When Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, testified before Congress on April 8, 2008, he stated in his written testimony, “we have begun negotiating a bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United States.” In response to questioning by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), Crocker indicated there will be two agreements, a Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement. He asserted that neither of these will require congressional approval.
U.S. forces in Iraq currently operate under a United Nations charter, due to expire at the end of 2008. The Bush Administration has set a deadline of July 31 to finalize the Strategic Framework Agreement, and year-end for the SOFA. These will supercede the U.N. charter and provide the legal framework for U.S. troops remaining in Iraq. Alternatively, Iraq may ask the U.N.to extend the current charter into 2009, according to a Washington Post article on Friday.
This week, purportedly leaked details of the drafts were obtained by Patrick Cockburn of The Independent, along with some Arab publications. According to “Cockburn on Thursday, “A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.”
The U.S. State Dept pushed back quickly:
U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker rejected the notion that the legal and military agreements he wants this year are blueprints for an everlasting American military presence inside Iraq.
Crocker said the deals will not contain secret provisions, and will be “transparent” for both Iraqis and Americans. He said there is no attempt to use any legal or semantic sleight of hand.
“This will be a serious negotiation and there aren’t going to be any efforts to play around with words on this,” he said.
According to Eric Martin at Obsidian Wings,
It’s easy for Crocker and Bush administration officials to claim that we’re not seeking “permanent” bases. The word suggests an infinite timeline that even a staunch imperialist could disavow in good faith. The question is, how contingent a presence? How limited a duration? To what extent will our presence be subject to periodic review by the Iraqi government?
The answers to those questions are far more important than the semantic two step surrounding the word “permanent.”
On Friday, Cockburn followed up, asserting that the US is blackmailing the Iraqi government, in “US issues threat to Iraq’s $50bn foreign reserves in military deal.” According to Cockburn’s source,
The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely…
The article asserts that
The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.
The US had previously denied it wanted permanent bases in Iraq, but American negotiators argue that so long as there is an Iraqi perimeter fence, even if it is manned by only one Iraqi soldier, around a US installation, then Iraq and not the US is in charge.
The US has security agreements with many countries, but none are occupied by 151,000 US soldiers as is Iraq. The US is not even willing to tell the government in Baghdad what American forces are entering or leaving Iraq, apparently because it fears the government will inform the Iranians, said an Iraqi source.
Terms of the draft agreement are said to include American rights to:
- Maintain more than 50 long-term bases within Iraq
- Immunity from Iraqi law for military personnel
- Immunity from Iraqi law for contractors
- Arrest Iraqi citizens without Iraqi government knowledge or approval
- Undertake military operations without Iraqi government knowledge or approval
The Iraqi government is publicly beginning to worry about ceding this much sovereignty to the U.S., although that may be a strategy to try to inoculate themselves against blame. Most of these terms will be extremely unpopular with the Iraqi people, many of whom already view the al-Maliki goverment as a U.S. puppet. al-Maliki’s party’s chances in the Iraqi provincial elections, theoretically to be held this fall, may depend on requiring the US to make some compromises which they have been unwilling to do in the past. While the Iraqi government will probably be forced to sign the agreement ultimately, Muqtada al-Sadr has called for a popular referendum on the plan. According to CNN, “If the government rejects his call for a referendum on the agreement, al-Sadr will order his offices ‘to work on collecting millions of signatures opposing’ it…”
Some of these measures will also be unpopular here in the U.S. The agreement has not received much coverage in the media here, particularly on television. There has been some coverage of the issue in the blogosphere. Hopefully some combination of online discussion, Congressional action and Iraqi activism will ultimately force more national coverage and some debate by the presidential candidates.
It appears that the Bush administration planned to support GOP candidates’ chances in the U.S. November elections by winding up the Strategic Framework agreement by July 31 and by ensuring that the Iraqi’s carry out provincial elections on October 1. The date for the elections is already in jeopardy; according to testimony by General Petraeus two weeks ago, they will probably not be held until November.
The push for getting the Strategic Framework completed in July has been set back this week also. As a supporter of transparency in government, I am pleased with the revelations this past week. Making bilateral agreements which neither country’s population will support seems to me to be a recipe for further disasters for both Iraq and the United States. And the process by which these agreements are being negotiated seems particularly autocratic…. hardly the type of message to send to a fledgling democracy we are theoretically trying to nurture.
[...] The U.S. State Department’s David M. Satterfield is “confident” that the proposed agreements between Iraq and the U.S. outlining their future relationship can be completed in July. According [...]