The Iraqi government fully met only three out of 18 benchmarks, according to the GAO. Among them: the parliament has rules in place to protect the rights of ethnic and religious minority members. Sure, it’s not the sexiest benchmark — it’s no militia demobilization or constitutional reform — but in a multiethnic country without a democratic tradition, it’s important.
Only one problem: the GAO felt compelled to point out — over the objections of the State Department — that minority protections don’t exist outside the parliament hall.
According to the United Nations, attacks against religious and ethnic minorities continued unabated in most areas of Iraq, prompting these communities to seek ways to leave the country. The conflicts reportedly bear the mark of sectarian polarization and “cleansing” in neighborhoods formerly comprised of different religions.
Now, that’s not part of the benchmark, which just looks at minority protections within the government. Why include general information about the plight of Iraq’s minorities here?
[W]e believe it is important to provide some context of minority rights in Iraq. Iraqi legislators we interviewed insisted that the situation in their communities has a direct bearing on their work in the legislature, their freedom of movement to and from the legislature, and their ability to engage fully in Iraq [sic] political life.
That sounds a lot like GAO is saying the benchmark is a hollow one.
One question: how is it that GAO can judge sectarianism in attacks on ethnic and religious minorities but not against either Sunnis or Shiites?
