|
|
|
|
Status of Forces Agreement Would Defy Iraq’s Sovereignty and Prolong an Illegal Occupation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kristina Gronquist, W A M M
|
|
Don’t rely on mainstream media to raise concerns about the things that matter most. An article from CNN.com/world provides scant details about a dangerous U.S.-Iraq security pact that the Bush Administration is trying to force on Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, before the end of July. The CNN report describes the measure in grossly simplified terms, making it seem benign: “The United States and Iraq are trying to reach a bilateral agreement on how long the U.S. military will remain in Iraq and what role it will play in Iraq’s security.” The June 8 CNN article does mention Iran’s (well-founded) fear that if such an agreement is signed, Iraq will become a launching pad for an attack on Iran.
The true portent of the U.S.-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is alarming for Iraqis, the people of the Middle East, U.S. citizens, and all others who seek an end to the disastrous war. Journalist and author Patrick Cockburn, writing in The Independent, says that the secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad “would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November.” The U.N. mandate on the U.S. occupation of Iraq ends December 31, 2008. If Bush is able to implement this agreement, occupation troops (now at 151,000) could remain indefinitely and the U.S. could retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq.
According to Cockburn, American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government. Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet to
conduct deadly bombing missions that are sure to kill more civilians.
If the agreement is sealed, Bush could claim victory with the neoconservative goal of remaking the oil-rich Iraq into a colonial-style client state. This would prevent a newly elected administration from being able to carry out campaign promises of withdrawing troops. Not surprisingly, the agreement is being roundly condemned by a majority of Iraqis.
People torched a U.S. flag in Baghdad’s Shiite stronghold of Sadr City June 6 after weekly Friday prayers to denounce the proposed agreement to deploy American troops in the country beyond 2008.
The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every
Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence. The protesters also set on fire an effigy of George W. Bush and vowed allegiance to al-Sadr, as government troops watched from rooftops. (AFP, June 6.)
“While the Americans have their own agenda, we have ours—the sovereignty of Iraq,” declared Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, who heads the UIC (the Unified Iraqi Coalition, the Shiite bloc serving as the backbone of the current Baghdad government contingent in parliament). Al-Saghir shrugged off the requirement that the agreement be concluded by July, observing: “We shall not bow to any timetable that might sacrifice Iraq’s fundamental principles.” (Buratha News, June 4.)
An editorial in Lebanon’s The Daily Star on June 9th, titled “Bush’s last-ditch bid to make Iraq a protectorate isn’t fooling anyone” is scathing in its response to the agreement and likely reflects the sentiment of many in the Middle East. This is an excerpt from the editorial:
Having reduced one of the Arab world’s strongest countries to political chaos and economic penury, therefore, the Americans are now using extortion to make it a protectorate in all but name. It is one of the last, desperate gambits to “justify” all the blood and treasure – both American and Iraqi – squandered already, and it almost certainly will not work. (www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=92882&categ_id=17)
Influential Iraqi cleric Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani rejected the U.S.-prepared draft security agreement to continue a presence in Iraq, Iraqi newspapers reported Thursday, June 5. According to the newspapers, Ayatollah Sistani laid down four conditions for any such agreement to be approved, adding that he was against any long-term security pact with America. Sistani had demanded that any such pacts preserve Iraqi national sovereignty and be transparent. He also demanded that any such pacts receive a national consensus and be ratified by the Iraqi parliament. The U.S. cabal running Iraq’s affairs will not want to put the terms of the agreement to a democratic referendum where it is sure to fail.
At a special June 5th hearing on Capitol Hill, members of the Iraqi parliament hand-delivered a letter to members of Congress that rejected the idea of a U.S.-Iraq agreement unless the United States agrees to a specific timetable to get out of Iraq. The letter, which was signed by numerous parliamentarians from a variety of Iraq’s political parties, stated:
“Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.”
Amjad Al-Jawhary represents the Iraq Freedom Congress, an organization “Working for a Democratic, Secular and Progressive Alternative to both the U.S. Occupation and Political Islam in Iraq.”
In a recent IFC statement condemning SOFA Al-Jawhary stated:
“The U.S. administration plans to tie Iraq to a treaty that will guarantee a U.S. military presence and political interference with absolute control of the wealth and resources of Iraq. The proposed treaty reveals once again the disingenuous goals and incentives of the U.S.-led war and occupation of Iraq. These goals have always contradicted the pretexts for invading Iraq such as searching for weapons of mass destruction, ridding Iraq of a dictatorship and, most absurdly of all — spreading democracy in the region.
“Iraq Freedom Congress totally rejects such a treaty which openly undermines the interests of Iraqis and the region. Furthermore, signatories of this treaty from the Iraqi government or the National Assembly do not represent Iraqis nor do they have the mandate to speak for Iraqis.” (www.ifcongress.com 6/16/08)
It is clear that Iraqis do not want the SOFA agreement, nor do Iraq’s neighbors. A majority of U.S. citizens oppose the war and have voted for change that spells out troop withdrawals, not unending troop occupation and continued intervention in Iraq’s affairs. The mainstream media is doing a terrible job of alerting the public to the importance of this agreement and its dire implications for U.S. troops and Iraqis.
It is up to those of us who know the facts to unequivocally get the word out: we don’t want any one-sided, forced agreement with Iraq that continues the occupation. We want immediate troop withdrawal followed by humanitarian assistance for internal and external war refugees, diplomatic steps toward peaceful reconciliation between all parties and massive financial reparations, all on Iraq’s terms. An official apology from the U.S. government for all the harm it has done in Iraq is also needed, but as time-worn, historically astute peace activists, we are not naïve enough to expect the shallow two-party system to ever own up, in any genuine and compassionate manner, to its horrendous mistakes. We, the citizens of the U.S. who oppose this war, must be the voices of change. |
|
|
Co$t of War
About 35 million Americans regularly go hungry each year, according to federal statistics. Last year, a Harvard domestic policy expert who studies hunger issues calculated that it would cost about $12 billion annually in federal spending to eliminate hunger through additional funding for food stamps and other nutritional programs. The U.S. Senate just approved a war funding bill to the tune of $260 billion. If that money were spent on food stamps and nutritional programs instead, hunger could be eliminated for the next two decades, until 2030.
|
|
|
|
|
© 2008 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete June 2008 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
