Iraq: U.S., Iraqi lawmakers question security pact
NewsNotes, July-August 2008
President
Bush has been negotiating a security pact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in the hope of
finalizing an agreement by July 31. The proposal brings up thorny issues
surrounding Iraqi sovereignty and the U.S. presence in Iraq. It also raises
challenging questions for the U.S. Congress, the Iraqi Parliament and the UN.
Ultimately U.S. lawmakers must resolve whether the president may negotiate the
pact on his own or whether it constitutes a treaty, thus requiring Senate
approval.
The president says the bilateral
pact he seeks with Iraq is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) like those the
U.S. has signed with many other nations – countries that host more than 1,000
U.S. military bases around the world.
“But,” Phyllis Bennis
writes, “those other countries – such as Germany and Japan – are not at
war. Those SOFA agreements do not give U.S. troops the right to arrest German
or Japanese citizens and hold them indefinitely without charges; … crucially,
they do not allow U.S. troops to launch military attacks within their countries
or against other countries without even pretending to consult with the local
government.”
The proposed bilateral agreement
with Iraq apparently goes beyond most SOFA agreements, says Bennis,
a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. While no
official text has been released – and negotiations go on behind closed doors –
the agreement would reportedly allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely,
allow the U.S. to maintain its nearly 60 military bases in Iraq indefinitely,
and allow U.S. troops to launch military attacks in Iraq without consulting the
Iraqi government.
In an earlier version of the
agreement the U.S. promised to defend Iraq – which some lawmakers considered
treaty language and thus subject to Senate approval. More recently the
administration has proposed language pledging U.S. assistance to help Iraqi
forces defend themselves. The administration has tried to allay skeptics’ fears
by insisting the agreement would be nonbinding.
Resolution of the issue is becoming
more urgent. The current UN mandate authorizing U.S. and British troops in Iraq
will expire Dec. 31. Without a new understanding between the U.S. and Iraq, the
presence of the 150,000 or so remaining U.S. occupation troops would be
illegal, leaving them without immunity from Iraqi law.
However, resistance to a bilateral
agreement is growing. On June 12 Maliki expressed
opposition to aspects of the proposal. A group of Iraqi parliamentarians has
sent a letter to Congress stating their willingness to “ratify agreements that
end every form of American intervention in Iraq’s internal affairs and restore
Iraq’s independence and sovereignty over its land.” Iraqi oil minister Hussain
al-Shahristani said June 17 that “foreign troops on
Iraqi soil carrying out operations without the prior consent and approval of
the elected government is a violation” of national sovereignty.
Nevertheless, Iraq has said it would
seek an extension of the UN mandate authorizing U.S.-led forces on its soil if
the SOFA negotiations are unsuccessful. “Several countries on the [Security]
Council – including South Africa, Libya, Indonesia, and possibly Vietnam, along
with permanent members Russia and China – likely have some hesitation about the
UN being asked once again to provide legitimacy for the U.S. occupation of Iraq
and immunity for U.S. occupation soldiers,” Bennis says. “But there is little reason to think any of those countries – with the
possible exception of South Africa – would be willing to stand up and resist
U.S. pressure to give the occupation UN approval.”
The Iraqi parliament would have to
approve any status of forces agreement, but the outstanding issues make an
early decision increasingly unlikely. It has not been determined whether U.S.
bases in Iraq would be permanent, or who would control them. Disputes also
center on how freely the U.S. could use the bases, and for what operations –
inside Iraq or against other countries.
The Iraqi government wants U.S.
troops and other U.S. citizens who are charged with crimes to be tried in Iraqi
courts. The U.S. has conceded jurisdiction in Iraqi courts over thousands of
private contractors in Iraq, but it refuses to extend Iraqi jurisdiction over
U.S. troops.
Maliki,
who is trying to increase his credibility, cannot afford to make too many
concessions to the U.S. And with provincial elections coming this fall, Iraqi
parties, too, are at pains to boost their popularity by distancing themselves
from the U.S. occupation. Thus, while Bush hopes for an agreement by July 31,
the Iraqi parliament is unlikely to review the SOFA text until this fall.
"Legalizing"
the U.S. occupation of Iraq, written by Phyllis Bennis.