Speaking to a civil-society audience of 60 people here in Washington DC today, Iraqi MPs Sheikh Khalaf al-Ulayyan (National Dialogue Council) and Dr. Nadim al-Jaberi (al-Fadhila) both roundly rejected the idea of negotiating any binding longterm Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States as long as US forces remain in their country. Both also, intriguingly, said that the Arab League might be the outside party best placed to convene the negotiation required to achieve intra-Iraqi reconciliation.
Ulayyan and Jaberi were speaking at a lunch discussion hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. They have spoken to a number of civil society groups here in the past two days. On Wednesday– as I noted here earlier today– they testified about their country’s situation at a hearing held by the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight.
While with the Subcommittee, they handed chair Rep. William Delahunt a letter spelling out the view of a majority of Iraq’s MPs that any SOFA completed between the two countries should stipulate a total withdrawal of US troops from the whole of Iraq before a date certain.
In that earlier blog post I also highlighted the importance I saw, in today’s increasingly transparent global environment, of the contacts that non-governmental groups and individuals (including parliamentarians) can now maintain with their counterparts across national borders without having all such interactions regulated by the national governments involved. Ulayyan and Jaberi’s visit to the US– which was originally also to have included three other Iraqis– has been organized by the American Friends Service Committee.
Great work, AFSC!!!
I’m hoping to write up a longer account of today’s Carnegie Endowment gathering as soon as I can. For now, I’ll focus on the questions about the SOFA and the sponsoring mechanism for the still-needed process of internal reconciliation. Those were indeed my main concerns going into the meeting. Someone else asked the two MPs about the SOFA question, and I was then able to ask the two MPs the reconciliation-sponsorship question.
In line with my now three-year-old plan for how the US can get out of Iraq, as laid out in the July 2005 writings linked to here, I also asked the two men what sponsorship they thought would be most effective for the international negotiations required to secure a US troop withdrawal from their country that is speedy, orderly, and complete. (My strong preference is for UN sponsorship.) They did not really address that part of the question. Maybe I’ll get a follow-up meeting with them sometime?
By the way, I think my 2005 plan for how the US can withdraw from Iraq has held up remarkably sturdily over time and is still very apposite.
Anyway, back to today’s Carnegie event. About the SOFA, Ulayyan said:
- We learned about the text being proposed by the US only through the media, and we’ve seen that it’s very unfair for the Iraqi people. Whoever sees it will see that Iraq would become not just under US occupation but as if it were part of the US! [But without voting rights, I might add. ~HC] It allows the US to use Iraqi territory and US military bases in Iraq for a very long time, and to use them to attack any country around the world from there. And it gives the US troops and civilians complete immunity from prosecution in the Iraqi court system. The US could do anything it wanted in Iraq without being accountable to anyone!
Clearly, for anyone, it would be impossible to enter into an agreement with another party while being threatened by the other person’s weapons. Therefore the SOFA can’t be concluded as long as there are foreign troops on Iraq’s territory. For any agreement to work, there has to be a balance between the two parties to it.
The timing of this attempt at getting a SOFA right now is also not appropriate because it would impede our national reconciliation process.
I had also asked the MPs whether they thought the US troop presence in Iraq was helpful or harmful to the state of internal relations within Iraq. Ulayyan replied on this point:
- We do believe the presence of US troops has been very harmful, for the following reasons: Firstly, the American forces have been creating problems inside Iraq to try to justify their own continued presence here. And secondly because many forces in Iraq today have been built up by the US, and they use the US troop presence to avoid dealing with the other parties.
Therefore the withdrawal of the US troops according to a fixed timetable will aid national reconciliation.
To my question regarding what body they thought might be the one best suited to convene the intra-Iraqi reconciliation process, Jaberi replied,
- Some suggest the US or the UN or Iran as the best sponsors, or the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Or even Qatar, which as the lady said, did so well in successfully mediating the recent settlement even after the ‘big power’, the US, had failed. That latter success, by the way, was a way to protest external interventions in Lebanon– and its showed that a tiny country could solve a problem that a large country could not.
But I see the Arab League as the best institution to sponsor a national reconciliation. First of all, it’s neutral, and secondly, it is the one best qualified to understand Iraq’s problems.
We should recall that the Arab League has already been the only institution that has done anything successful at all to bring together the conflicting parties in Iraq– yes, parties that were actually in conflict at the time there– and win agreement from them all around some useful proposals for reconciliation. That was during the reconciliation session they hosted in Cairo in 2005.
It came out with some good proposals, and our situation would have been a lot better now if they had been implemented. But what made it fail was that the parties weren’t allowed to implement it. The US administration blocked its implementation because they saw the Arab League as competing with them for influence.
I found it notable that Dr. Jaberi, who represents a majority-Shiite party in Iraq, expressed such faith in the capacities of the Arab League. I should also note that though Fadhila is a majority-Shiite party, the position Jaberi expressed at many points during the discussion was that Iraq needs to thought of and constituted as “the state of the citizen” (dawlat al-muwatin), rather than being constituted on the basis of sectarian quotas of any kind. Indeed, he expressed strong criticism of the UDS for having introduced the whole idea of sectarian quotas into leading government positions, in the first place.
Jaberi’s mention of the Arab League as being well qualified to convene the internal reconciliation process was also notable because it echoed a point that Ulayyan had made earlier in response to a general question about the mechanisms for reconciliation.
Ulayyan had said,
- There should first of all be committees created for this purpose, with participation from both the [Iraqi] government and the political parties. But first, of course, we need to have the true will for national reconciliation…The process has to be inclusive…
Now that Saddam has left there is no reason for us not to manage our own country!
… And we should have the help of the Arab League and the United Nations in helping to establish the basis on which these reconciliation committees can be built.
Interesting convergence, huh?
Over to you, Arab League?
Notable bottom line there, though, that some possibly well-meaning Americans might still need to have highlighted for them: Both these two men– and also, I suspect, a large majority of the Iraqi people– are quite clear that the United States is the party that is just about the worst qualified of all to convene or sponsor a successful intra-Iraqi reconciliation process.
So much for the idea of the so-called “Pottery Barn Rule”, eh?
Thank you, Helena for the excellent coverage. I sense that, despite your hands-off “over to you,” you are probably pushing long-established ME power buttons in the Arab League as we speak.
I like it: No SOFA w/o withdrawal, and then no need for a SOFA! There would be no forces to agree on a status for!
A bit off topic, but…
Is anyone else really tired of the phrase “date certain”?
I’ve never seen this used outside of 19th century literature until Condoleeza Rice started with it. Then the media, assuming that using it would show that they were “smart”, repeated it relentlessly.
Can we please vary this a little now? Maybe have something end by a “specific date”, like things used to?
-David
David, I can understand your annoyance, but “date certain” really is a very common term used, for example, in the world of lawyers. I have heard it many times over the decades. I don’t know where Condi picked it up, but it’s been in regular use in some contexts for a long time.
David, Shirin covered well your topic off bit on date certain.
Helena,
I found it notable that Dr. Jaberi, who represents a majority-Shiite party in Iraqi
Helena can you please clear this for us, how you find he is “represents a majority-Shiite”
The recent pole from Kabala showing this:
– من المرشح الذي ستنتخبه :
70,5% المستقل 5,9% الدعوة بأ قسامه 5,6% المجلس وكياناته 5,9%الوفاق والمؤتمر 1% الشيوعي 4% التيار الصدري 2% الفضيلة 5% أخرى .
http://www.kitabat.com/i39718.htm
There is article said all about “SOFA” and what Iraqi think and Americans the article was:
Just whose Iraq is it, anyway?
By Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune’s editorial board
Although there some point in article which quite naïve but the best as this issue if far important to Iraqi future is put this in public domain and see what the out come other wise its like Anglo – Iraqi Treaty of 1930 by Salih Jabr and Nori Saeed Iraq went in big demonstration against it. Although today Iraq fragmented now and each part live in his own as far as the ONE km Green zone government living in their bubble trying to legitimizing themselves and been spoken body on behalf of Iraqis this will be no long live issue unless those who opposing will taken out some how.
Time will tell let see.
There is major another issue which the oil, this side is very secretive and US administration working hidden to seize the oil share agreements which give Iraq only 10%-15% of his oil production the rest will goes to those US oil companies who will invested in Iraq on claims of high risk investment, I don’t know why they rush to this wait and all things settled and them come forward in peace and take your queue of bidding for Iraqi oil.
But of course this not the way that suit them they “highjacking” the oil wealth under these circumstances under chaos for wining unwinnable case
All the parties they received “SOFA” drafted copy six months ago imagine wher are they before these days why those Mullah kept their silence till now? Read below:
مع اقتراب الموعد(31/7/2008) الذي تم الاتفاق عليه بين جورج بوش الابن ونوري المالكي ضمن مذكرة التفاهم التي وقعت في نهاية كانون الاول الماضي، بدأ الصراخ والعويل والتنديد بالاتفاقية التي يوشك الطرفان التوقيع عليها..والغريب في الامر ان مسودة مشروع الاتفاقية قد وزعت على الكتل السياسية قبل اكثر من خمسة اشهر _هذا ماعرفناه الان من خلال تصريحات المتنمرين-والسؤال الذي يحيرني ويحيرغير، لماذا التنديد الان؟؟ هل هي صحوة متأخره اوقضها فينا تنديد ايران ومرشدها؟ام ان تباشير الانتخابات المحلية بأتت تعزف ويريد المتسولون من سياسينا
The Return of Iraq’s Ayatollah
Although reported that Crocker was in Najaf amid reports that Sistani was losing patience with the U.S., but new leaking stories that Crocker plagued millions of dollars to Sistani helping him and his stupid those marching Ashora’a and all those doggy thing by US aid money!!
تشير المعلومات الصحفية المسربة مؤخرآ بأن المندوب السامي الأمريكي في العراق المحتل السفير ريان كروكر أثناء زيارته لمحافظتي النجف وكربلاء مؤخرآ والتقائه بالشيوخ والمراجع حيث تبرع بمبالغ طائلة مليونية مخصصة من قبل السفارة الأمريكية في بغداد لغرض دعم المواكب الحسينية والمسيرات التي تنطلق بمناسبة ذكرى الأمام الحسين (ع) . بدلآ من دعمه لبناء المستشفيات التخصصية والمستوصفات والمجمعات السكنية وحل مشكلة البطالة وأزمة المحروقات والكهرباء والماء .
http://www.kitabat.com/i39815.htm
Helena, the list of signatories to the letter you linked to with Iraqi parliamentarians protesting is extremely interesting. It consists of the same parties that have been trying to put together a cross-sectarian alliance ever since 2006, despite the formidable disadvantage of having an opponent (the Maliki government) which receives all the backing of the Bush administration, while they themselves have almost zero support in the outside world. In October 2006 they tried to defeat the law for implementing federalism, but failed by a small margin. In January 2008, they produced a robust statement calling for a negotiated settlement of Kirkuk (instead of an early referendum) and criticised Kurdish attempts to circumvent Baghdad in oil contract dealings. The high point came in February 2008, when they managed to press through a demand for early provincial elections during the parliamentary debate of the non-federated governorates act, despite the determined opposition of the Maliki government. Today, they are trying to prevent attempts by Kurds and ISCI to manipulate the electoral process for the upcoming elections – attempts that include suggestions to create an electoral law that would prevent the use of “open” candidate lists (whereby voters can focus on individuals instead of parties).
The big question is, when the Bush administration gives all its support to the opponents of this alliance – the Maliki government and the Kurdish–ISCI axis, why is it that the supposed creators of “alternative” US policies in Iraq, the Democrats, are focusing all their energies on outbidding Bush in this regard, by signalling even stronger support for the “soft partition” minority of Iraqis led by Barzani and Hakim? Would it not be more logical for them to reach out to this nationalist parliamentary bloc, which despite its difficult situation (its enemies are supported by both the US and Iran) could now be a real majority, and could certainly have a great potential if it just received a little help from the outside world? This is a fantastic initiative by the AFSC, but one wishes it had come from American politicians eager to craft an alternative Iraq policy instead…
Reidar
why is it that the supposed creators of “alternative” US policies in Iraq, the Democrats, are focusing all their energies on outbidding Bush in this regard, by signalling even stronger support for the “soft partition” minority of Iraqis led by Barzani and Hakim?
There is no surprises in this ““soft partition”” which advised by Madeleine Albright long ago.
Reidar, I don’t think you forgot this or you don’t know them?
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger:
“I’m sympathetic to an outcome that permits large regional autonomy. In fact, I think it is very likely that this will emerge out of the conflict that we are now witnessing.”
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:
“[T]he idea of the… constitution of Iraq [as] written, which allows for and mandates, in fact, a great deal of regional autonomy, is appropriate. I think there are certain central powers that a government needs. Some of it has to do with the oil revenue and various other parts. So without endorsing any plan, I do think reality here sets in that there will be regional autonomy.”
Former Secretary of State James Baker:
“…I was and still am interested in the proposal that Senator Biden and Les Gelb put forward with respect to the idea that ultimately you may end up with three autonomous regions in Iraq, because I was worried that there are indications that that might be happening, in fact, on the ground anyway and, if it is, we ought to be prepared to try and manage the situation. So we have a sentence in our report that says, ‘If events were to move irreversibly in this direction, the United States should manage the situation to ameliorate the humanitarian consequences, contain the violence and minimize regional stability.”
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY):
“Mr. Schumer said, he hopes that a controversial plan strongly advocated by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware–which essentially calls for the dissolution of Iraq into three autonomous ethnic enclaves (and which Mr. Schumer quietly supported last year)–will emerge as a concrete Democratic alternative to current administration policy. “It may actually move into play,” said Mr. Schumer. “I’ve always believed that the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds hate each other more than they will ever love any central government.”
Peter Galbraith.” [New York Times, Breaking the Clinch (1/25/07)]
“There is one option that does approach Iraqi reality from the bottom up. That option recognizes that Iraq is broken and that its people are fleeing their homes to survive. It calls for a ”soft partition” of Iraq in order to bring political institutions into accord with the social facts — a central government to handle oil revenues and manage the currency, etc., but a country divided into separate sectarian areas to reduce contact and conflict. When the various groups in Bosnia finally separated, it became possible to negotiate a cold (if miserable) peace. Soft partition has been advocated in different ways by Joe Biden and Les Gelb, by Michael O’Hanlon and Edward Joseph, by Pauline Baker at the Fund for Peace, and in a more extreme version, by Peter Galbraith.”
There is very important issue linked with SOFA now.
It is Setion Seven in rgards to Iraq revnue which now controlled by US.
As some report leaking US refuses to take full control handle this case to “Iraqi Government” conditioned that of singing SOFA.
سليم عبد الله: مليارات العراق في الولايات المتحدة معرضة للضياع بعد الخروج من البند السابع
http://www.radiosawa.com/article_print.aspx?id=1609091
This certainly seems like a genuine window of opportunity positively to effect the future of Operation Iraqi Fiasco and thankfully Helena is all over it.
“The agreement artfully drafted by US officials will not only jeopardize the Iraqi sovereignty but will also give the US military the right to use Iraq as a launching pad for attacks against other countries”
Manifestly, the US government seeks to have a permanent presence in the country, have full control over air space and lands, secure the capitulatory right to immunize its army against the detention and killing of the Iraqis, and finally to use Iraq as a safe launching pad to attack the countries which antagonize the US expansionistic policies in the region
The Unite States is threatening the Iraqi government into signing a military agreement by holding hostage some 50 billion U.S. dollars of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, The Independent reported Friday.
Salah,
As I said before, Peter Galbraith might be a better source than Thomas Friedman of wisdom on the Middle East, but only very slightly better.
In other words, he is another ignoramus who parades his prejudices and very, very thin knowledge as expertise – and is believed!
Alas, “this nationalist parliamentary bloc” does not, as a technical matter of fact, [yet] exist, and not merely because IDP and the Supreme Hakemes think that they are nationalists too, although that is quite important.
Is it not the Friends of Núrí who have lately started to act as if the International Zone régime’s formal mechanisms might actually be attached to something real? Why, despite the best efforts of Mr. Feldman of Harvard and Khalílzád Pasha of AEI and GOP, it may not be absolutely impossible to get something done with that contraption! Mostly by working around the Konstitution of the damn thing, to be sure, but nevertheless….
Strictly speaking, such an accomplishment would make the Friends of Núrí statists rather than ‘nationalists’. But fortunately for them, that particular boundary is not hard to fudge. Could the I. Z. régime actually enforce its will at Basra and Mosul and Sadr City, the collectivity of territories upon which that central will is enforceable and enforced would be indifferently a ‘state’ or a ‘nation’ for all but academic nitpickers and tendentious publicists.
The fiends of sectarianism and partition haven’t altogether arrived yet — they may still never arrive — but they have made some detectable progress. The fact that the Wall Street Jingo shamelessly exaggerates their progress [1] does not warrant pretending that something so disagreeable is not happening.
No point in falling off the horse on either side! (Is there?)
Happy days.
_____
[1] “[A] permanent U.S. military presence – albeit one reduced over time – would give Iraqis the confidence to continue their political maturation. Another Iraq national election is scheduled for next year, and it is an opportunity for democracy to put down even deeper roots. It’s crucial for Americans to understand that, apart from the Sadrists, all factions of Iraqi politics now support some kind of U.S.-Iraq status of forces agreement to succeed the U.N. mandate that expires later this year. We are winning in Iraq. Indeed, we can now say with certainty that we will win, as long as we don’t repeat our earlier mistakes and seek to draw down too soon. This is the improving Iraq that the next U.S. President will inherit, and it is the heart of the Iraq debate Americans should have in November.”
(( The Jingos are seriously underinformed as regards the bit emphasized. Unless they are deliberately lying for morale purposes, that is. Either way, I find it a very remarkable press bite. ))
Reidar raises an important issue concerning the Democratic party’s “outbidding” the GOP party-in-power, when it comes to favoring a weakened Iraqi central government and perhaps ultimate partition of the country.
In some ways the Dems make the Bush GOP team look like Iraqi nationalists, as though Rice/Crocker and Petreaus have been wholeheartedly attempting to reconcile all Iraqi factions in the country.
This issue is especially important should the Dems win this coming November election and Barack Obama gains control over foreign policy. To whom would Obama turn for advice on expediting a troop withdrawal from Iraq? Barack turned to Dennis Ross as one of his Middle East advisors, so does this foretell that Leslie Gelb and Peter Galbraith will get to shape the candidate-turned-president’s Iraq policy?
The Democratic establishment favoring soft/hard partition in Iraq is deeply rooted at the CFR in New York where Gelb, along with Galbraith have been pushing this scheme since pre-March 2003. Galbraith sees himself playing the part of “Lawrence of Arabia” for the Kurds, telling audiences how he was in northern Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991 and escaped Saddam’s post-war northern bombing campaign with the help of Kurdish peshmerga on horse back.
This son of famous Depression era economist John Kenneth Galbraith combines the worst of western adventurer Orientalism. I once heard him speak at a Democratic event in 2006 where he pleaded with the audience to embrace the Kurdish cause, stooping to the worst ethnic, racial-genealogical, anti-Semitic bigotry when he said “The Kurds are not like the Arabs (grimace). They are more like us (smile), sharing our culture and values. They don’t speak the Arabic language. They share common roots with us in the West.”
Could not possibly agree with you more, Stephen, regarding Galbraith. He is, if anything, worse than Thomas Friedman, with whom he has a lot in common, because he is actually in a position to directly influence state policies and actions.
If Galbraith has any influence, Biden will probably get his wish and we will see Iraq broken into three pieces completely against the wishes of the majority of Iraqis (but then, who has EVER cared about what Iraqis want?!).
As for Obama expediting troop withdrawal, that presupposes that Obama actually intends to withdraw the troops. Based on his own statements what he intends is a reduction in the number of forces, maintaining a “residual” force for an indefinite period. That “residual force” will include combat troops, and is estimated by folks who know about military things to be between a third to a half of the numbers during The Surge™. In other words, he will continue the occupation, but on a smaller scale. He does not intend to “end the war”, but to make it less visible, and therefore less bothersome to Americans.
So, Iraq and Iraqis are screwed no matter which party wins the presidency.
Shirin-
I could not agree with you more.
You hit the proverbial head on the nail.
Oh, I’m sorry one of my slips is showing.
It’s hard to find a term for the proposal the Bush administration is trying to force through, partly because it’s unprecedented.
But until we can agree on one, I’d like to object strenuously to calling it a “status of forces agreement”, because not one of the many, many SOFAs in force with governments around the world where the U.S. has bases comes close to this proposal in giving all power and freedom to the U.S. forces, with impunity and no liability, and no power or authority to the local government.
This is an agreement to maintain an occupation, indefinitely. Pure and simple. An IMOA, if you will (indefinite military occupation agreement).
Nell, I agree. It has bothered me a great deal that people are blythely referring to it as a SOFA, which makes it sound like a standard sort of agreement, when it is nothing of the kind. How many SOFAs give the US control of airspace, the ability to do anything it wants within the host country (and to citizens and residents of the host country) with no accountability to the government, and use the country to launch any sort of attack it wishes within or outside?
Sorry, but if this is a SOFA, then shock and awe should be called stroke and caress.