Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights

Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

Iraq’s political system is increasingly characterized by peaceful competition and formation of cross-sectarian alliances, but ethnic and sectarian political infighting continues, often involving violence or the questionable use of key levers of power and legal institutions. This infighting is based on the belief that holding political power may mean the difference between poverty and prosperity, or even life and death, for the various political communities. The schisms delayed agreement on a new government following the March 7, 2010, national elections for the Council of Representatives (COR, parliament). With U.S. diplomatic help, on November 10, 2010, major ethnic and sectarian factions finally agreed on a framework (“Irbil Agreement”) for a new government under which Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is serving a second term.

In recent months, and with a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq looming at the end of 2011, the optimism of that agreement has faded and relations among major factions have frayed. Sunni Arabs still fear that Maliki and his Shiite allies will try to monopolize power. The Kurds are wary that Maliki will not honor pledges to resolve Kurd-Arab territorial and financial disputes. Sunni Arabs and the Kurds dispute territory and governance in parts of northern Iraq, particularly Nineveh Province. Some Iraqi communities, including Christians in northern Iraq, are not necessarily at odds with the government but are often caught in the crossfire between the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds. These splits have created conditions under which the insurgency that hampered U.S. policy during 2004-2008 continues to succeed in conducting occasional high casualty attacks, and in which Shiite militias are rearming and conducting attacks on U.S. forces still in Iraq.

These political disputes and ongoing violence—coupled with U.S. concerns about the effectiveness of Iraq’s 650,000 member security forces—have created momentum for the United States and Iraq to modify the firm deadline for a complete U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq at the end of 2011. That deadline is enshrined in a 2008 U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement. With the formal end of the U.S. combat mission on August 31, 2010, U.S. forces have dropped to a current level of about 47,000, from a 2008 high of 170,000. In several high-level visits and statements during 2011, senior U.S. officials have said that Iraq should request a continuing, but likely sharply reduced, presence of U.S. forces after 2011. An Iraqi decision on such a request was long hampered by all the same political schisms discussed above, as well as the Sadr threats to rearm his followers if U.S. forces remain after 2011. However, Maliki obtained sufficient consensus in July 2011 to announce the start of negotiations with the United States on extension of the U.S. military presence. The retention of some U.S. troops leave might reduce some of the concerns about the ability of the U.S. State Department to secure its facilities and personnel and to carry out its mission on its own.

The Administration is hopeful that, no matter the outcome of discussions on the U.S. military presence, all factions will cooperate to act on key outstanding legislation crucial to attracting foreign investment, such as national hydrocarbon laws. The new government took action on some long-stalled initiatives, including year-long tensions over Kurdish exports of oil. However, the lack of a broader and sustained focus on governance, or on improving key services, such as electricity, created popular frustration that manifested as protests since February 2011. The demonstrations were partly inspired by the wave of unrest that has broken out in many other Middle Eastern countries, but were not centered on overthrowing the regime or wholesale political change.


Date of Report: August 9, 2011
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: RS21968
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Afghanistan: Politics, Elections, and Government Performance

Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

The limited capacity and widespread corruption of all levels of Afghan governance are factors in congressional debate over the effectiveness of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and in implementing a transition to Afghan security leadership. That transition is to be completed by the end of 2014, a timeframe agreed to by the United States, its international partners, and the Afghan government. While trusting only his closest allies, most of whom are ethnic Pashtuns, Karzai has tried to satisfy leaders of other ethnic and political faction leaders. However, some of these faction leaders oppose Karzai on the grounds that he is too willing to make concessions to insurgent leaders in search of a settlement, and that he has tried to use his office to manipulate Afghan institutions and election results to the advantage of him and his faction. A dispute over the results of the 2010 parliamentary elections have paralyzed governance for nearly a year, but appears to have been resolved in August 2011 with Karzai’s suspension of a special court that was seeking to overturn almost a quarter of the election results. Karzai also has tried to reassure his most suspicious critics who believe he wants to stay in office beyond the 2014 expiration of his second term, the limits under the constitution.

Afghan governing capacity has increased significantly since the Taliban regime fell in late 2001, but many positions, particularly at the local level, are unfilled. Many governing functions are performed at least informally by unaccountable power brokers. One such power broker was President Karzai’s half-brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, who essentially ran southern Afghanistan on the President’s behalf; his assassination on July 12, 2011, left a power vacuum in the south and increased doubts about stability in the context of a U.S. troop drawdown that began in July 2011. Widespread illiteracy and ethnic and factional ties limit the development of a competent bureaucracy, although U.S. and other programs are attempting to address these deficiencies.

On corruption, President Hamid Karzai has accepted U.S. help to build emerging anti-corruption institutions, but these same institutions have sometimes caused a Karzai backlash when they have targeted his allies or relatives. Efforts against corruption also run up against an Afghan culture that rewards appointing and letting contracts to relatives and friends. Effects of corruption burst into public view in August 2010 when the large Kabul Bank nearly collapsed due in part to losses on large and apparently improper loans to major shareholders, many of whom are close to Karzai. That issue, too, appears close to resolution in August 2011 with the prosecution of several individuals allegedly responsible for the scandal.

Broader issues of human rights often vary depending on the security environment in particular regions, although some trends prevail nationwide. The State Department human rights report for 2010 attributes many of the human rights abuses in Afghanistan to overall lack of security, traditional conservative attitudes that are widely prevalent, and the weakness of government control over outlying localities. Women have made substantial gains in government and the private sector since the fall of the Taliban but many organizations report substantial backsliding, particularly in areas where the insurgency operates. Traditional attitudes also continue to prevail, slowing of efforts to curb such practices as child marriages and contributing to court judgments against converts from Islam to Christianity and cleric-driven curbs on the sale of alcohol and Western-oriented programming in the burgeoning Afghan media. See also CRS Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, by Kenneth Katzman; CRS Report R40747, United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan: Background and Policy Issues, by Rhoda Margesson; and CRS Report R41484, Afghanistan: U.S. Rule of Law and Justice Sector Assistance, by Liana Sun Wyler and Kenneth Katzman.


Date of Report: August 10, 2011
Number of Pages: 60
Order Number: RS21922
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Unrest in Syria and U.S. Sanctions Against the Asad Regime

Jeremy M. Sharp
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

This report analyzes the current unrest in Syria and the U.S. response to the Syrian government’s crackdown against demonstrators. It also provides background information on U.S. sanctions against the Asad regime and its supporters.

A variety of U.S. legislative provisions and executive directives prohibit direct foreign assistance funding to Syria and restrict bilateral trade relations, largely because of the U.S. State Department’s designation of Syria as a sponsor of international terrorism. On December 12, 2003, President Bush signed the Syria Accountability Act, P.L. 108-175, which imposed additional economic sanctions against Syria. Syrian individuals and government officials are subject to targeted financial sanctions pursuant to executive orders relating to terrorism, proliferation, and regional security. Successive administrations have designated several Syrian entities as weapons proliferators and sanctioned several Russian companies for alleged weapons of mass destruction or advanced weapons sales to Syria.

The following legislation introduced in the 112th Congress addresses the current situation in Syria. 

• H.R. 2106, The Syria Freedom Support Act. Sanctions the development of petroleum resources of Syria, the production of refined petroleum products in Syria, and the exportation of refined petroleum products to Syria. 
• H.Res. 296 (S.Res. 180 in the Senate). Expresses support for peaceful demonstrations and universal freedoms in Syria and condemns the human rights violations by the Assad Regime. 
• H.R. 2105, The Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act of 2011. States that it shall be U.S. policy to fully implement and enforce sanctions against Iran, North Korea, and Syria for their proliferation activities and policies. 
• S. 1048, The Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act of 2011. Amends the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act to include in the scope of such act a person that (1) acquired materials mined or extracted within North Korea's territory or control; or (2) provided shipping services for the transportation of goods to or from Iran, North Korea, or Syria relating to such countries' weapons of mass destruction programs, support for acts of international terrorism, or human rights abuses. Excludes from such provisions shipping services for emergency or humanitarian purposes. 
• S. 1472, The Syria Sanctions Act of 2011. Denies companies that conduct business in Syria’s energy sector (investment, oil purchases, and sale of gasoline) access to U.S. financial institutions and requires federal contractors to certify that they are not engaged in sanctionable activity.

Date of Report: August 9, 2011
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: RL33487
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Iran Sanctions

Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

There is broad international support for imposing progressively strict economic sanctions on Iran to try to compel it to verifiably confine its nuclear program to purely peaceful uses. However, most U.S. and international officials appear to agree that the sanctions have not, to date, hurt Iran’s economy to the point at which the core Western goals on Iran’s nuclear program can be accomplished. Nuclear talks in December 2010 and in January 2011 made virtually no progress, suggesting that Iran’s leaders do not feel sufficiently pressured by sanctions to offer major concessions to obtain a nuclear deal, and talks have not resumed since.

There is broad agreement that, because so many major economic powers have imposed sanctions on Iran, key sectors of Iran’s economy are being harmed to an extent, reinforcing the effects of Iran’s economic mismanagement. Among other indicators, there have been a stream of announcements by major international firms since early 2010 that they are exiting the Iranian market, taking with them their often irreplaceable expertise. Partly as a result, Iran’s oil production has fallen slightly to about 3.9 million barrels per day, from over 4.1 million barrels per day several years ago, and could fall by another 25% over the next five years, although Iran now has small natural gas exports that it did not have before Iran opened its fields to foreign investment in 1996. Several countries, particularly India, have held billions of dollars in oil payments for Iran in escrow because bank payments mechanisms have been shut down by sanctions. The withheld payments have reduced the ability of Iran’s Central Bank to stabilize Iran’s currency. However, Iran’s overall ability to limit the effects of sanctions has been aided by relatively high oil prices in mid-2011.

The United States and its allies appear to agree that sanctions are an effective tool that should be pursued, and that sanctions should continue to weaken Iran’s energy sector and isolate Iran from the international financial system. The energy sector provides about 70% of government revenues. Iran’s large trading community depends on financing to buy goods from the West and sell them inside Iran. Using the authorities of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, adopted June 9, 2010, measures adopted since mid-2010 by the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, and several other countries target those sectors. These national measures complement the numerous U.S. laws and regulations that have long sought to try to pressure Iran, particularly the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA)—a 1996 U.S. law that mandated U.S. penalties against foreign companies that invest in Iran’s energy sector. In the 111th Congress, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA, P.L. 111-195) expanded ISA to sanction Iran’s ability to obtain or make gasoline, for which Iran depends heavily on imports. Sales to Iran of gasoline have fallen dramatically since. CISADA also contained a broad range of other measures further restricting the already limited amount of U.S. trade with Iran.

In addition to its economic sanctions provisions, CISADA contained measures to promote the cause of the domestic opposition in Iran by sanctioning Iranian officials who are human rights abusers and facilitating the democracy movement’s access to information technology. This is a trend that is increasingly taking hold in the Obama Administration and in partner countries. The increasing emphasis on human rights-related laws and sanctions reflect a growing belief that there are few new economic sanctions that can be successfully agreed on or imposed. In the 112th Congress legislation, such as S. 1048 and H.R. 1905, has been introduced to enhance both the economic sanctions and human rights-related provisions of CISADA and other laws. For a broader analysis of policy on Iran, see CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, by Kenneth Katzman.


Date of Report: August 12, 2011
Number of Pages: 71
Order Number: RS20871
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Pakistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance

Susan B. Epstein
Specialist in Foreign Policy

K. Alan Kronstadt
Specialist in South Asian Affairs

The 112th Congress is focused on cost-cutting measures to reduce the budget deficit. How it deals with the second-ranking U.S. aid recipient, Pakistan—which is important to U.S. national security interests but that some say lacks accountability—will be key.

Pakistan has been among the leading recipients of U.S. foreign assistance both historically and in FY2010, and most experts list the country among the most strategically important for U.S. policy makers. Recent major developments—including the killing of Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in Pakistan—have put strains on bilateral relations, making uncertain the future direction of U.S. aid to Pakistan. For many lawmakers, the issue will be how to balance considerations about Pakistan’s strategic importance to the United States with the pervasive and mounting distrust in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship and with budget deficit-reduction pressures.

U.S. assistance to Pakistan has fluctuated considerably over the past 60 years. In the wake of 9/11, however, aid to Pakistan has continually risen as the Bush and Obama Administrations have characterized Pakistan as a U.S. partner in the Afghanistan war, in the fight against terrorism, and in efforts to stabilize the region. Since 1948, the United States has pledged more than $30 billion in direct aid, about half for military assistance. Two-thirds of this total was appropriated in the post-9/11 era from FY2002 to FY2010. Some question the gains from the aid, saying there is a lack of accountability and reform by the Pakistani government, and any goodwill generated by it is offset by widespread anti-American sentiment among the Pakistani people.

In September 2009, Congress passed the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (EPPA, also known as the “Kerry-Lugar-Berman” or “KLB” bill for its main sponsors). This became P.L. 111-73 and authorizes the President to provide $1.5 billion in annual bilateral economic aid to Pakistan from FY2010 through FY2014. The law requires certification for release of securityrelated aid; such conditionality is an ongoing and contentious issue. Also in 2009, Congress established two new funds—the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) within the Defense Department appropriations and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF) within the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations—to build Pakistan’s counterinsurgency capabilities.

Within the FY2010 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 111-212), Congress provided $349 million in military and economic assistance to Pakistan, $5 million more than the Administration’s request. When “coalition support fund” military reimbursements are included, the U.S. provided a total of $4.5 billion for Pakistan for FY2010 alone, making it the second-highest recipient after Afghanistan. In addition to these ongoing programs, in mid-2010 the United States pledged an additional $592 million in emergency and recovery aid, plus more than $95 million of in-kind aid after extensive flooding resulted in a severe humanitarian crisis that affected an estimated 20 million Pakistanis. In October 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the Administration’s intention to increase U.S. Foreign Military Financing for Pakistan to $2 billion over a five year period, a $100 million annual increase from the current level. This would have to go through the congressional appropriation and authorization process.

This report will be updated as congressional actions on aid to Pakistan unfold in the 112th Congress. For broader discussion of U.S.-Pakistan relations, see CRS Report R41307, Pakistan: Key Current Issues and Developments, and CRS Report R41832, Pakistan-U.S. Relations: A Summary.


Date of Report: July 28, 2011
Number of Pages: 44
Order Number: R41856
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.