the political process launched by the Americans and installing Al-Maliki in power is now “on the verge of failure”.
“Iraq is disintegrating,” he said in an interview with the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat on Friday.
Even Shia leaders who traditionally have defended Shia empowerment against Sunni opposition have become disenchanted with Al-Maliki’s policies.
Representatives of Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, who rarely speaks in public, have been urging voters to choose “new faces” instead of “the ones who have brought no good to Iraq”.
Another Grand Ayatollah, Basheer Najafi, has gone public in demanding that Al-Maliki step down. “If Al-Maliki stays in power, Iraq will never be able to stand up again,” he said in a statement last week.
Iraqi Shia leader Muqtada Al-Sadr also urged Al-Maliki not to run for a third term, accusing him of terrorising Sunnis so that they did not go to the polls in the upcoming elections.
He has repeatedly accused Al-Maliki of trying to “build a dictatorship” by excluding his partners from the government.
Now there are increasing signs that Barzani, Al-Sadr and the leader of the Shia Iraqi Islamic Council Ammar Al-Hakim are coordinating their efforts to stop Al-Maliki from getting a third term in office.
Al-Maliki seems to be unable to counter his opponents’ confident campaign, but he may be using the prolonged instability in the country to outmaneuver his opponents and even stage-manage crises.
The four-month standoff in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province between the Iraqi security forces and Al-Qaeda linked militants seems to be Al-Maliki’s best bet in appealing for Shia votes.
Many now fear that Al-Maliki will also use the emergency measures he has proposed to parliament, even though the new law has not been ratified, if he feels the chances of his reelection have been compromised.
Others believe that he may resort to drumming up hostile sentiments in order to deepen the divide between the two branches of Islam in Iraq in an attempt to gain more Shia votes.
In the latest escalation, al-Maliki has threatened to use “the most extreme force” against Sunni rebels who seized a major dam on the Euphrates and cut water supplies to southern Shia provinces.
This has raised fears that al-Maliki could use the new dispute to whip up the Shias against the Sunnis in order to garner more support among the Shias ahead of the elections.
In another worrying development, al-Maliki ordered security to be tightened around Baghdad this week in what officials say was a precautionary measure against a possible incursion of Al-Qaeda fighters from Sunni-dominated satellite towns into the capital.
Obviously, all these moves indicate that al-Maliki, who is facing electoral difficulty at the polls, is using the sectarian card to perpetuate fears among Shias and herd Shia voters in his direction.
One reason behind al-Maliki’s increasing resort to sectarian hectoring is the mounting evidence that the race will not attract a large portion of the electorate, even among Shia voters.
Frustration with al-Maliki’s self-serving and mostly authoritarian politics, combined with the fact that he has failed to bring security to the country, is expected to damp down turnout in the elections for the Iraqi parliament.
In post-Saddam Iraq’s first poll in 2005, when the elections were trumpeted as Iraq’s “example of democracy,” about 79.6 per cent of the electorate cast their votes. Four years later, only 64 per cent of voters showed up in polling stations.
Another low turnout was registered in the local elections in 2013, when only 50 per cent of people voted although three million new voters were added to the electoral rolls.
Many now fear that the wave of political apathy that has been sweeping Iraq will also dent voter turnout at this month’s balloting, as the country’s leaders fail to resolve political and sectarian tensions.
In fact, regardless of voter participation Iraq’s elections are increasingly proving to be meaningless, as they continue to produce sectarianism instead of genuine democracy and the rule of the people.
If the country’s present pointless elections mean anything, it is that they will change nothing and will remain a scandal for the country’s democracy. Indeed, many people in Iraq see things this way already, even if the sectarian politicians do not.
ما بعد التجربة
Leave a comment

An unnoticed massacre

The latest massacre in Iraq is just one more on an already long list of sectarian atrocities in the country, writes Salah Nasrawi

It took place on a warm and breezy spring day last week in a little town that provides beautiful views of two small rivers and surrounding citrus orchards and palm groves. The Sunni rebels who knew that the government forces were coming stood among lines of mud huts and concrete block houses ready to fight.

Buhriz, a rebel Sunni-dominated town in the mixed Diyalah province, was reportedly controlled by terrorists from the Al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) two days before the Iraqi army was due to try to take it back.

Hours before Iraq’s SWAT troops stormed Buhriz, the fragrance of orange flowers, which usually fills the air at this time of the year, was mixed with gunpowder smoke from the artillery shells fired by the Iraqi army.

When Buhriz eventually fell to the army on 23 March, a convoy of armed men in civilian clothes weaved its way behind the assaulting troops through the deserted streets right to the town centre.
What happened next in the troubled Sunni-dominated town remains unclear, but according to eyewitnesses suspected Shia militants raided Buhriz for hours without any intervention from the army.
The gunmen reportedly rounded up a group of men and shot them before hanging some of the bodies from electricity poles.
Among those who were killed were teenagers and elderly men, the eyewitnesses were quoted as saying, also telling Iraqi Sunni-controlled television networks that the gunmen had set fire to Sunni mosques, shops and houses.
Thousands of residents fled Buhriz to other Sunni-dominated towns in Diyalah. Other witnesses described how the attackers had arrived in trucks and on motorcycles under the eyes of the soldiers.
Iraq’s Al-Sharqiya television, which usually reflects Sunni views, said 27 people had been summarily executed in the massacre by what it described as militia members who had accompanied the army.
The television channel quoted Abdullah Al-Hayyali, the governor of Baquba, the provincial capital, as saying that at least five persons had been executed in the Nissan quarter of Buhriz while members of their families were watching.
The Qatari Al-Jazeera satellite channel also showed footage of bodies which it said belonged to men slain in Buhriz.
Though details remain sketchy, the finger of blame has been pointed at Shia militias.   The main Sunni bloc Mutahdoon accused what it termed as sectarian “militias” of attacking Buhriz but stopped short of naming any specific group.
It said the attack had been part of a plan to change the demographic profile of Diyalah, a reference to the sectarian cleansing of Sunnis from the province which has a diverse population of Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, ethnic Kurds and Turkoumans.
Mutahdoon, which is headed by the Sunni speaker of the Iraqi Parliament Osama Al-Nujaifi, also demanded an investigation into the atrocities.
Surprisingly, the government did not issue an official comment on the events in Buhriz, but a statement by the Interior Ministry a week later categorically denied the allegations of atrocities.
The ministry, which is responsible for the security forces, accused “some media outlets” and politicians of fabricating the allegations for “sectarian reasons.” It said the security forces had intervened in Buhriz only after a terrorist group had killed two policemen and a woman in the town. 
However, Ali Ghaidan, commander of the land forces that are operating under the command of the Ministry of Defence, gave a slightly different version of the events in Buhriz.
He told an Iraqi television station that locals had joined some twenty ISIL fighters in a fight to take control of the town. “The defeat of the armed men in Buhriz sent a strong message to the terrorists never to think again of reaching Buhriz,” Ghaidan said.
Violence in Buhriz is nothing new, since this is a town, with its tribal and farming community, that has been a haven for the Sunni insurgents who have been fighting the Shia-led government for years.
During the US occupation of Iraq, Buhriz became a flashpoint where US soldiers and Sunni rebels embittered by the US-led invasion of Iraq regularly fought fierce battles.
The small agricultural town, about 30 miles northwest of Baghdad, acquired the nickname of “Little Fallujah” after it became a symbol of Sunni resistance to both the Americans and the Shia-led government.
In 2006, American forces killed Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian founder and leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, in a village just north of Buhriz. Like many other towns in Diyalah, Buhriz has remained a stronghold for the Al-Qaeda-affiliated group the ISIL and other Sunni insurgents.
A cycle of violence, distrust and extremism has festered since the US troop withdrawal in 2011, and Sunnis who are complaining of marginalisation and exclusion have organised an anti-government rebellion in the area.
The violence has escalated since early January, when Sunni insurgents seized large parts of the area after government forces had dismantled a Sunni Muslim protest camp in the city of Ramadi.
Sunni rebels also stepped up their attacks against the military, police forces and pro-government tribes in other Sunni-populated provinces, such as Nineveh and Salah Al-Din.
The attacks and clashes in some of Baghdad’s outskirts have raised fears of a Sunni attempt to create a territorially controlled zone to encircle the capital and increase pressure on the government.
Buhriz seemed to be a key link among this ring of towns around Baghdad, since it needed to be under rebel control to create the zone.
According to some accounts, the ISIL fighters controlled the town for a full two full days before it was taken back by the army.
Different accounts suggested that security forces wearing ISIL-style black uniforms and checkered headdresses had entered the town to give the impression that Buhriz was being taken over by terrorists.   
However, the army’s onslaught seemed to be part of an effort to deny the Sunni rebels the territories to consolidate their power in areas where they can dominate.
The participation of the Shia militia, if confirmed, would be a major development in the ongoing sectarian conflict in Iraq and could usher in the collapse of the state’s security apparatus.
While Sunnis have been complaining about Shia hegemony in the army and police force, the direct participation of Shia militias in the fight against Sunni insurgents would be tantamount to a fully-fledged civil war.
Shia militias have reportedly begun to remobilise in recent months, including the Badr Organisation, Kataib Hizbullah, the Mahdi Army and Asaib Ahl Al-Haq. Reports abound about militiamen carrying out targeted or extrajudicial killings.
On the other hand, many Sunnis are questioning the terrorist tactics used by the ultra-violent ISIL, such as execution-style killings and indiscriminate killings and mass murders, which they consider as provocative to the Shia.
On 20 January, ISIL members killed four members of the SWAT near Ramadi. A video posted online showed ISIS members firing on four SWAT fighters in an execution-style killing.
SWAT, or Special Weapons And Tactics, are Iraq’s special forces, which are tasked with fighting terrorism. Iraqi Sunnis accuse the forces of brutality, including the use of excessive force and the destruction of property.
These atrocities raise fears of tit-for-tat sectarian killings, and the massacre in Buhriz could offer a snapshot of what is now going on in Iraq.
Many Iraqis believe that the killings in Buhriz could be retaliation for the execution of SWAT soldiers by the ISIL.
The truth about the Buhriz massacre is not known for the time being, and like many horrific events of the war in Iraq it may be buried with the bones of its victims.
However, years of bitter sectarian fighting is now deepening the divide between the two branches of Islam in Iraq, as Sunni and Shia politicians wage campaigns against each other to drum up hostile sentiments.
“The militias, which are Iran’s agents, wouldn’t have dared to kill civilians without a license from Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki,” wrote former Sunni vice-president Tariq Al-Hashemi on his Facebook page following the Buhriz events.
“When seven Shias get killed, I want seven Sunnis to get killed, too,” Shia lawmaker Hanan Al-Fatlawi told the Al-Sumeria television station last week.
ما بعد التجربة
Leave a comment

No friends for Iraq
As this week’s Arab summit sidestepped Iraq‘s quagmire, Iran and the United States were getting ready to step in, writes Salah Nasrawi

For months Iraqhas been in turmoil as political wrangles and grave sectarian violence continue to grip the country. A general election is due in few weeks and many fear that it won’t bring peace because Iraq‘s political system has broken down.
National efforts to resolve the sectarian conflicts have failed as rival factions remained entrenched in their positions on a wide variety of disputes, primarily on power and wealth sharing.
This has prompted frustration among ordinary Iraqis who see the chances of defusing the situation peacefully shrink and ethno-sectarian struggle escalates and their country plunges deeper in violence.
So, can world and regional powers assemble enough diplomacy to guide the country out of its current impasse where Iraqis have failed?
An Arab summit in Kuwait this week has ignored the worsening situation in Iraq despite its direct bearing on the regional stability and peace. Far little attention was paid in the summit which ended Wednesday to the crisis in Iraqthan other Middle East issues.
But surprisingly, the United Statesand Iran, the other foreign nation which is accused of muddling in Iraq, have reportedly succeeded in easing current tensions to pave the way for the 30 April election.
While Iran has sent its point man in Iraq, the United States dispatched its top diplomat on Iraqi affairs in what Baghdad media described as separate mediating efforts to solve Iraq‘s on going crisis.
As the story goes the two emissaries managed, each in his own way, to head off further deterioration in the strained relationships between Iraq’s main communities, though there has been no talk about durable solutions to Iraq’s outstanding problems.
First, we read about a USenvoy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq Brett McGurk, being able to broker an oil deal between the Shia-led government and the Kurdistan Regional authority that had helped to achieve a breakthrough on the state budget.
Under the agreement Iraqi Kurdistan will export crude via the country’s main oil marketing company, potentially removing a major obstacle in a dispute with the central government over oil export.
McGurk, who shuttled between Baghdad and Kurdistan in diplomacy, said his mission was part of the UScommitments to Iraq under a Strategic Framework Agreement that cleared way to the US troop withdrawal in 2011.
The “US is proud to stand with the Iraqi people, equidistant from all political blocs, as neutral broker and facilitator where appropriate,” McGurk wrote on his twitter account on Saturday.
“The United Stateswill continue to serve as a neutral broker with all sides as talks accelerate in the coming weeks,” Vice President Joe Biden later said in a statement.
Kurdistan Regional Government had insisted to take oil exports into its own hands through a pipeline it built bypassing the central government and.
But a statement following McGurk’s shuttling said it agreed to export 100,000 barrels of oil per day through the Iraqi pipeline network from 1 April “as a good will gesture” until the issue is solved.
Some media outlets also suggested that McGurk was engaged in mediation effort to end a four-month standoff in Iraq‘s western province of Anbar between the Shia-led government and Sunni insurgents.
The USmediation was reportedly involving the withdrawal of the Iraqi army from the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah in return for new security arrangements that would give local authorities a larger say in policing the province.
 As for Iran, Iraqi media outlets suggested that General Qasim Soleimani, Iran‘s most influential intelligence official, visited Baghdad‘s Green Zone last week in a bid to defuse an internecine dispute that threatens the ruling Shia alliance.
Soleimani has reportedly succeeded in brokering a tentative truce between Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and other top Shia leaders who have engaged themselves in a nasty war of words in a highly polarized election campaign.
According to different accounts, Soleimani, who supervises Iranian foreign policy in Iraq, pressurized the Shia leaders to mend fences in order to avert the breakdown of the Shia alliance ahead of next month’s polls.
Tense relations between Al-Maliki and Shia leaders Amar Al-Hakim and Muqtada Al-Sadr have been further strained in recent months as Iraqis remain split over Al-Maliki’s attempts to bolster his chances for a third term.
Iran remained tight-lipped about Soleimani’s business in Iraqbut Iraqi media also reported he was involved in attempts to resolve the disputes between Al-Maliki and the Kurdistan Region and Sunni politicians over their ongoing disputes with his government.
Yet, the question remains whether McGurk and Soleiman were actually trying to provide a way out for Iraqor their initiatives were just part of their efforts to consolidate a détente between the two countries following Iran‘s historic nuclear deal last year. 
Indeed, few Iraqis are convinced that Iranand the United States have enough good will to help Iraqending its lingering tragedies no matter what initiatives they are putting forth.
Many Iraqis fear that Iran and the United Statesmay turn their country into a play ground as they are trying to assemble a regional package that could ease the path for a larger geostrategic deal.
Iraqis who see their bickering leaders fail to end the bloodletting and heal a divided nation find the reports about the peace efforts by the two protagonists too good to be true.
The Arab-Kurdish schism is wider than could be bridged by flamboyant diplomacy or self-congratulatory tweets.
Soon after McGurk flew back to Washington Kurdish politicians resumed their criticism of Al-Maliki government over its policy toward Kurdistan. Many Kurdish MPs said they will continue boycotting the parliament over the budget dispute.
Relationship between Iraq’s semi-independent northern region and Baghdad have remained at low ebb since December when Kurdistan completed a 400,000 barrels a day pipeline which will allow the region to export oil independently through Turkey and Baghdad retaliated by cutting off the region’s revenues.
In one of his most scathing attacks against Kurds, Al-Maliki warned this week that Kurdistan can do alone with its oil.
“The Kurds had the illusion that they could control the oil in the north themselves. They believed that neighboring Turkeywould support their plans. But the Turks are not Kurdistan‘s sponsor. On the contrary, they would devour the Kurds in one bite,” he told German Der Spiegel in an interview.
“Kurds only have a future as part of Iraq….. And only Iraqcan safeguard the production and export of that oil,” he said.
Relationships between Kurds and Shia have taken a nose dive this week following the murder of a Shia journalist by a member of the Kurdish presidential guards.
Tensions rose at the scene of the murder after the shooting sparking ethnic fever with mourners and protesters shouting anti Kurds slogans.
Al-Maliki himself rushed to the scene where he stood over the body of the slain journalist and vowed that he would personally avenge his death.
“It is my responsibility to avenge this killing. Blood is for blood,” Al-Maliki told the state-owned Iraqiya television as he left the scene.
Such anger reveals deep-seated hostility which can only worsen the already blazing bickering between the Kurds and the Shia-led government.
Kurdish politicians condemned what they termed as anti Kurd’s chauvinism and demanded that Kurdistan Region President Masoud Barzani stand up to Al-Maliki.
  On the other hand, Soleimani seems to have failed to achieve a breakthrough in relationships between Al-Maliki and his key Shia rivals. Soon after he left Baghdadthe two camps escalated their rhetoric.  
In launching his group’s election campaign on Friday, Al-Sadr called on all Iraqis to participate in the forthcoming elections to prevent “thieves” and “beneficiaries” from gaining power.
Al-Sadr, who had denounced Al-Maliki earlier as a “tyrant” called on his followers to go to polls en mass in order to prevent Iraq falling again to a “dictatorship.”
It is bloody business as usual in Iraq, where politics is run by rival warlords and greedy political leaders who compete for power and resources.
At the same time, neither Irannor the United Statescan claim that they have a solution to the Iraqi crisis because they are part of its problems.
Iraq needs patriotic, foresighted and honest leaders who should do everything to stave off its collapse with the help of true friends, backed by as much outside advice as the country will stomach.
Unfortunately, as the Kuwait summit and all previous Arab gatherings have shown, Iraq has no real friends who can reach out to during crisis. Tehran and Washington will still be able to fill the vacuum.