Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraq: Making It Someone Else's Problem
When is a treaty between two nations not a treaty? When the president doesn't call it a treaty and refuses to submit it to Congressional scrutiny.
The Boston Globe reported Friday that the Bush administration plans to sign a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that would commit U.S. troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
It's called the "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America." The first principle of the declaration is to support Iraq "in defending its democratic systems against internal and external threats."
But that principle, which implies that U.S. forces would defend Iraq against any external threat, makes this "declaration" a treaty, and according to the U.S. Constitution, that means it is subject to Senate ratification.
But the Bush administration has rarely paid attention to the Constitution when it wants something. A White House official told the Globe it has no intention of submitting the deal to Congress -- a move that is unprecedented in American history.
For example, after World War II, when the United States entered into security agreements with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand and the original members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties and submitted them to Congress.
Similarly, in 1985, when President Reagan made guarantees to commit U.S. forces to defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia, he also submitted the agreements to Congress.
The United Nations Security Council mandate that permits U.S. forces to occupy Iraq expires on Dec. 31, 2008. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki would like to get a deal done before Bush leaves office to ensure a lasting American military presence in Iraq.
The deal is not just about security for Iraq. It also includes promises of debt forgiveness, economic and technical aid and preferential treatment for American investments in Iraq. Again, to make promises like this without involving Congress has never been done before.
You can see why Bush is pursuing this path. He realizes that a deal like this would be nearly impossible to sell to both Congress and the American people. So, by pretending this is not a treaty, he can get away with cutting out public scrutiny of the deal.
Additionally, such a pact would make it more difficult for the next president to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. While the next president could tear up this agreement, diplomatic protocol states that when a country makes an agreement, it has to honor it.
However, this argument rings a bit hollow since the Bush administration has rejected or refused to take action on more international agreements than any president in history. Some of the big ones include the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (because they prevent the United States from deploying a new generation of nuclear weapons), the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases (because it might hurt the ability of corporate America to make endless profits), as well as agreements on reducing the proliferation of small arms and land mines that fuel regional wars around the world (because we are the largest arms dealer in the world), and the International Criminal Court (because we don't want our leaders tried for war crimes).
Military leaders are saying that U.S. forces need to stay in Iraq for at least another decade. The proposed agreement between Bush and Al-Maliki would cement that strategy.
Some may be asking, "Wait a minute, hasn't the "surge" made a difference? Aren't things calmer in Iraq now and aren't fewer Americans getting killed?"
Well, if you measure a sovereign nation by its ability to maintain internal security and repel external threats, Iraq is not at that point. If you include the millions of displaced Iraqis, the total collapse of civil society and the lack of a functioning infrastructure, Iraq remains a basket case.
Committing our soldiers to stay in Iraq for decades to come will not change this picture. Maintaining a military occupation that a majority of Iraqis want to see end will not improve conditions. But if the goal is to kick the problem down the road so that someone other than President Bush takes the blame for the failure, mission accomplished.
© 2008 The Reformer
15 Comments so far
Show AllYes, hms0898, they are war criminals along with the "loyal Opposition" that manages the loyal part alright, then forgets the opposition part.
the republicans seem to think that the clinton impeachment/debacle set the high-water mark for impeachable offenses.
hopefully it won't take the congress long to realize that the clinton impeachment in fact set the LOW WATER MARK for impeachable offenses.
sure... you can get impeached for a blow-job (what we used to call "an affair").
but you can also get impeached for... oh... i'm sure i could think of AT LEAST 935 reasons.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
If the democrats had the votes this would not be happening,
I urge you all to vote out any republican and not to vote for any new republican President,
They are war criminals
There's a five letter word that is destroying this country GREED. There's a four letter word that is destroying this country BUSH. There's a three letter word that is destroying this country OIL.
Where do we get this nonsense about leaders? America was supposed to be a democracy. We are supposed to be electing representatives.
it's all about the incredibly ugly fact that the supposedly u.s. congress refuses to take responsibility for our military policy. no one has a right to bitch about anything in this situation except congressional cowardice and the electorate's tolerance of it.
In the list of international treaties the Bush regime has ignored, reinterpreted into absurdity, or flat out abrogated during the last seven years, please don't leave out -
1. The United Nations charter provisions on initiating armed conflict with another state,
2. The Geneva Conventions POW protections, and
3. The Anti-Torture treaty with its prohibitions upon cruel and demeaning treatment of persons detained in police or military custody.
Also, this article refers to one of the other legal wrinkles long lying dormant in the US occupation of Iraq: the UN Security Council mandate scheduled to expire on New Years eve, which must be renewed annually at the request of the Iraqi government, a post-US invasion veneer of legality under international law which could be cancelled at any time by the United Nations upon receipt of a request from the Iraqi government to do so.
Don't hold your breath on Maliki, of course. But if there were a future replacement government in Baghdad (coalition or not) that decided to listen to the Iraqi grassroots majority, and that replacement government turned to the UN Security Council with a formal request for the US military to withdraw, it would be very politically painful (if not impossible) for any US President to refuse to obey a joint Iraqi-UN call for all American forces to go home.
Although international law is (as usual) somewhat murky, cancellation of the United Nations mandate at the request of a sovereign state may likely trump whatever long term deals for enduring military bases, or for favorable oil productiion sharing agreements with US petroleum companies, that Bush and Maliki and their respective cronies might ink between now and 2009.
I mean, let's get real. The Iraqis know all about the US election cycle time frame. The Iraqis knew the surge was a temporary escalation all along.
Once it became apparent to everybody that Little George would never change his occupation policies before leaving office, and equally apparent that the Democratic parliament lacked the power or willingness to force Bush's hand, everybody in every Iraqi political and sectarian faction decided to take a deep breath, back down to regroup a bit, wait out the lame duck's last quack, and prepare for the next phase of whatever fresh hell there is to come in Mesopotamia, once 2008 has finally run its course.
Rudy, Mitt, and John McCain can all beat their breasts all they want right now about how many years, decades, or generations they intend to stay if the military situation calls for it. But the ability of an Iraqi government to pull the plug on Uncle Sam through the United Nations system is a real joker, with real potential, in the real world deck that our Commander in Chief has so arrogantly dealt.
How's that song go again? "You gotta know when to hold, know when to fold, know when to walk away......"
Bill from Saginaw
How does it feel to live in a Kingdom, while Congress acts as little more than a speed bump that for each instance of overreaching by the White House delays the inevitable betrayal of the people by a handful of days at most.
It's worth noting here, folks, that just because you can pull a stunt like this and maybe even get away with it doesn't guarantee it's going to work. Iraq is never going to be "secure" as long as a single American trooper or mercernary is on the ground. The Iraqis have put up with way too many years of this nonsense, so I wouldn't be suprised if several influential someones over there say "Stuff it!". The hour is too late for any American or business interests to have any say on the final outcome. The only thing left is to ride it out to the end.
As described by the president, this isn't a treaty at all but an executive agreement. The next president can rescind at the stroke of a pen. And damn few real treaties don't have clauses for amendment or abolition. It's just another attempt by George "L" Bush to convince us he's winning.
Bush would find it impossible to sell this to Congress and the American people?
Who are they kidding? The Patriot Act, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, the Real ID Act, the FISA thing he was pushing last night- there is nothing Congress won't pass and the American people won't stomach.
Surely this would finally be an impeachable offense? Come on, guys!
Bush is a "decider" rather than a leader and an oil man rather than president of the United States.
Once again, there seems to be surprisingly little Democratic opposition to this typical world-changing, law-breaking bullshit.
Once the long term occupation of Iraq is "secured", the US can "secure" the oil in other Asian nations, thereby consumating the ultimate private/public partnership:
The private side will be global oil companies getting the oil to sell to the highest bidder (probably not the US, since the falling US Dollar won't be able to compete with other currencies), while the public side will be the US taxpayers footing the cost of the military keeping the oil fields and transportation corridors open for the oil companies.