[DEBATE] : US-Iraq Agreement Leaked

[Riaz K Tayob]

Snip:

... "In a word, this arrangement is a new face for the occupation," Ali 
said...

.... suggests that the Iraqi parliament may not be consulted before it 
is signed...

...the US-Iraq pact goes far beyond the bounds of a traditional SOFA, 
since it grants US military personnel the authority to continue 
fighting. (Typical SOFA provisions include US military members' banking 
and postal procedures, legal policies relating to military personnel and 
the transport of Americans' property into and out of the country.)...

...The draft states that a deadline will be set to pull out "combat 
troops," though the exact date had not been filled in at the time of its 
release. No timeline is provided for the departure of noncombat troops. 
Those soldiers would be permitted to linger indefinitely on 
"installations and areas agreed upon" - the agreement's lingo for 
"military bases." ...




US-Iraq Agreement Leaked

Friday 05 September 2008

by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo A leaked draft of the US-Iraq status of forces agreement indicates 
that there is no intent to set a deadline for the withdrawal of 
"noncombat" troops from Iraq. (Photo: Ceerwan Aziz / Reuters)

A leaked version of last month's draft of the proposed US-Iraq status of 
forces agreement (SOFA) suggests that the Iraqi parliament may not be 
consulted before it is signed, despite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's 
promises to do so. The pact would govern the future US presence in Iraq. 
The draft indicates no intent to set a deadline for withdrawal of 
"noncombat" troops from Iraq. It also grants immunity from Iraqi law to 
US military personnel, no matter where they are located.

The draft was translated and provided to Truthout by Raed Jarrar, Iraq 
consultant for the American Friends Service Committee. It comes after 
months of assurances from Maliki that the agreement would be sent to 
parliament. However, the draft SOFA states, "This agreement goes into 
effect on the day that diplomatic memos confirming all constitutional 
procedures have been met in both countries are exchanged," and sets a 
December 31 deadline for this memo exchange.

Designating a memo exchange between executive branches as the go-ahead 
to put the plan into action opens up a gaping loophole, making it simple 
to bypass parliamentary ratification, according to Jarrar. Since the 
"constitutional procedures" that are to be followed aren't specified - 
and Iraq's laws are not yet set in stone - the Maliki administration's 
lawyers could easily interpret a bilateral executive agreement as 
constitutional. Unlike parliament, the Iraqi executive branch operates 
out of the US green zone and is backed by the United States.

"I won't be surprised if someone in the Iraqi executive branch decides 
that it is enough to read the agreement before the parliament, or 
'consult' with them, or pass it as a law with simple majority or 
whatever other tricks they might pull," Jarrar told Truthout, adding 
that the December 31 deadline makes the language even more suspect. "How 
can they make sure all 'constitutional procedures' [are completed] 
before December 31? What will happen if they are not done?"

The prospect of an impending deadline certainly clashes with hopes of 
parliamentary approval, according to Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani, head of 
the Iraqi parliament. In a rare interview with the news agency 
Al-Arabiya, Al-Mashhadani stressed that parliament could not even 
consider a SOFA right now, since a law governing procedures on 
international agreements has not been passed.

"The Iraqi constitution determines that the House of Representatives 
must first enact a law to ratify the Law of Treaties and Agreements, and 
must vote or pass this law through parliament by two-thirds majority," 
Al-Mashhadani said. "So, before discussing the treaty, we must enact 
this law by two-thirds."

Al-Mashhadani stated that the Law of Treaties and Agreements would "take 
a long time to pass," and would "not be enacted before the end of the 
year."

Therefore, the SOFA draft deadline would not allow the possibility of 
parliamentary approval before passage.

Iraq's executive branch has a history of circumventing the legislature, 
according to Foreign Policy in Focus Fellow Erik Leaver: The 
administration did not consult parliament in 2007 when it agreed on the 
extension of the UN mandate allowing a continuing US presence in Iraq. 
However, says Leaver, because parliament has been so publicly vocal in 
its insistence on being involved in the SOFA process, ignoring the 
legislature may have heavier consequences this time around.

"I would expect a legal challenge in Iraq - and perhaps the US - if the 
accord moves forward in an exchange of memos," Leaver told Truthout. 
"Beyond legal challenges, enormous political pressure would be put upon 
him, perhaps causing a rise in instability and a certain delay in the 
scheduled [2008] fall elections in Iraq."

Jarrar suggested that bypassing parliament may even "lead to some groups 
quitting the political process."

Ahmed Ali, an Iraqi correspondent based in Diyala, told Truthout that 
the possible circumvention of parliamentary approval reveals the nature 
of the agreement itself: It runs contrary to the wishes of most Iraqi 
people and their representatives, who would rather all troops leave the 
country quickly.

"[The SOFA] is superficial," Ali said. "They are telling Iraqis, 'You 
have to accept it; you can say no word.'"

Meanwhile, the American people and their representatives are getting a 
similarly short end of the stick, according to Steve Fox, director of 
the American Freedom Campaign, a nonpartisan organization that works to 
combat executive power abuses. Fox notes that, although SOFAs are 
usually bilateral executive agreements, the US-Iraq pact goes far beyond 
the bounds of a traditional SOFA, since it grants US military personnel 
the authority to continue fighting. (Typical SOFA provisions include US 
military members' banking and postal procedures, legal policies relating 
to military personnel and the transport of Americans' property into and 
out of the country.)

"For the past seven years, the president has treated Congress like an 
inferior branch of government," Fox told Truthout. "This pending 
agreement with Iraq is just another example. It is clear that the 
agreement goes beyond the reach of a traditional SOFA and it should be 
approved by Congress before it goes into effect. But the president has 
no intention of seeking Congressional approval. In our opinion, Congress 
should issue a 'signing statement' of its own, declaring the agreement 
unconstitutional and signaling that it will fund the activities outlined 
in the agreement at its own discretion."

Timetable for (Partial) Withdrawal

Over the past couple of months, Maliki has firmly advocated a quick, 
total withdrawal of US troops. Many in Iraq believe that his strong 
language is intended to sell the SOFA to parliament. However, if 
parliament is not consulted on the deal, it will likely contain very 
weak withdrawal guidelines, as outlined in the leaked draft.

The draft states that a deadline will be set to pull out "combat 
troops," though the exact date had not been filled in at the time of its 
release. No timeline is provided for the departure of noncombat troops. 
Those soldiers would be permitted to linger indefinitely on 
"installations and areas agreed upon" - the agreement's lingo for 
"military bases."

The "noncombat" designation is notably vague, according to Leaver.

"It doesn't define what role noncombatant troops would have, nor does it 
define the potential numbers left behind," Leaver said, adding that the 
agreement doesn't specify what role remaining military contractors would 
play in a "post-withdrawal" Iraq.

Although its definitions might be murky, the way the agreement's 
"withdrawal" plan will be received in Iraq is fairly clear, according to 
Ali.

"In a word, this arrangement is a new face for the occupation," Ali said.

Troop Immunity

The SOFA draft grants US troops full immunity from Iraqi law, stating, 
"The U.S. has exclusive legal jurisdiction over U.S. armed forces 
members and civilian members inside and outside installations and areas 
agreed upon."

Following that clause is a "suggestion" from the Iraqi negotiators, 
which proposes that US personnel be given immunity "except for 
intentional crimes and major mistakes."

"Intentional crimes and major mistakes" are not defined, and according 
to Jarrar, the "Iraqi suggestions" sprinkled throughout the draft do not 
hold much water.

"All the Iraqi suggestions show that the Iraqi team doesn't have much 
leeway," Jarrar said.

The generous immunity clause is not standard for SOFAs, according to 
Joseph Gerson, author of "The Sun Never Sets: Confronting the Network of 
Foreign Military Bases." In fact, in countries with more leverage, like 
Japan and western European nations, US soldiers who commit crimes may 
well be subject to native law. By seeking blanket immunity for troops in 
"post-withdrawal" Iraq, the Bush administration is following a 
treacherous historical pattern.

"Such indemnification is often sought by the Pentagon when new bases are 
established, and it is as close to a raw practice of imperialism as one 
can imagine," Gerson told Truthout.

Leaver notes that the wide-open immunity clause coincides with a high 
prevalence of US-inflicted civilian casualties in Iraq, leaving victims 
of those crimes with no recourse.

According to Ali, that's an untenable loophole.

"The US troops should be tried by Iraqi law," Ali said. "Every day, they 
kill people by mistake. Let's imagine that whole case in the United 
States, what the result would be - can you? 
http://www.truthout.org/article/us-iraq-agreement-leaked

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm