´óÏó´«Ã½

´óÏó´«Ã½ BLOGS - Newsnight: Mark Urban
« Previous | Main | Next »

A milestone and progression... with conditions

Mark Urban | 18:34 UK time, Friday, 28 November 2008

Aides to U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, second from left, and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, second from right, are on hand during a signing ceremony for a security pact between the United States and Iraq in Baghdad on Monday, Nov. 17, 200Having followed the twists and turns of the US/Iraqi attempt to negotiate legal agreements governing the future presence of American troops in that country, I have been using any time I have left after reporting the Mumbai crisis to go through with a fine toothcomb .

First things first - it is quite an achievement that two countries locked in such a difficult relationship should have managed to achieve this treaty, something that even as recently as September senior officials did not think would be possible, prior to the expiry of the United Nations mandate for Coalition Forces on 31st December this year.

In the end two separate agreements, one on the future status of US forces, the other dealing with the strategic relationship between the two countries, have been rolled into one. It sets a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces "from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities" no later than 30th June 2009. Its statement that "all of the United States Forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territory no later than 31st December 2011" seems straightforward enough.

However, when one reads Article 27 of the agreement, headed "Deterrence of Security Threats", it is apparent that the two governments have kept open the possibility to respond to any threat to the security of Iraq by "diplomatic, economic or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat". This is precisely the kind of open invitation for future security cooperation that many in Iran tried to thwart through their allies in Baghdad.

Article 27 furthermore also sets out, "cooperation in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi security forces"; a task that experts predict might require the presence of many thousands of US 'advisors'.

All the same, the new agreement is not entirely the stuff of Iranian nightmares, because, among other things, it forbids the use of Iraq for attacks on neighbouring countries. Similarly, American military concerns have been accommodated to some extent, in severely limiting Iraqi legal jurisdiction over US military personnel.

In a key concession however, there is no suggestion that the US withdrawal should be 'conditions based', although it does suggest that it might happen faster than the 2011 deadline. This marks a cave-in on the part of the Bush Administration, US military commanders, and even some elements within the Iraqi coalition government - all of whom wanted to avoid rigid timetables. It is also very convenient for the since it sets a firm date for withdrawal, lets him accelerate that if he wants, but still allows Washington to reverse that process if, under Article 27, the two governments jointly agree on some future threat.

The agreement is then a key milestone that looks likely to reduce drastically the US profile in Iraq within months, and to eliminate that presence altogether within three years. It says this has been made possible by the, "dramatic and positive developments in the country" - a reference to the marked decline in violence in the past year.

In a sense though, the fact that the two sides have worked through their political differences, dealt with what are for many Iraqis such sensitive issues, and have done it all before the expiry of the UN mandate is perhaps the best testimony to date of political progress in Iraq.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    the usa signed a lot of treaties with the native americans as well?

    that didn't stop them driving the western shoshone off their land a couple of years ago with helicopters and swat teams even though it was theirs by treaty. All because it had uranium and some other precious metals on the land. And the usa military wanted to use it.

    iraq strikes me as some kind of muslim/arab 'reservation'? Isn't that what 'spreading democracy' means? Spreading reservations to tame the 'wilderness'?

  • Comment number 2.

    COULD NOT HAVE PUT IT BETTER. (#1)

    Mark - you write as if integrity is part of politics. Is there a third alternative to fool or knave? You don't come over as either.

  • Comment number 3.

    2. At 10:37am on 29 Nov 2008, barriesingleton

    Well, it is the world of politics, and it is a relatively small village.

    There are all sorts, and some play their part.

    I am sure many consider them useful, too.

  • Comment number 4.

    spreading democracy means just that - there are plenty of iraqis who want to democratise but they are being held back by religious and tribal feuding and for some reason unknown to me western intelligentsia are rooting for tribal violence instead of peaceful government

    as for american indians - they were eradicating each other long before europeans landed, the successful sioux had progressively moved west anihilating other tribes as they went

    america without europeans would be ruled by a dominant indian tribe, that may have been preferable but sadly they threw away the one very real chance they had to defeat the colonists by holding a sundance ritual instead of seizing a moment of military weakness to attack; by morning reinforcements had arrived

    i don't see any connection between the colonisation of the us and the removal of a dictator in iraq, other than prejudice

  • Comment number 5.


    ..spreading democracy...

    that is missing the following words

    through military means.

    as for the justification for the usa policy of christian supremacy law as the basis for taking land from its owners that is revealing.

    its the same doctrine of christan supremacy that is behind 'spreading democracy'.

    that is the connection. an old mindset.

    meanwhile it was Clinton who, in the 90s, signed a bill to make native american religion legal. Equality in the usa seems slow?

Ìý

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.