Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraqi Sovereignty and US Bases
In practice, there is less to the American "concessions" than would first appear. The reaction in Iraq to the US demands for the long-term use of military bases and other rights has been so furious that Washington is now offering limited concessions in the negotiations. For example, the US is lowering the number of bases it wants from 58 to "the low dozens" and says it is willing to compromise on legal immunity for foreign contractors according to information leaked to The Independent.
George Bush is willing to modify some of the demands so the Iraqi government can declare "a significant climbdown" by the American side allowing Baghdad to sign the treaty by 31 July.
But the US currently only maintains about 30 large bases in Iraq, some the size of small cities; the rest are "forward operating bases".
The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, denied The Independent's report that the US wanted permanent bases in Iraq. But the reality of the US plan is that Iraqi authority would be purely nominal with a few Iraqi soldiers stationed outside the bases.
It will also be difficult for the US to concede that the tens of thousands of foreign contractors in Iraq, who vary from heavily armed security men to support staff, be liable to Iraqi law because the US Army has become dependent on these forces and could scarcely function without them.
The new deal between Iraq and the US is in theory a "status of forces agreement", which the US already has with more than 80 other countries, but, in practice, it is a manoeuvre by the US administration to avoid calling the agreement a treaty which, under US law, would then have to be submitted to the Senate. With American politicians wholly absorbed in the presidential election there appears to be only limited interest by congressmen and senators in demanding that the agreement, when signed, be submitted to them.
The fate of the new agreement may depend on the attitude of Iran, which has denounced it fiercely, claiming it would permanently enslave Iraq and turn it into an American client state. Senior Iraqi politicians denouncing the deal include members of the main government party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), such as Jalal al-Din al-Saghir. "Is there sovereignty for Iraq -- or isn't there?" he was quoted as saying. "If it is left to them [the US], they would ask for immunity even for American dogs. Other Iraqi politicians have questioned the continuation of the American occupation in any form.
Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, promised Iranian leaders during his visit to Tehran last weekend that Iraqi territory would not be used as an American platform for a military attack on Iran. It is noticeable that the Iraqi politicians within ISCI most vehement in opposing the deal are close to the Badr militia wing of ISCI that has traditionally had close links to Iran.
--Patrick Cockburn
©independent.co.uk
14 Comments so far
Show AllWhat is truly 'sovereign' is a very interesting question these days. I'm not thinking so much in terms of military bases, but instead of the general independence of a sovereign country to organize itself and govern itself as it desires. It often appears as if major corporations and financial interests are able to force countries to do what they want even if the 'sovereign' government would otherwise do something different.
As the other article and thread today makes clear, the devil is in the details. Vagues statements from officials that describe the changes in their own terms are worthless when there is absolutely no ability or reason to trust these same officials not to mislead.
Since an article like this doesn't include the exact language of the agreement, it is very hard to make any judgements at all.
example, the discussion in the article about 'bases' versus 'forward operating bases'. You'd have to see the exact language in the agreement to know if there are really any changes that put any real limits on what the US can do. If for example only 'bases' are limited, and there is no definition of the difference between a 'base' and a 'forward operating base', then there's no limitation on the Pentagon's ability to simply call a major and massive permanent base a 'forward operating base' to get around the SOFA agreement by exploiting a loophole. And its a dead-cinch-certainty the US Gov is trying to put in languages with all sorts of such loopholes whereever it can.
Trusting Bush to keep his word in a negotiation process is like trusting the cat not to eat the mouse. He will say whatever the Iraqi's want to hear and then go ahead and do what he intended all along.
US will be there right up till the last drop of oil is gone and not a second longer. Israel says we need oil and america jumps. TO bad the american public is not included in their own foreign policy, baa baaa
"If it is left to them [the US], they would ask for immunity even for American dogs."
Yes, yes, yes. American dogs are worth more than Iraqi civilians.
Yes, Yes Yes, Israeli dogs are worth more than Palestine people.
See the similarity?
In early 2001, Dick Cheney and his secret Energy Policy Task Force chose the companies that would serve as "suitors" for Iraq's oil. In 2003, the US "helped" Iraq write a new constitution that sought to privatize previously socialized industries and services, including oil. For the past year or two, the US has pressured Iraq to accept "benchmarks" that include giving control of all new drilling (and most of the profits)to the Cheney/Bush friends selected way before 9/11. The companies will not have to hire Iraqis (especially oil union members) or patronize Iraqi vendors or invest a dime into Iraq's economy for 20-25 years.
See the UN site www.globalpolicy.org for a 2005 report on this by Gregg Muttitt and a June 2007 report from 50 or so NGOs that urge Iraq not to sign any such agreements until they have had a chance to re-write their constitution.
AT LAST, Al-Maliki is rebelling against US "leadership" by objecting to (and I hope summarily rejecting) the security plan that would allow the US to have 50 permanent bases and to use them to, I guess, spread democracy. Oh yeah, and fight terror. Maliki is, I hope, moving toward Al-Sadr's position requiring the US to leave competely and instantly in order to let Iraq begin to recover from our illegal occupation and to claim the sovereignty we have thus far denied them.
Only after the American people are taken care of with proper medical care, jobs, and education should one penny be spent on American military bases in Iraq. In fact, the great majority of the existing 700 bases outside the United States should be closed.
The UN is 'totally dysfunctional' simply because the U.S. has done all it can to undermine it since its inception. The U.S. is one of the only countries that hasn't paid its UN dues, won't agree to a World Court, won't fund a UN military and finally abuses its veto power anytime that it feels its corporate or Israeli interests are threatened.
Patrick Cockburn is an excellent journalist who I assume holds back from expressing a lot of his anger and frustration at the Neo-cons manipulation of Iraq. Nevertheless he does point out that the fact that Iraqis don't want ANY US military bases there. This is why (unlike Japan or Germany) Iraq cannot claim that it is truly sovereign. If Japan or Germany ordered the US out of their countries, the US would obey. However the US has no intention of ever leaving Iraq regardless of what the Iraqi people demand.
At the Conference of Paris of 1919/1920 Iraq was founded as a Class A (A = almost ready for self-government) Mandate of the League of Nations and assigned to Great Britain which violated its obligations as mandator. At the end of this year 2008 the shameful designation by the United Nations of Iraq as a Class Z Mandate (Z = it will never become sovereign again)of the USA will come to an end. Does anyone still doubt that the UN has become a totally dysfunctional organization long ago?
"..as I stood on this hillside, I forsaw that in the blinding sunshine of that land I would become acquainted with a flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly.....For a moment I stood appalled, as though by a warning." Joseph Conrad: "Heart of Darkness".
al-Qaeda objected to U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, which is the stated reason of much of their militantism.
The American answer, move the bases to Iraq under the guise of "brining democracy to Iraq."
The U.S. does not own the oil in the middle east. They should get out and solve their oil problem without using military force.
I'm not sure the words "sovereign" and "sovereignty" have any meaning in today's world. There are military bases in a lot of countries that most people would consider genuinely sovereign: Japan, Germany, South Korea. It seems as if a country with enough profitable economic activity going on to benefit the leadership of the multinationals is allowed to govern itself and lay claim to sovereignty to whatever extent doesn't interfere with the bottom line. Sovereignty exists if you're big and tough enough to hold on to it, sort of a "what's mine is mine and what's yours in negotiable" situation.
The only way for Iraq to maintain its sovereignty is to throw the Americans out. Since they can't do it bodily, they'll repeatedly have to go before places like the U.N. and say it very, very loudly: "Get out of our country!" Whether any U.S. president listens will be entirely another matter. There will simply have to be a monumental and worldwide Embarrassment Factor involved to force us out. We're not leaving voluntarily, no matter who our fellow consumers disguised as citizens select to be the next George Wanker Bush.
As long as there are US military bases in Iraq, Iraq will NOT be sovereign, i.e. truly self governing.