[Peace-discuss] Iraq: The SOFA

[Brussel Morton K.]

 From http://www.truthout.org/112808Z

Despite Agreement, US Future in Iraq Unclear
Friday 28 November 2008
by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report

     Iraq's Parliament passed the US-Iraq security pact by a slim  
majority on Wednesday, requiring that US troops withdraw from Iraq by  
2011, unless the Iraqi people vote for a quicker withdrawal next  
year. The agreement is a muddle of triumphs and disappointments.

     The pact - termed a status of forces agreement (SOFA) - has seen  
considerable revision since its early stages. To the rejoicing of  
activists on both sides, it now sets a timetable for withdrawal, a  
provision the Bush administration previously refused to consider.

     However, as some in Parliament have pointed out, a three-year  
timetable is twice as long as the one suggested by President-elect  
Obama, and under the pact, either side needs to give a one-year  
warning before canceling it. So, when Obama takes office, he couldn't  
nix the SOFA by command.

     Added to Wednesday's version of the SOFA was a provision  
important to many in Parliament: the requirement of a public  
referendum. In July 2009, the Iraqi people will vote on whether the  
pact should stay in place. If they reject it, though, it will still  
remain valid for another year - until mid-2010 - due to the one-year- 
warning clause.

     Iraqis are quite likely to vote the pact down, preferring a  
quicker withdrawal, according to Raed Jarrar, Iraq consultant to the  
American Friends Service Committee. Although some in the government  
may try to "play games" and prevent the referendum from moving  
forward as planned, many in Iraq will push for a timely public vote,  
according to Jarrar. Polls in Iraqi media have shown that most Iraqis  
oppose the pact's three-year time frame.

     The SOFA has gotten as far as it has largely because the  
government's executive branch, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki  
and backed by the Bush administration, has pushed ardently for its  
passage, and itself approved the agreement almost unanimously two  
weeks ago.

     "The vast majority of Iraqis are against it," Ali al-Fadhily, an  
independent correspondent living in Baghdad, told Truthout. "But  
those in power realize that it is the US existence in Iraq that keeps  
them in power, and so they [were] keen on signing it as soon as  
possible regardless of its conflict with the interests of Iraq and  
its people."

     The legislature was a tougher fight: Since Iraq's Parliament is  
more representative of the people than the cabinet, controversy over  
the agreement raged on until the moment of the vote - especially  
since the proceedings did not follow the guidelines prescribed by  
Iraq's Constitution. The pact vote was taken without first passing  
Iraq's "law to ratify international treaties and agreements," which  
would have governed how the SOFA was considered and voted on.

     Also, Jarrar notes that when the cabinet passed the pact, it  
agreed to send it to Parliament "in accordance with Article 61 of the  
Constitution," which requires a two-thirds majority for passage.  
However, Thursday's vote in Parliament was determined by simple  
majority - a procedure that follows a now-obsolete "Saddam-era law,"  
according to Jarrar.

     If Parliament's leaders would have followed current law and  
required a two-thirds majority - 183 votes - for passage, the  
security pact would have failed.

     However, says Jarrar, the referendum mandate mitigates the  
impact of the Constitutional violations.

     Despite the addition of the referendum, some groups in  
Parliament, including followers of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr,  
remained opposed to any occupation-legitimizing agreement. Sadr's  
followers vowed to protest the pact's passage.

     On the US side, negotiations on the pact have been cloaked in  
secrecy. The official English version of the final agreement was  
withheld - from the public and from Congress - throughout most of the  
past few weeks' negotiations. At a recent House Foreign Affairs  
subcommittee hearing on the pact, testifiers had to use a translated  
version supplied by Jarrar. Congressman Bill Delahunt, chairman of  
the subcommittee, criticized the administration's covert handling of  
the pact.

     "We must not forget that this agreement has just been provided  
to Congress – and that there has been no time to conduct the analysis  
required by such a significant document," Delahunt said at the  
hearing. "Even now, the National Security Council has requested that  
we do not show this document to our witnesses or release it to the  
public – a public that for over five years has paid so dearly with  
blood and treasure ... But this is typical of the Bush administration  
and its unhealthy and undemocratic obsession with secrecy."

     Foreign Policy in Focus Fellow Erik Leaver sees a jarring  
disconnect between the processes of SOFA consideration in Iraq and in  
the US.

     "How ironic it is that a country we sought to bring democracy to  
is reading and debating the agreement, while in the US there isn't  
even an official translation of the document for the public," Leaver  
told Truthout.

     According to Jarrar, working from a leaked copy of the English  
version of the agreement, some "discrepancies in translation" exist,  
which could lead to misunderstandings. Discrepancies also exist  
between the US and Iraqi interpretations of the pact: While an Iraqi  
government spokesman stated last week that the agreement would ensure  
that all American troops leave by December 2011, American commanders  
said otherwise.

     "Three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that  
period of time," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of  
Staff, stated at a Defense Department briefing last week. When asked  
whether the agreement's absolute 2011 deadline could be extended,  
Mullen replied, "Well, clearly that's theoretically possible."

     The language of the agreement is vague enough that it could be  
bent to allow such "possibilities." One clause states that, according  
to joint decisions, the US may respond militarily to "security  
threats" against Iraq, and will continue its "close collaboration" in  
supporting, training and maintaining the Iraqi army - all of which  
could keep US troops in Iraq beyond 2011.

     Moreover, some of the pact's security commitments are  
surprisingly broad and vague, according to Leaver. It states that the  
US will defend Iraq against "external or internal danger ... against  
Iraq or an aggression upon ... its sovereignty, its political  
stability, the unity of its land, water, and airspace ... [and] its  
democratic system or its elected establishments."

     "This is a pretty wide open commitment," Leaver said. "For  
example, if Sadr was made Prime Minister, would the US protect him?  
Iraq's upcoming elections could leave Iraq fairly politically unstable."

     Beyond its consequences in Iraq, the approval of the pact sets a  
dangerous precedent for the expansion of executive power in the  
United States. The agreement far overreaches the bounds of typical  
executive-only SOFAs: it grants US troops the "authority to fight,"  
and Congress is the branch vested with the power to declare war. Yet  
the Bush administration drafted and negotiated the pact with the  
Iraqi government without consulting Congress. Bush's actions carve  
out a whole new arena of presidential power for history to soak up,  
according to Steve Fox, director of the American Freedom Campaign.

     "The Bush administration has effectively expanded the scope of  
what a SOFA covers, and since there has been no formal objection from  
Congress, future presidents will now claim they have the same power  
to unilaterally negotiate far-reaching international agreements," Fox  
told Truthout.

     The American Freedom campaign proposes that Congress pass a  
"signing statement resolution," asserting that since the Iraq SOFA is  
unconstitutional, Congress need not provide funding to carry it out.

     "Such a resolution, which would still allow Congress to fund the  
agreement if they feel compelled by the Obama administration to do  
so, could be passed by both the House and the Senate the week of  
December 8," Fox said. "If congressional leaders cannot bring  
themselves to take that one minor step, then the damage to their  
institution may be irreversible."
»


Maya Schenwar is an editor and reporter for Truthout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081128/9c48b7f7/attachment.html