The Federal Court in Iraq prevents the financing of the Kurdistan region.. A blow to America's interests or an obstruction to the Sudanese government?

The political crises in Iraq continue to subside until they flare up again, as the decision of the Federal Supreme Court last Wednesday to cancel all decisions related to transferring monthly funds to the Kurdistan region sparked the crisis between Baghdad and Erbil, in a move that may further complicate the political scene.

Observers warn that the possibility of implementing the decision may threaten the future of the "state administration" coalition, which formed the current government headed by Muhammad Shia' al-Sudani 3 months ago, which puts the coalition at risk of division or rift, at the very least.

The State Administration coalition consists of the Shiite Coordination Framework Alliance, which has 138 parliamentary seats out of 329, in addition to the Sunni Sovereignty Alliance led by Parliament Speaker Muhammad al-Halbousi and politician Khamis al-Khanjar, as well as the two main Kurdish parties in the region, namely: the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan led by Pavel Talabani, the Kurdistan Democratic Party led by Massoud Barzani, and other political parties.

Massoud Barzani described the Federal Court's decision as a "hostile position" (Al-Jazeera)

Payments

The government of former Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kazemi had sent several financial payments on a monthly basis to the region during the years 2021 and 2022, in order to pay the regional government the salaries of its employees, provided that they are later deducted from the funds of the general financial budget of the Iraqi state.

In line with Al-Kazemi's government, the new Prime Minister, Muhammad Shia' Al-Sudani, announced last December that a new batch of 400 billion dinars (about 234 million US dollars) would be sent to the regional government, which appears to not continue after the recent Federal Court decision.

The Federal Court’s decision came against the background of a lawsuit filed by Mustafa Jabbar Sanad, a member of the Parliamentary Finance Committee for the Coordination Framework Coalition, who said in his press conference that “the judicial decision was issued based on the lawsuit that I filed before the Federal Court, which ruled that 6 decisions of the previous government to transfer funds to the region were invalid.” 2022, which are decisions that violate the internal system, the constitution, and the general budget and financial management laws,” and described the decision as “historic.”

Walid Al-Sahlani described the Federal Court as a "safety valve" for the country (Al-Jazeera)

Territory response

The region's response was not delayed, as the Kurdistan government said - in a statement - that "the Federal Court once again renewed its hostility to the rights of the region's citizens and their constitutional financial entitlements," stressing that "this position represents the continuation of its unfair and hostile policy towards Kurdistan and contradicts the agreement of the state administration forces that formed The new government violates the ministerial platform approved by Parliament.

The head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, Massoud Barzani, described the decision as a "hostile position", saying: "Whenever a positive atmosphere prevails between the region and Baghdad and the opportunity arises to address problems, the Federal Court immediately destabilizes this opportunity and aborts the opportunity by issuing a hostile decision, and it becomes a cause of complicating disputes, and it seems It implements a suspicious agenda and replaces the Revolutionary Court in the previous regime," referring to the regime of the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

This crisis comes at a time when the delegation of the regional government made several visits to the capital, Baghdad, and discussed with the federal government in order to resolve outstanding issues between the two parties, the most prominent of which are related to oil and gas and handing over revenues to the federal government in exchange for guaranteeing the share of the Kurdistan region in the budget.

Rebwar Babki described the decision as unconstitutional and political par excellence (Al-Jazeera)

Semantics of the timing of the decision

Commenting on the Federal Court's decision, Rebwar Babki, a member of the regional parliament for the Kurdistan Democratic Party bloc, agrees with the statement of the Kurdistan Regional Government, describing the decision as "unconstitutional, political par excellence, and very dangerous," warning of its political repercussions in the future.

Babaki called on the Sudanese government not to abide by this decision, but rather to move forward with enacting laws related to oil and gas and to resolve the problems between the two parties, especially since the Kurds are an essential member of the state administration coalition that formed the Sudanese government.

In his speech to Al-Jazeera Net, a member of the region's parliament explains the implications of the decision, pointing to the existence of what he called a "political rift" within the coordination framework, and the efforts of political parties in it to strike the Sudanese government and disturb the positive atmosphere and understandings that took place between Baghdad and Erbil, including those related to the budget and oil and gas laws and the activation of Article 140 of the Constitution, according to him.

Babaki does not stop there only, as he believes that these forces are working to destabilize the relationship between Baghdad and Erbil in order to divert attention from the cases of corruption the country is witnessing, including the theft of the century, in an attempt to export Iraq's problems to the Kurdistan region, as he put it.

Meanwhile, Walid Al-Sahlani, a representative of the Al-Fatah Coalition - one of the most prominent formations of the coordination framework - contradicts the Kurdish reactions, as he describes the Federal Court as the "safety valve" for the country, and that it preserves democracy and the unity of the people, indicating that it does not deal with the language of courtesy, but rather deals with The decisions issued based on visions are based on legal foundations, as he put it.

Regarding the possibility that the federal decision will cause the "state administration" coalition to crack or to be disintegrated at the political level in the future, Al-Sahlani - in his interview with Al-Jazeera Net - excludes this scenario, by confirming the existence of negotiations between the political parties in conjunction with the preparation of the budget by Parliament, in preparation for a vote on it.

Will the Kurds withdraw?

On the other hand, political analyst Ali al-Sahib expects that the Federal Court's decision, especially if it insists on it and promises it decisively, will lead to a rift in the "state administration" coalition, or that the Kurds will have a negative attitude towards the coalition that will push them to withdraw from the entire political process.

In his speech to Al-Jazeera Net, Al-Sahib describes the timing of the issuance of the decision as "inappropriate", although there is no legal problem in it, explaining that the coincidence of the decision with the accumulation of suffocating crises in Iraq and the failure to approve the budget may cause an economic crisis that postpones all projects and steps of the current government headed by Sudanese.

Ali Al-Sahib believes that proceeding with the federal decision may lead to a rift in the state administration alliance (Al-Jazeera)

What is the relationship between the decision and the Ukrainian-Russian war?

From an economic point of view, the Kurdish economist and political researcher Karwan Hama Salih reveals that there are several common points between the timing of the court's decision, which he describes as "non-spontaneous" and the attempt of America and Iran to impose their hegemony in Iraq, in addition to the Ukrainian-Russian war and the energy struggle. in the area.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera Net, he indicates that Washington is working on the energy file through mediation between Baghdad and Erbil, and that the two parties reach an initial agreement that is in the interest of Washington, especially with regard to the previous court decision that included annulling the oil and gas law in Kurdistan, which caused a major problem related to Energy, especially in the country that has ambitions in the energy of the region, as he put it.

Saleh believes that Washington's approach prompted some influential international parties in Iraq to refuse to achieve America's interests, by striking the Baghdad-Erbil agreement on energy, noting that the recent Federal Court decision came to shuffle the cards and sabotage what he called "the game."

Salih concludes by noting that, in theory, all political parties in the region and Iraq constantly talk about their quest for consensus, commenting, "But in practice, the two sides did not adhere to what they said to resolve the problems between the two parties," stressing that it is in the interest of the region at the current stage to agree with Baghdad regarding oil and gas and resolving all outstanding issues between them.