Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 12:55:59 -0400
From: Agence Global rights@agenceglobal.com
The Problematic US-Iraqi Treaty
by Robert Dreyfuss
Ever since President Bush announced last fall that the United States would
seek to negotiate a lasting security agreement with Iraq, the Democrats in
Washington have insisted that any such accord would be a treaty and,
therefore, ought to be submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
But it's starting to look more and more like the proposed treaty won't
ever see the light of day. Why? Because the Iraqis themselves don't want
it.
At an extraordinary hearing on Capitol Hill last week, members of the
Iraqi parliament hand-delivered a letter to members of Congress that
rejected the idea of a US-Iraq agreement unless the United States agrees
to a specific timetable to get out of Iraq. The letter was signed by a
majority of the 270-member parliament, reflecting a broad consensus among
Iraqi factions.
Said the letter:
"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any
military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or
political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear
mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully
withdraw from Iraq."
Without a US-Iraq accord, the presence of American troops in Iraq has no
legal basis after December 31, 2008. Currently, the US forces in Iraq are
there under the authority of a United Nations Security Council resolution
that expires on that date. Both the United States and the UN have ruled
out renewing that authority for another year.
If Washington and Baghdad fail to work out a treaty that legalizes the
occupation, it is conceivable that the Bush administration, in its last
few weeks, could go back to the UN, hat in hand, and beg Moscow and
Beijing to authorize an extension of the UN authority. But that would be
embarrassing in the extreme, and both Russia and China would probably
extract some major concessions in exchange for not using their veto. And
that would be seen as a diplomatic fiasco for the United States.
Worst case: either Russia or China veto the extension, throwing the
occupation of Iraq into legal limbo. In that case, the Iraqi government
would have no choice but to demand an immediate and total withdrawal.
To avoid that scenario, it's entirely possible that the Bush
Administration, sometime this summer, will force the hapless regime of
Prime Minister Maliki to submit to a US diktat on a US-Iraq accord. Even
though Maliki is under tremendous pressure from nearly all Iraqi factions
not to accept a humiliating, US-imposed treaty, he might decide that he
has no choice. But if Maliki signs the accord, and ignores the opposition
from parliament, he would instantly lose whatever remaining credibility he
has left as an Iraqi leader. That would plunge Iraq into a devastating
political crisis. It would probably revive the Sunni-led resistance and
inflame the Shia-led, anti-American forces grouped around Muqtada al-Sadr.
Violence, and American casualties, would spike on the eve of the US
election. Not a pleasant scenario.
If, on the other hand, Maliki submits the treaty -- whose content is still
not known -- to the parliament, it is very likely that both Sunni and Shia
nationalists and some pro-Iranian parties will overwhelmingly reject it.
That will nullify the accord, forcing the United States back to the UN.
None of these scenarios are particularly appetizing for the White House.
Writing in The Independent, Patrick Cockburn provides a glimpse of what's
in the draft of the treaty: "Under the terms of the new treaty, the
Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq.
American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US
troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct
military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government."
[text in Thread 3]
Cockburn suggests that at least some of the Iraqi defiance might be for
show, and that in the end the Iraqis will sign the accord because they
have little choice. But if they do, it could make Iraq's already violent
and unstable politics far worse.
In the end, congressional Democrats might never get a chance to vote on a
US-Iraq treaty. Which might be a good thing. Because while Iraq's
parliament is overwhelmingly opposed to it, America's own pliant
parliament -- namely, the US Congress -- will probably approve the damn
thing.
Robert Dreyfuss is a contributing editor of The Nation magazine, and the
author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash
Fundamentalist Islam (Metropolitan).
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
1 comment:
Continuing a trend, this proposed agreement has just evoked the most savagely critical editorial against American policy that anyone can remember in Saudi Arabia's major English-language daily.
Colonization Plans
Arab News (Editorial)
June 8, 2008
George W. Bush brought death and chaos to Iraq on the basis of lies. Now, as he staggers through the last months of his failed presidency, he is trying one more bit of trickery — forcing the Nuri Al-Maliki government to legitimize a long-term military occupation of Iraq in a treaty, which will make that sovereign country an American colony. The treaty would permit the maintenance of up to 50 American bases from which US forces could operate against perceived threats to their interests, and at no point would US military personnel nor contractors be answerable to Iraqis. Vice President Dick Cheney has reportedly been leading the negotiations on this agreement — characterized euphemistically as "a strategic alliance" and has been bullying the Al-Maliki administration to agree to the deal before the end of this month.
It is hard to think of a more effective way of demonstrating so clearly that whatever specious nonsense the Bush administration may have spouted about liberating the Iraqi people from dictatorship and bringing them the blessings of democracy, the real truth all along was that the invasion was all about Washington's desire to control a major oil-producing country. To realize that ambition, tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, hundreds of thousands more have been maimed and injured and countless others have had their lives ruined and torn apart.
Yet the Bush occupation was all wrapped up in the big promise that as soon as stability was restored to Iraq, US troops would pack up and leave. Washington's British allies were certainly told and believed this falsehood — UK troops have been itching to leave Basra for months. But with the leaked news of negotiations on this "strategic alliance," the lies are exposed and the real neocolonialist ambitions of this administration are laid bare.
The problem is that outrageous as the proposals may be, they are just as outrageously stupid. Only a blinkered and desperate president with his few remaining neocon acolytes could be so dumb as to imagine that forcing the Iraqi government to sign a piece of paper would in any way reinforce the US position in the country. Indeed, it is not necessary to be too smart to see that if such a deal were to be cut, it would, at a stroke, destroy what remains of US credibility in the region. Even more to the point, every Iraqi, every Arab and every decent citizen anywhere in the world would recoil at this brazen attempt to usurp the sovereignty of another country.
The Al-Maliki-led national unity government would be shattered before the ink had dried. The McCain Republican campaign might be tempted to embrace the deal but it is certain that Obama and the Democrats will reject it. Iran would walk away from any rapprochement with Washington and Al-Qaeda and its killers would welcome a new excuse for revenge butchery.
The "strategic alliance" talks must therefore be trashed — as is fitting for the last two-bit policy from a two-term, two-timing president who has tried to deceive everyone but has succeeded mostly in deceiving himself.
Post a Comment