Thorns in US-Iraq security pact

Videos
Photos

By Fu Mengzi (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-07-17 07:33

The White House insisted on Monday that talks with Iraq on a deal governing a long-term US military presence there are "on track" but declined to restate a July 31 deadline for sealing the accord.

In fact, there are three overriding reasons for the Bush administration to reach a long-term security pact with Iraq.

First, time is running out for Washington. The Iraq War, a preemptive war that was not authorized by the United Nations in the first place, has dragged on for five years. As Bush's days in the White House are counting down, it is an imperative that his administration work out a solution to get out of the Iraq War as soon as possible.

Adding urgency to the issue is the fact that the UN mandate for the foreign military presence would expire in December. The Bush administration wants to clinch a security pact with Iraq, which, on the one hand, would urge the Iraqi government to take the security matters into its own hands, and on the other hand, maps out a framework for future cooperation between the US and Iraq.

Second, the US wants to ensure control over Iraq and Iraq's Maliki government while exerting influence on the entire Middle East as a whole.

Initially, Washington pinned its hope on the new Iraqi government formed after the fall of Saddam. The Maliki government, plagued by the incessant religious sectarian clashes and poor security situation in the country, however, has failed to live up to Washington's expectations. Instead, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's always resents America's policies in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Iraq and Iran, two former foes, are repairing their ties, worrying Washington. Under such circumstances, signing an agreement with the Iraqi government to lay foundation for future relations framework becomes even more of an imperative for the outgoing Bush administration.

If Washington can keep the Maliki government on its side and control him, it will be of great strategic significance for the US to consolidate its geographical advantage in the Middle East, conducive to its anti-terror initiative in the region, deal with Iran and mediate the Israel-Arab conflicts.

Thirdly, Washington wants to retain its strategic advantage in the post-Iraq War era in the region. World powers have never ceased paying their attention to the Middle East since the Iraq War. The American military presence in Iraq could bring huge benefits to the US as it can contain Iran and will deter Russia and other countries from having their own military presence.

Iraq, the world's third largest oil-producing country in terms of the reserves, is of tremendous strategic interests to the US at a time when the oil price is soaring. Iraq is planning to raise its oil production from the current 500,000 barrels a day to 2.77 million barrel a day, a huge production expansion project that it has invited foreign firms to participate in.

The European Union has also said it wanted to reach an agreement with Iraq as soon as possible to import natural gas from the Middle East country. Those developments have made ironing out an agreement with Iraq a very urgent imperative for the Bush administration; otherwise its goal of "war for oil" would evaporate.

The security pact will be divided into two sub-agreements, one concerning the status of American forces and the other about the future cooperation framework between Washington and Baghdad.

Washington wants to have the following provisions included in the status of forces agreement: open up of more than 50 military bases, full control of Iraqi airspace, legal immunity for US military and private security firms, and the right to conduct armed operations throughout the country without consulting the Iraqi government.

The draft, which many say has seriously compromised Iraqi sovereignty, immediately antagonized Iraqi people when it was leaked to the public, sending many Iraqis taking to the streets.

The Iraqi government, including the Shi'ites, is opposed to the many provisions in the draft, stressing that Iraqi sovereignty must be respected and maintained. Internationally, the draft is also opposed by Russia, Iran and other countries. Russia holds that only if foreign countries withdraw their forces can Iraq have its genuine sovereignty.

The draft was originally scheduled to be concluded in July. Iraq has made new proposals, noting that the principle is that its sovereignty must be intact. The security pact, which is of vital importance to Iraq's national interests in the future, must be agreed upon in the first place between Iraq's various parties, otherwise the Iraqi government and its parliament would not ratify it.

In America, where the 2008 presidential race is increasingly getting hot, the security pact is also facing hurdles. Republican White House hopeful John McCain vowed to continue Bush's Iraq policy and said American forces would stay in Iraq for many more years.

But Democratic candidate Barack Obama has been opposed to the Iraq War and promised to withdraw American forces once he won the race.

Their conflicting views on the issue have complicated the legality of the US-Iraq security pact. Even if the pact were reached now, it would also face close scrutiny by the Democrats-controlled Congress. Under such circumstances, the Bush administration is encumbered on the issue by the various domestic political forces.

On the other side, the security pact, which is of vital importance to Iraqi's national interests in the future, must be agreed upon in the first place between Iraq's various parties; otherwise the Iraqi government and its parliament would not ratify it. If the Maliki government wants to use the agreement to end the Iraq War or regulate American forces in the country, he has the leverage to do it.

But it is expected that it will take time for both sides to hammer out the final draft.

The author is assistant president of China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations

(China Daily 07/17/2008 page9)