Iraqi sovereignty at stake?

June 4, 2008

Iraqi sovereignty at stake?

by pv vivekanand


A RARE point of agreement of Sunni and Shiite Iraqis is rejection of the draft of a security agreement proposed by the United States, and it is unlikely that Washington would be able to convince them to accept it. But then that is the least of the potential problems that the US faces as it desparately seeks to sucessfully close and seal some of the key files on Iraq, more than five years after invading and occupyng the country.
According to reports, one of the key points of dispute in negotiations between the US and Iraqi governments over the draft security agreement is that the US wants its troops to have complete freedom of movement in the country, whereas the Iraqis want it to be limited.
The US wants to retain the right to dominate Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet, and to gain open access to the land, air and water of Iraq. It also wants to retain the right to arrest and detain any Iraqi whom the US believes represents a security threat. The US wants to reserve the right to launch military operations to chase terrorists without seeking Iraqi government permission and wants immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for American troops, contractors and corporations in Iraq.
The US also wants to retain the right to define terrorism against Iraq. It does not want to give any undertaking that it will defend Iraq from any outside attack unless it is convinced about the nature of that attack
The US-Iraq negotiations have not made any headway on the draft and thus it seems impossible for Washington to meet a July deadline for concluding and signing it.
Beyond that, however, the very nature of the agreement, which seeks to legitimise the US colonialisation of Iraq, makes it unacceptable to the Iraqis, whether Sunnis or Shiites. That removes the central pillar from the US designs and plans which essentially seek to turn Iraq into an advance base for the US military in the Gulf region.
Washington is emphatically denying that wants to set up permanent military bases in Iraq, but it is only a matter of semantics because, under the controversial draft agreement, the US would definitely have permanent military presence in the country.
The draft agreement is proposed to replace the United Nations authorisation of the US occupation that expires at the end of 2008.
Leading Iraqi opposition to the agreement is firebrand Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr, whose powerful movement staged a formidable protest last week against the draft agreement and also announced subsequent protests planned for the duration of the summer.
Voices of dissent against the draft are emerging from all parts of Iraqi society.
The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq describes it as "reflecting the US occupation's political, economic, military, and social hegemony over Iraq."
The Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council (IISC), one of the largest Shiit groups, has expressed reservations over the agreement. IISC leader Abdul Aziz Al Hakim says that "there are clauses in the agreement that encroach on Iraq's sovereignty."
Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, until recently a voice of moderation in fractious and chaotic Iraqi political system and widely described as the most powerful figure in Iraq, is demanding a national referendum on any agreement on the US military occupation of his country.
It is a demand that the US would not be able to reject, but the outcome is predictable: A massive "No" to any extension of the US military occupation Iraq. The Iraqis do have good reasons to vote "no." They are perfectly aware that a long-term US military occupation would erode their sovereignty. US occupations have passed the half-century mark in countries such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea, and the Iraqis have a legitimate cause for concern that the US intends to add their country to its list of open-ended occupation.
The US also faces opposition to its plans from outside Iraq.
Iran, which wields high influence in Iraq, is concerned that any long-term US military occupation of its neighbour may be used as a springboard to attack Iran.
The least that could be expected from Iran is an intensification of efforts to keep the US engaged within Iraq and prevent it from shifting its gunsight eastwards.
The reported US assurance to Iraq that it would not use Iraqi territory for possible military action against Iran is not at all convincing because it is elementary that Iraq would find itself in the middle of any US-Iranian military conflict.
The US administration also faces congresssional opposition to the proposed agreement with Iraq despite its pledge that any agreement will not be binding on the new president or commit the US to maintain a minimum level of military presence to to prop up the Iraqi government. The US Congress is also unhappy over the administration's insistence that the proposed agreement with Iraq does not require Congressional ratification.
In general, the Bush administration seems to be satisfied that it would be able to circumvent and ride out any Congressional opposition to the draft accord with Iraq as it has done in the past.
Back in Iraq, the US could also expect a surge in violence against the talk of extended US military presence. Groups which have been fighting each other before putting away their guns until after an expected US departure would have no incentive to hold their fire and many of them would definitely target US soldiers.
As of now, there is little to show as progress in the US-Iraq negotiations, with Haidar Al Abadi, a member of parliament from Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, affirming this week that the Iraqis and the Americans were far apart on the security agreement. He said negotiations "are at a standstill, and the Iraqi side is studying its options."
"The Americans have some demands that the Iraqi government regards as infringing on its sovereignty," according to Abadi. "This is the main dispute, and if the dispute is not settled, I frankly tell you there will not be an agreement."
Clearly, most people, including groups which supported the US invasion of Iraq, are now talking about infringement of Iraqi sovereignty by the US. That raises a simple question: How come they did not raise any concern over Iraqi sovereignty when they not only invited the US to invade the country but also rode on the backs of US military tanks across the border into Iraq in March 2003?