The US would exercise control of Iraqi airspace up to 29,000 feet and have free access to Iraq’s land, air and water. US forces would be allowed to mount operations inside and outside Iraq without Iraqi government approval and troops and civilian contractors would have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law. The US would be empowered to construct and run prisons and detain Iraqis deemed a security threat.
While the US would defend Iraq against antagonists defined as “terrorists”, Washington would not undertake to protect Iraq from all enemies or to maintain its “democratic” regime. The US government would have to be informed of and consulted about Iraq’s external relations and treaties.
The US is also determined to keep control of the Iraqi economy and calls for privatisation of the oil industry. This is a risky policy because it could generate widespread opposition. Middle East Economic Survey reported that Jabbar Al Laibi, head of Iraq’s South Oil Company (SOC) based in Basra, was recently dismissed from his post by Oil Minister Hussein Shahristani, an ally of Maliki. Laibi, an opponent of privatisation, was a highly regarded civil servant credited with maintaining the flow of oil through the southern terminal since 2003. His removal could cause trouble in the SOC or prompt strikes by oil workers. SOC exports provide most of Iraq’s foreign earnings.
The fact that the US and Maliki have tried to keep the contents of the SOA secret shows that both fear its terms will be rejected by Iraqis. In an attempt to ease Iraqi concerns, the US has reportedly amended the draft so it contains a pledge that US forces in Iraq would not attack neighbouring countries (a provision in line with Iraq’s 2005 constitution) and that Iraqi forces would be told in advance of action by US ground forces. (What about operations by air and sea forces?)
Iraqi parliamentarians have so far focused on the military aspects of the pact, but the US determination to exercise control of the economy is equally dangerous.
Iraqi parliamentarians insist Baghdad cannot sign any SOA while 151,000 US troops occupy the country. They prefer an extension of the UN mandate, which ends in December. Supporters of dissident Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr have been holding weekly demonstrations against the pact. The Sadrists demand a referendum on the agreement. Influential Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani agrees. Sunni Vice President Tareq Al Hashemi and the Association of Muslim Scholars, a leading Sunni grouping, have condemned the SOA.
Haidar Al Abadi, a member of Maliki’s own bloc, revealed that the positions of the sides are far apart and the Iraqi side is “studying its options. The Americans have some demands that the Iraqi government regards as infringing on its sovereignty. This is the main dispute and if it is not settled, there will not be an agreement”.
Hadi Al Amri, head of the Badr Corps, the military arm of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC), said flatly that the latest draft of the SOA was unacceptable. This was not the first time a SIIC figure expressed opposition. SIIC is both Maliki’s main Shiite partner in the coalition and a close ally of Iran, which founded the organisation during 1982 and recruited, trained, armed and funded the Badr Corps.
During meetings with Iranian officials last weekend, Maliki tried to reassure them that Iraq would “not become a platform for harming the security of Iran and neighbours”. But he did not succeed. Iran’s Supreme Guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him that the deployment of US troops in Iraq poses the greatest danger to that country and warned Maliki against allowing the US to impose its will on Iraq.
Maliki agreed last November with George W. Bush to conclude status of forces and strategic alliance agreements by the end of July. But rejection by a majority of Iraq’s lawmakers has publicised US demands and delayed the deal. The Bush administration has, according to Patrick Cockburn in the Independent (London), instructed the US Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the recipient of Iraq’s oil revenues, to withhold up to $50 billion until the accord is signed. While blackmail, pressure and fear of ouster could compel Maliki and the government to go along with US demands, the Iraqi people cannot be expected to do so.
The Bush administration’s aim is to create long-term or, even, permanent arrangements which will make it all the more difficult for the US military to withdraw from Iraq once Bush has left the White House. The administration also seeks preferential treatment for US oil giants in developing Iraq’s oil fields and marketing its exports. By crafting a pact with military-economic aspects, the administration intends to tie the US military presence to economic benefits which a successor administration would find it difficult to sacrifice by pulling out the troops.
Iraqis, with a smattering of history, are comparing the SOA to the Anglo-Iraqi agreement of 1930, which regularised the presence of British troops and political controllers in the country after Iraq gained nominal “independence”. But they should dig deeper: that agreement infringed far less on Iraq than Bush’s SOA. The 1930 treaty was countered by Iraqi government sabotage, rebellion and popular protests which soured relations between Baghdad and London until the Iraqi army overthrew the king in 1958.
Leaders who do not read history, tend to make the same mistakes committed by predecessors. Bush, who allegedly majored in history while at Yale, clearly did not study the history of this region or, specifically, the history of Iraq. If he had, he would never have invaded and occupied the country.
* Published in the JORDAN TIMES on June 12, 2008. |
