Iraqi and American Reconciliation Project

Yesterday, Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch discussed the recent tension and violence between members of the Awakening Councils (as many as 100,000 former insurgents who cooperated with the U.S. in 2007-2008 against al-Qaeda) and the Iraqi government. Led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi government has cracked down on a number of Awakening leaders in the past few weeks, arresting some on charges of planting roadside bombs, extortion, robbery and links to al-Qaeda. Many Awakening members contend that they are being targeted because of a sectarian agenda in the Iraqi government (most Awakenings are Sunni, while Maliki’s government remains Shiite-dominated). Members also fear “betrayal” by U.S. forces, who had been paying them but recently turned over management of the Awakenings to the Iraqi government, which has failed to pay or find promised jobs for many Members. In response to the arrests and perceived betrayal of the Iraqi government and U.S., some Awakening members are reportedly responsible for or linked to the recent spate of bombings in Iraq. If this tension continues, Iraq could see a return to higher levels of violence and insurgency.

As Lynch writes, some believe that,

“narrow, sectarian perspectives in Baghdad are winning out over the Iraqi national interest with potentially devastating consequences… Most Arab writers (for example, the Kuwaiti Shamlan Issa in al-Ittihad yesterday) point the finger at the continuing lack of progress on political accomodation and national unity — which for them, generally means the accommodation of Sunni interests and the integration of the Awakenings. The “resistance camp” paper al-Quds al-Arabi has been covering the “coup against the Awakenings” as closely as have the Saudi-owned media (though with a bit more schadenfreude). Many of them are reading the crackdown on the Awakenings through as unmasking the ‘true Shia sectarianism’ of Maliki’s government — reinforcing their pre-existing, deep skepticism about the new Iraq…

I’ve been warning about the potential for trouble with the Awakenings project for a long time, and it would be easy to say that those predictions are now coming due. But I think it’s way too early for that — there is still time for these troubles to demonstrate the costs of political failure and to become the spur to the needed political action.

That’s why it’s really important that the United States not now begin to hedge on its commitment to the drawdown of its forces in the face of this uptick in violence. It is in moments like this that the credibility of commitments is made or broken. Thus far, the signals have been very good — consistent, clear, and tightly linked to continuing pressure on political progress. President Obama reportedly pushed hard on the political accommodation front during his stopover in Baghdad last week, and General Odierno did very well to emphasize on CNN yesterday that the U.S. is firmly committed to removing its troops by the end of 2011. Maliki and everyone need to take a deep breath and strike power sharing deals before things go south, and understand that they will pay consequences if they don’t.”

I agree that things are still far from beyond repair, but I’m less sanguine than Lynch appears to be about Maliki’s intentions. In the back of my mind, in the part focused on Middle East politics, I can’t help but suspect the centralizing actions of Maliki over the last few years might point to a deeper ambition for power. For example, cracking down on militias and establishing two security forces (the Baghdad Brigade and the Counterterrorism Task Force) reporting directly to the prime minister have perhaps improved security, but they have also strengthened significantly Maliki’s position. Improving security remains a priority concern for Iraqis (according to a Pentagon report, security is now the number 2 concern for Iraqis, having been passed in January, 2009 by the need for improved basic services), but security enforced by a strong central state is a double-edged sword. In the Middle East and North Africa, there are too many authoritarian leaders adept at ruling through the various tools of co-option and coercion. As Lynch says, “Maliki’s government sees very clearly how fragmented, mutually mistrustful and competitive the Awakenings are.” I think that can fairly be extended to the political parties and sectarian groups in Iraq.

With a divided political scene and civil society, it’s all too possible for Maliki to play one group off the other and emerge as the final arbiter of political bargaining, granting patronage to some and punishing others who challenge him. This possibility is still only a possibility and Maliki has a ways to go before he has that kind of power, but after looking at Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, etc., it would be a good idea, I think, for people to pay more attention to Iraq’s possible return to authoritarianism (albeit likely a kinder version with the cosmetic trappings of democracy). Maliki is not yet “one of the guys” in the club of rulers in the region (a large reason why is that Maliki is Shia and nearly all of the Arab leaders are Sunni and suspect Maliki of a sectarian agenda), but he seems to be trying.

For quite a while now, IARP volunteers have been working to establish Minneapolis and Najaf as Sister Cities. What does that mean? A Sister City relationship is a formal agreement signed by the governing bodies of each city committing to long term sharing of cultural, educational, and citizen resources.

I’ll admit, I didn’t know that Minneapolis currently has nine Sister Cities. However, establishing such a formal relationship with an Iraqi city would have a large impact, I think, for a few reasons. Many people, myself included, feel strongly about the past, present and future U.S. relationship with Iraq; beginning a Sister City relationship would be a mutual statement of friendship and cooperation between the people of Najaf and Minneapolis. Looking at how damaged the U.S.-Iraq relationship currently is, the importance of making this statement official and “legitimate” should not be underestimated. It would be a big boost toward our large goal of reconciliation.

People on both “sides” who have doubts about the other would be exposed to exchange programs and events, in the media if not in person. While media coverage can play a large role in building support FOR war and vilifying the “enemy,” it can also be effective in countering such attitudes. And those who actually participate in exchanges will experience Iraqi culture, and some will develop long-lasting friendships.

Currently IARP and its partner in Najaf, the Muslim Peacemaker Teams (MPT), run or are affiliated with a number of exchange programs that make the two cities de facto Sister Cities. These include Letters for Peace, Water for Peace, the Iraqi Art Project, and exchanges between the University of Minnesota and the University of Kufa. This fall, Sami Rasouli, an Iraqi-American who resides in both Minneapolis and Najaf and is Director of MPT, will lead a delegation from Najaf to Minneapolis. The Sister City relationship would highlight these current opportunities for people to connect with their neighbors in Iraq.

Also, importantly, having these programs already in place means that the official relationship would cost Minneapolis very little money.

Welcome. Ahlan wa sahlan! This is the first post of the website of the Iraqi and American Reconciliation Project (IARP). Since you’ve gotten this far, you’re obviously an intelligent and caring person (or you’re lost), so I won’t say much in the way of an introduction. IARP is an international non-profit organization based in Minneapolis, MN and Najaf, Iraq. It supports reconciliation between Iraqis and Americans through education, art, and development programs. This website will provide you with news and resources relevant to the relationship between Iraqis and Americans; the fields of reconciliation, conflict transformation and development; and the activities of IARP. By reading this website, you will become even more intelligent and knowledgeable about these things (we hope).

In lieu of a longer explanation of IARP, below is a copy of an article I wrote about the organization’s work, published recently in the Twin Cities Daily Planet.

Minnesotans and Iraqis work together for reconciliation

by Luke Wilcox | February 25, 2009 • Iraq can seem far from Minnesota, both geographically and culturally. While nearly six years of military operations in Iraq have brought images of war and its consequences into American homes, the culture and people of Iraq have rarely followed. Many Americans support peace with Iraq, but know little about Iraqis and wonder how much impact one person can realistically have in a violent world. For a group of Minnesotans and Iraqis, the answer is, “more than you think.” For the Iraqi and American Reconciliation Project (IARP) and the Muslim Peacemaker Teams (MPT), interpersonal and local community connections – rather than strategic agreements between national governments – are exactly what is needed to sustain an enduring process of reconciliation and peacebuilding.

Based in Minneapolis and Najaf, Iraq, IARP and MPT work as partners to build stronger connections between Iraqis and Americans through education, art, and humanitarian aid. Their programs include exchanging handwritten letters between Iraqi and Minnesotan students, showcasing Iraqi art in Minnesota, and finding Minnesotan communities, businesses, and other groups to sponsor water filtration systems for Iraqi schools with no access to safe drinking water. In January, IARP and MPT installed filtration systems at three schools in Najaf, with more schools planned for February and March.

Besides providing clean drinking water for students, the partnership between MPT and IARP is a concrete example of Iraqi and American citizens promoting “reconciliation.” More than resolution of a dispute, reconciliation within the framework of conflict transformation seeks to repair broken relationships and establish “right relationships” of justice, peace and equality. As John Paul Lederach notes, reconciliation “is built on and oriented toward the relational aspects of a conflict… and create(s) an encounter where people can focus on their relationship.” As the U.S. military slowly draws down its presence in Iraq over the coming months and years, it will be important for Americans and Iraqis to engage in sustained, deliberate and creative efforts to promote reconciliation.

Despite significant (yet fragile) progress in the security and political situation in Iraq, the wounds of war remain in both Iraq and the U.S. Consider the following numbers:

• 151,000 violent Iraqi deaths from March, 2003 through June, 2006.

• 2 out of 3 Iraqi children without access to safe drinking water and 4 million Iraqis considered food insecure and in need of food assistance (November, 2007). Only 17 percent of Iraq’s sewage treated before entering the country’s rivers and waterways (March 2008).

• 4.2 million Iraqis displaced from their homes – 1.8 million refugees outside of Iraq and 2.4 million inside Iraq. Four out of 5 Iraqi refugees report having witnessed a shooting and 3 out of 4 report having had someone close to them killed or murdered (March, 2008).

• More than 4,100 U.S. military casualties in Iraq (February, 2009). About 20 percent of Iraq war veterans report symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression (October, 2008).

• Approximately $650 billion spent on Iraq war operations by the U.S. (July 2008).

The last six years have bound the histories of Iraq and the U.S. together. If a real partnership between the two countries is to emerge from these six years, local and community connections that promote reconciliation and build grassroots support for peaceful and just foreign policies will be critical.

Such connections will be important, in part, because we live in a globalized and interconnected world. While nation-states (like Iraq and the U.S.) remain the most visible actors on the world stage, the effects of globalization have increased the importance of international corporations, international organizations, and direct, “people to people” dialogue and interaction. Increasingly, the world is tied together through the environment, the global economy, global security, and global communication. With a focus on human rather than national security, many international NGOs and individual actors recognize that, in the 21st century, the future well-being of all people is increasingly interconnected.

While some argue that international peace and reconciliation are unrealistic or even irresponsible goals for nation-states to pursue in a chaotic and dangerous world, too often this argument misperceives reconciliation as an all-or-nothing, ideal end state. Instead, reconciliation is an imperfect, practical process with concrete and achievable steps that can support national (as well as global) interests and security. For example, a process of reconciliation could help alleviate the current, widespread anti-Americanism among Arab populations. Anti-Americanism harms U.S. interests in the Middle East in several ways: government allies in the region find it harder to cooperate with the U.S.; greater instability follows a greater disconnect between repressive, pro-American governments and anti-American populations; anti-American movements find it easier to recruit new followers; and the U.S. has less “soft power” (everything “American” – values, culture, and policy – is less attractive). By taking steps to address grievances and change policies that are perceived as unjust, anti-Americanism can be reduced and foreign policy goals made easier to realize. President Obama took one such step on January 26 when he gave a television interview to the Arabic news station al-Arabiya. In the interview, he asserted his commitment to listen to the Arab world and the Muslim world and his readiness “to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest.”

Of course, words must be followed by actions in order to demonstrate sincerity. One initial action that Americans can take is to acknowledge the truth, a common first step in processes of reconciliation. The Iraqi and American Reconciliation Project, for example, begins with an acknowledgment that the U.S. invasion of Iraq caused widespread suffering among Iraqis (and among all those affected by the war, including U.S. military personnel and their families). Because this truth – or any “truth” – about history depends on one’s perspective in history, it is important to listen to multiple perspectives (in this case, to Iraqis and to others around the world), and especially to victims. Then, after listening and acknowledging, it is important to apologize for past wrongdoing and admit guilt or responsibility. The corresponding step of forgiveness occurs in some processes of reconciliation but not all, and cannot be imposed.

Acknowledging truth and accepting responsibility usually must be followed by concrete action to redress past wrongs. Such action usually takes the form of retributive justice (perpetrators held accountable and punished), restorative justice (perpetrators, victims, and their communities undergo a process to repair and rebuild their relationships), or distributive justice (goods in a society are redistributed in a more just manner), or a combination of these three. Restorative and distributive justice generally entail some form of reparations, or compensation offered to victims. Besides economic reparations, social and political reparations (e.g., greater political rights) are possible. While not exactly reparations, the water filtration systems installed by IARP and MPT offer aid to victims of the conflict in Iraq with the goal of transforming relationships between Americans and Iraqis.

In order for a process of reconciliation to endure, it is important to build trust and create assurances that past grievances will not reoccur. At the interpersonal level, cultural exchanges can develop shared values and increase mutual understanding and respect, thereby decreasing support for future use of force or violence that could harm the other. For example, IARP’s Iraq Art Project brings art from Iraq to local Minnesota communities with the aim of building “on the transformative power of art (to) personalize relationships with Iraqis.” Local galleries, coffee-shops and businesses host art shows of paintings by Iraqi artists and expose Minnesotans to the people and land of Iraq. IARP then sells the paintings, giving part of the proceeds to the artists and part to MPT to support its reconciliation efforts in Iraq. Similarly, IARP’s Letters for Peace program facilitates exchanges of letters between Iraqi and American students in order to create personal relationships and plant seeds of understanding and respect.

Such programs offer creative ways to decrease the distance between Americans and Iraqis at a critical juncture in the relationship between the U.S. and Iraq (and between the U.S. and the world). Nearly six years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Americans and Iraqis have been bound together by war. Now is the time to turn those ties into a more peaceful, shared future. As organizations like IARP and MPT recognize, this can only happen in local communities – one personal connection at a time.