Iraq: Showdown Averted?

Iraq-watchers can take a deep breath, at least for a few days. It looks like the al-Maliki Government has avoided an immediate crisis through a bit of manoeuvring, a bit of luck, and a bit of a climbdown.


First, the manoeuvring and the luck. The Iraqi Parliament didn't push the Government to the wall over the extension agreement setting a date of 31 May 2009 for the withdrawal of troops from Britain and five other countries. Having voted the initial agreement down on the weekend and then postponed a vote on Monday, the Parliament accepted that the withdrawal could be set by a Government resolution.

Members made their point that al-Malilki couldn't just railroad his proposals through. The luck for the Government came in the thank-you gift they could offer to Shia'a and Kurdish Parliamentarians: the departure of the Sunni Speaker of Parliament, Mahmud al-Mashhadani.

The Speaker was on shaky ground with his flamboyant, unpredictable behaviour, including repeated threats to resign. Last week, however, he went too far, trying to cut off discussion of the case of shoe-thrower Mantazer al-Zaidi and calling his colleagues "the worst Parliament in the world".

So, for the moment, the Government and Parliament each can claim maintenance of some authority, an uneasy but essential compromise in the run-up to elections.

Now for the Government climb-down. The 24 Interior Ministry officials arrested last week on allegations of developing a post-Baathist political party have now been bailed on lesser charges of preparing false documents.

The episode has turned into a struggle between al-Maliki and Co. and the Minister of the Interior, Javad al-Bulani, an "independent" (in both party affiliation and approach) Shi'a politician. If the arrests were political score-settling, al-Bulani's public position, the outcry from other parties, and American concern all clipped the Prime Minister's wings.

And now? Well, one might suggest a few days of uneasy truces all round.

Those few days may be turn out to be exactly one week, however. That's when Muntazar al-Zaidi comes to trial --- if he does not plead guilty, letting al-Maliki off the political hook, then the manoeuvres will start anew.

Update: Al-Maliki Showdown with Parliament over Troop Withdrawal?

Here is CNN's headline, which is misleading and misses the point, "Iraqi Lawmakers Reach Deal on Non-U.S. Troops".

What has happened is potentially more dramatic. "Main political parties" have agreed on a way to bypass Saturday's Parliamentary rejection of an agreement under which troops from six countries, including Britain, would withdraw by 31 May 2009. This would come through "a resolution that would empower the Cabinet to authorize international troop presence without requiring Parliament to pass a law".



In other words, Parliament is being asked to withdraw itself from the matter, allowing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to push through the agreement before the current UN mandate for military presence expires on 31 December. Of course, Parliamentarians may bow to the will of the "main parties" --- which I presume include Daw'a and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Then again, members may choose to make a stand, as they initially did with the Status of Forces Agreement with the United States.

If they do, it means British troops will be confined to their bases as of 1 January 2009. Far more importantly, there will be a political crisis in advance of provincial elections next year.

Breaking News: Iraqi Parliament Inflicts Defeat on al-Maliki, "Coalition" Forces

By a vote of 80-68, the Iraqi Parliament has rejected the draft law setting a withdrawal date of 31 May 2009 for troops from Britain and five other countries. Technically, the rejection means that the troops of the six countries should be out of Iraq by 31 December, when the UN mandate for their presence expires.

Practically, it's hard to see how the British contingent of 4100 --- who had a grace period until 31 July under the law to leave --- will be able to load up with all their equipment within the next 11 days. But that's only a secondary issue.



Instead, the significance of this news is symbolic. This is a major slap-down for the al-Maliki Government. For weeks, especially after the passage of the Status of Forces Agreement for US forces, many in the US and British  media have portrayed Parliamentary opposition as limited to the Sadrist faction of about 30 members. This vote indicates that there are a folks beyond Moqtada al-Sadr --- Sunni and Shi'a --- who are ready to see the back of al-Maliki.

That wish is exacerbated by unease at the Government's approach to foreign powers and what it means for Iraqi "sovereignty". The immediate reason for the defeat was that the Government tried to rush through an umbrella agreement, rather than submitting bilateral agreements with each of the six countries. The background reason was resentment at the deal with the US, which --- as it was not a formal "treaty" --- bypassed normal legal processes. As a Sunni member told the BBC, the deals should be "arranged, according to international law, through treaties or agreements".