Thanks to Glen Rangwala of Cambridge and Jonathan Schwarz of Democrats.com who have found the definitive UN-archived version (PDF) of the 1930 treaty between Britain and Iraq.
Here is an HTML version of the treaty’s text (copied and pasted from the text in Schwarz’s blog post there.)
The 1930 treaty provides an instructive precedent for with the present US attempts to force the (US-constituted) Iraqi government into a long-term security arrangement in many respects:
- In both cases, a western government that had taken control of Iraq by military means later had its presence there given some cover by the world’s leading intergovernmental body, and also set about constituting a puppet “national” government there which was the body with which this agreement was “negotiated.”
- In both cases, there is some attempt by the occupying power to couch the treaty in terms of equality, and to make some of its provisions look advantageous to the occupied country. But in both cases, close attention to the terms of the agreement reveals its highly asymmetrical nature.
- In both cases, provision is made for the western power in question to have wide access to, use of, and control over military bases in Iraq; there are components relating to it providing “advisors” to the Iraqi armed forces; and Britishers service-members in Iraq are offered immunity from local prosecution and other privileges.
I note that Schwarz made some, but not all of those points. I’m hoping I can get back to doing a more thorough annotation of this treaty and what we know about the Bush administration’s present proposals to Iraq, as soon as possible.
I note, however, that the regional and global political climate within which the Bush administration is pursuing its Iraq policy is very different indeed from those in which “His Britannic Majesty” was acting.
Back then, London faced no significant challenge from any third-party (i.e. non-Iraqi and non-British)powers to its pursuit of its imperial policies in Iraq. The biggest third-party “challenger” to British designs in the Middle East was France; and in the post-WW-I diplomacy, Britain and France had reached extensive agreement on how they would divvy up control over the mashreq between them. There were numerous Arab and non-Arab critics of Britain’s policy in Iraq, but none that caused London any significant level of concern.
Today, as the Bush administration attempts a reprise of 1930, it faces significant opposition from the following sources:
- * an educated and increasingly well-organized population inside Iraq;
* Iran;
* public opinion throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, and some though not all of their governments;
* democrats (small ‘d’) in the US who increasingly reject lengthy, imperial-style entanglements in Iraq;
* most likely, other significant world powers.
So Bush is basically whistling in the wind on this…
However, the fundamental irrationality and unwinnability (not to mention immorality) of this project is no guarantee at all that he will not continue to pursue it, doggedly, as long as he can. That means, I guess, that we need to continue our campaign to oppose it.
Revisiting the history of the 1930 treaty is, it seems to me, a helpful part of doing this. Thanks, Jonathan and Glen.
Of course, it was Nuri Sa’id who negotiated the 1930 treaty, and he had a particular reputation for being pro-British (even, tool of the British). That was why his body ended up being dragged through the streets of Baghdad behind a car in the 1958 revolution.
The present lot in so-called power in Baghdad are by no means pro-US in the same way. Even I was astounded by the speed with which Maliki flew off to Tehran to consult.
pro-US in the same way. Even I was astounded by the speed with which Maliki flew off to Tehran to consult.
Do you think Maliki can move free without US permission or approval?
The fact introducing SOFA need Iran voice so US have full cover of what exactly SOFA is that what happen we saw Iraqis and most political moved to Maliki visit and what out come of that visit Iran in same time loudly oppose SOFA while most Gulf states around here have may like SOFA agreement Iran kept tied lips about them.
Therefore, SOFA passed first step very successfully by Iranians noises! Is it coincident? You need to read between the lines man
So Bush is basically whistling in the wind on this…
Helena I do not think so,
Iraq is in US politics from Roland Region time and the followed administrations this clear if you review all the event that linked to Iraq.
However all we know when GWB father stopped to inter Baghdad due to advices that made by CIA team that went inside Iraq during that time they calculate how easy to move toward Baghdad in 1991 they founded its hard due to many factors major one Iraqis have the well to fight any foreign troops (reported in VOA Arabic ate the time) so the best way wait and sanction introduces for 13 years and you know what the sanction did to Iraqi as society and even on personal levels then GWB son went to Iraq when the harvest ready to move and he did what did.
Therefore, after 3trillion, USD spent and all 50 US bases already built on the sand of Iraq with hugs footprint you telling, “whistling in the wind” I think this is only come from some one who knew nothing will tell this.
War: What is it good for?
WEEKEND
June
14
2008
Sam Mateo Daily Journal
Home
Local News
State / National / World
Sports
Opinion / Letters
Business
Arts / Entertainment
Lifestyle
About Us
Letters to the editor
War: What is it good for?
Editor,
“A long-delayed Senate committee report endorsed by Democrats and some Republicans concluded that President Bush and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda,” said Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane.
War is rarely necessary and never glorious. That’s one thing Americans should have learned from their experiences in Vietnam, and from seeing the daily horror and carnage of that war televised in their living rooms every night.
The U.S. government sure learned from it. They learned not to allow TV cameras to show so many dead or wounded GIs, or even enemy soldiers. They learned it’s safer to restrict photographers and TV crews to shots of awesome artillery barrages, powerful tanks, aircraft carriers and modern bombers taking off with their lethal payloads-the weapons of war, not their effects.
They don’t show the death and devastation in the little rural villages once full of farmers, the crippled children who happened to pick up cluster bombs, the charred corpses that are now called “collateral damage.” After all, showing such things would detract from the glory of war.
Ted Rudow III,MA
Menlo Park
The U.S. government sure learned from it.
http://www.leadingtowar.com/
The U.S. government sure learned from [experiences in Vietnam, and … seeing the daily horror and carnage of that war televised in their living rooms every night].
The claim is almost entirely incorrect.
All the way through the bushogenic quagmire from “Cakewalk Accomplished” days down to the suRGe of ’07 and beyond, AEI and GOP and DOD have regularly paraded their follies, not attempted to conceal them, as they would have done if they had actually learned from Secretary McNamara’s War. [1]
It is true that until Dr. Gen. Petraeus of Princeton showed up, nothin’ that they paraded in advance ever actually worked out as expected — but that is another story.
Happy days.
___
[1] A certain resemblance to LBJ and his scar may be detected, perhaps, although it would be rather odd to consider that a lesson learned.
Thanks, Helena, for providing this document. It comes just in time for SOFA. Your annotation would be useful. It’s a treaty, mind; will ours be an Administrative Order from the White House, avoiding Congress? Is Congress so avoidance-ridden that it will roll over on this one?!Has Obama said a word on this, or McCain? Or are they in bland election mode, avoiding too?
avoiding Congress? Is Congress so avoidance-ridden that it will roll over on this one?!Has Obama said a word on this, or McCain?
BTW, did thy have say in this?
Iraq invasion by US= SADDAM invasion of Kuwait in 1991 in all measures.
If some still their heads in “bland election mode, avoiding” simply they chose to be for their self necessities and double standard.
What US or let say the west learned from Iraq invasion, let laugh loudly its all Ba’ath Problem they should pay this share in all the crimes for innocent Iraqis that Ba’ath party did and doing!!
Wait but Stupid Sheikh Paul Bremer III run with US$9.0 Billions dollars and more and more Billions followed or those in Babylon who loot tones of that historic site did any one asked them or it’s not worth like London’s Mayer cigar box?