Despite two bruising (literally) days of debate of the draft Status of Forces Agreement by the Iraqi Parliament (the primitive Iraqis insist on having their elected representatives actually vote on stuff like that rather than just having the President take care of it on the down low), the revised US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement looks probable to pass by the end of the year, saving Bush from one final humiliation of having to go to the UN to extend the current occupation mandate. Neither side is particularly happy with this draft, but it's the best that can be hoped for at the moment. The SOFA now calls for a complete US withdrawal by the end of 2011, extends Iraqi jurisdiction over American crimes against Iraqis, and attempts to place numerous constraints on US aggression in the region and within Iraq itself.
Follow me after the fold to find out what the new terms are, and why this whole thing just may be unconstitutional (which is another way of saying that it was created by the Bush Administration).
The current occupation of Iraq is proceeding under a UN Chapter 7 mandate, which is based on the finding that Iraq is a danger to international peace and needs to be governed by a responsible colonial power. The mandate imposes very few constraints on US behavior, to the constant chagrin and violent burning anger of the Iraqi population, many of whom still remember the previous colonial occupation by Britain, which only ended fifty years ago, and during which, Britain routinely dropped poison gas on Iraqi villages as a means of collective punishment for any disturbance of the peace. But the mandate expires every year, and necessitates involving the America hating UN, so the US prefers to conduct its occupations pursuant to bilateral agreements with the puppet government of the occupied called Status of Forces Agreements.
The negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq have been grueling, and have been characterized by inevitable Iraqi reluctance to voluntarily cede a portion of their country's sovereignty to the most aggressive imperialist power in the world today, which has already committed countless atrocities against the Iraqi people, and killed or starved around 2 million Iraqis since 1991. The predictable Bush Administration high handedness, incompetence and gaffes have not helped either. The timetable of Iraqi provincial elections, which were postponed from October 31, 2008 to January 31, 2009, meant that Iraqi politicians felt very motivated not to be perceived as selling out their nation's sovereignty to its occupier, which had put them in charge in the first place in highly flawed 2005 elections which were boycotted by about a third of Iraq’s population. The Shi’ite Sadrist Tendency, led by Muqtada al Sadr, who is the heir to a rich firebrand populist tradition of past Sadrist Ayatollahs (my favorite is Imam Musa of Lebanon), has been adamant in its refusal to accept anything that lends Iraqi imprimatur to the occupation. The vocal oppositioin creates the motivation to make the politicians pushing for passage, most notably Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and his cryptic Da'wa Party (the Party of the Secret Islamic Cell, originally founded by the Assassins in the 12th century and refounded in Iraq by the martyr Ayatollah Baqir) negotiate very hard to get whatever miniscule face saving concessions from the US they can. Maliki has also been emboldened in his negotiations by his military victories against the Sadrists and other opposition parties in the South of Iraq and in their other strongholds earlier this year, culminating in the capture of the very lucrative southern oil port city of Basra, which have forced Sadr to refocus his movement as a political one and splintered his once fearsome Mahdi Army. The Iraqi Army's performance during the anti-Sadr offensive was by no means stellar and required American air support, but the Iraqi soldiers did prove themselves as a viable fighting force loyal to the Premier, which came as a pleasant surprise to many, including Maliki, and cowed his vocal opponents. Emboldened by this newfound strength, and spurred on by his fear of looking like American puppets, Maliki and his Cabinet of Ministers actually sent back a previous draft of the SOFA which the Americans had insisted was final, and were able to get further concessions from a Bush Administration eager to conclude this agreement before Obama takes over and begins waving the white flag of surrender.
After some typically ugly threats from the various goons in the Bush Administration stating that they would never agree to any further modifications that might expose our criminal troops to any punishment for their actions, Bush decided to eat his shame, and agreed to most of the revisions, just to end the pain. While the modifications were modest, there is now no getting around the fact that the SOFA unequivocally calls for a withdrawal according to a firmly fixed timeline, something which Bush has been adamant would be tantamount to a surrender to terrorists, but, which now, according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe (Dana Perito couldn’t get though this entire statement without vomiting so they called in a pinch liar), means the complete opposite:
"The security considerations on the ground have improved so much and the Iraqi security forces have improved so much that you can now set a date and be comfortable with it.
This marks I believe the sixteenth time we have totally won this war. In addition to giving up the timeline, Bush is also agreeing to give the Iraqis more control over US actions both within Iraq and from Iraq against its neighbors, and expanded Iraqi jurisdiction over the various categories of imperial mercenaries in their country. You know something anti-American is afoot when even the Iranians are getting excited about this thing. Some of the key provisions, according to an unofficial translation by McClatchy, are below.
First, the title of the agreement, which makes it clear that this is indeed a timetable for withdrawal, and vaguely implies that the US is standing in shit. Bush couldn’t even get a concession on the title. Quite a negotiator, this guy.
An Agreement between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America regarding the Withdrawal of the American Forces from Iraq and Regulating their Activities During their Temporary Presence [Deep] in It
First, the hot button, sexy, jurisdictional issues. Who gets to try Americans for crimes against the Iraqi people? Anybody? God maybe?
Iraq has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the U.S. forces and members of the civilian element regarding major and premeditated crimes ... when these crimes are committed outside installations and areas agreed upon and off duty.
This is pretty much as it was in the prior draft. Iraqis will be able to prosecute American soldiers and DoD contractors (most of whom are third world nationals from previously colonized countries such as the Philippines and Thailand who rarely venture off base and act as low paid servants to the American soldiers in the best imperialist tradition) only for major and premeditated crimes committed outside of the US bases while off duty. Any such prosecution would need to be preceded by an American inquiry that would establish that all of these conditions were satisfied.
When a member of the U.S. forces or the civilian element is arrested or detained by the Iraqi authorities, the authorities of the U.S. forces should be informed immediately and the detainee should be handed over within 24 hours from the time of detention or arrest. When Iraq practices its jurisdiction in implementation of the text of item 1 of this article the authorities of the U.S. forces then undertake the detention of the accused from the members of the U.S. forces or the civilian element. Then the authorities of the U.S. forces are to submit the accused person or persons to the Iraqi authorities for the purpose investigation and trial.
The U.S. authorities will state according to items 1 and 3 of this article whether the alleged crime was committed on duty. In cases in which the Iraqi authorities believe that the circumstances call for revision of this account, both parties will deliberate immediately via the joint committee, and the authorities of the U.S. forces will take into full consideration the facts, the circumstances and any other information the Iraqi authorities may submit and that might have an effect upon the report of the authorities of the U.S. forces.
In the unlikely case that the Americans clear one of their soldiers for Iraqi trial, there will follow a muddled trial combining both American and Iraqi law and legal due process:
In the cases where Iraq exercises jurisdiction according to item 1 of this article, members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element have the right to the legal criteria, procedures and guarantees that are consistent with those enjoyed under American and Iraqi law. The joint committee will lay down procedures and mechanisms to implement this article, which includes a record of major and premeditated crimes that fall under item 1 and procedures according to the criteria of legitimate trial and guarantees.
I am sure a lot of people in the US will be tracking the work of the joint committee as it works out the actual process and agrees on what constitutes a major crime.
However, it appears that despite Blackwater's extensive donations to the Bush campaign, they now join the long list of parties screwed royally by GW.
Iraq has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over private contractors which have contracts with the United States and their employees.
While some of the guys we most associate with the word "contractor" in Iraq, the sunglass wearing ex Green Beret driving down an Iraqi street at 60 miles an hour shooting into the air fall under the category of DoD employees under primary US jurisdiction, many others are working on contracts with the State Department or private companies, and they have been left to their fate by their neocon friends.
Some reports have indicated that the Iraqis may be able to search US mail and shipments, that does not appear to be the case:
Mail sent through military mail services should have the verification of the United States authorities, and this mail will be exempt from searching, examination and confiscation by the Iraqi authorities with the exception of unofficial mail that may be monitored electronically.
More significant, in terms of how they would affect ongoing operating procedures of the occupation, are the following provisions.
It is not permitted for the U.S. forces to detain or arrest any person (except the detention or arrest of a member of the US forces or the civilian element) unless it is in accordance with an Iraqi decision issued under Iraqi law implementing Article Four.
If US forces detain or arrest persons as is permitted under this agreement or under Iraqi law, they should be turned over to the specialized Iraqi authorities within 24 hours of their detention or arrest.
The U.S. forces shall provide the Iraqi Government with the available information about all the detainees when this agreement is implemented. The specialized Iraqi authorities shall issue arrest warrants for those who are wanted. The U.S. forces will coordinate completely and effectively with the Iraqi government for the handover of the wanted people to it, according to valid Iraqi arrest warrants and release all other detainees in an organized and secure way unless the Iraqi government requests otherwise under article 4 of this agreement.
U.S. forces are not permitted to search houses or other premises unless it is in accordance with an Iraqi judicial order issued for this purpose with complete coordination with the Iraqi government, except in cases where there is actual combat which comes under Article 4.
This means the US can not longer detain and hold whoever they want for however long they want in black hole prisons all over Iraq, as they are currently doing. And those who are being held must either be transferred to Iraqi custody or be released. A big victory for the forces of Terra, although since the US keeps no list of the people it has locked up, it would be impossible for the Iraqis to verify compliance with this provision.
This provision is a gem, this is why Syria and Iran are excited about this thing passing:
It is not permitted to use Iraqi land, water and airspace as a route or launching pad for attacks against other countries.
And finally, in addition to the much publicized timeline of withdrawal (June 2009 from all cities and villages, December 2011 for the whole country) the agreement contains the following hopeful language:
The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.
Obama, feel free to speak up at any time about getting us out sooner, OK?
Before we get excited, we must keep in mind that the US is a notorious violator of its treaty obligations (ask the Native Americans) and that words on paper have never before stopped our brave men and women from defending freedom by doing whatever fucked up things they felt were a good idea at the time. The world lacks any realistic check on US unilateralism, and I am sure no Iraqi is holding his breath for the release of prisoners from the US run secret prisons or for the cessation of warrantless US raids on Iraqi homes. I have also seen speculation that the prohibition against attacks on other countries would be interpreted narrowly, still permitting secret CIA raids and so on. Time will tell how much of this agreement the US will ever implement, if any, but I remain, as always, extremely pessimistic.
The passage of the SOFA as currently drafted is far from a done deal. It was signed yesterday by the Iraqi Foreign Minister and US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker in a nice photo op ceremony. But now it needs to pass through the always contentious Iraqi Parliament. Although this draft is endorsed by the majority ruling coalition, comprised of the Shi'ite Da'wa led by Maliki, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq led by the powerful Hakim clan, which controls most of the Shi'ite South and maintains the powerful Badr Brigades militia, and by the two Kurdish parties, the Sunni position has been ambivalent, while the Shi'ite opposition is dead set against it, and God knows what the Communists think. The current and highly influential senior Ayatollah in Iraq, al Sistani, has said that he would be OK with this agreement as long it gets a convincing plurality in Parliament, meaning somebody other than the four member ruling coalition has to vote for it.
And, of course, this would not be a Bush document without strong hints of
unconstitutionality. An American constitutional law scholar, who teaches at Berkeley and was still somehow allowed into some Senate subcommittee hearing, thinks that there should be Congressional approval of this bad boy, because it is so much more like a treaty than just a conventional status of forces agreement like the kind the US has with South Korea or Japan (you know you're living in an imperialist leviathan when there are standard form occupation agreements that can be handed out like business cards upon invasion).
Meanwhile, the Iraqis, whose Parliament is actually getting to vote on this thing, are still unhappy.
Iraqi lawmakers, however, are debating the number of votes needed to pass the agreement. Most of the ruling parties argue that current law requires only a simple majority, while opponents say a provision in the Iraqi constitution calls for a two-thirds majority of the 275-member parliament, said Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi architect who is a consultant to the American Friends Service Committee.
Opponents of the pact introduced a bill Monday that would set a two-thirds standard for approval of agreements like the security pact.
"No one has ever proposed to have a simple majority for this type of agreement," Jarrar said. "Many people think that the new argument of just requiring a simple majority is politically motivated."
Jarrar, who is one suspicious architect (politically motivated, really?), and surprisingly unhappy given that he is in Washington and not Iraq, went on to suggest, that, surprisingly given how peacefully disagreements usually get resolved in Iraq and how devoted the Iraqis are to staying within the political process, there might be a possibility of violence if the Iraqi Parliament fails to getsupermajority approval.
Jarrar told the House subcommittee a simple-majority approval of the pact could provoke unrest and violence in Iraq.
"Most of the groups who are opposing it in the parliament, have been saying, 'If you wanted to go through some loopholes - not send it to Parliament or pass it through a simple majority - we will quit this political process as a whole, and we will go back to armed resistance,' " he said.
With the current UN authorization for US presence in Iraq expiring at the end of the year, and the US lame duck Congress going on vacation, not wanting any part of this latest steaming pile of Bush, Congressional authorization or formal Senate ratification of the SOFA seems unlikely. Iraq, on the other hand, will continue to be in an uproar over this for a few months at least, until the next outrage. Pragmatically speaking, the Iraqis know that this pact is far superior to the UN mandate under which the US is currently operating, which provides virtually no limits at all on US actions. And with Obama in office, they will be dealing with an American Administration which seems eager to get out. So in the end, this is probably going to be the text that goes through. I will say this for it - it is better than nothing.