On Friday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told reporters in Amman, Jordan that negotiations over initial U.S. proposals for bilateral political and military agreements between the United States and Iraq had “reached a dead end” after U.S. negotiators demanded “control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors.” BBC reports the disagreement between Maliki and U.S. negotiators “goes to the heart of the immensely sensitive issue of who is actually in charge in the country: the Americans or the Iraqis.” “The Iraqi demands are unacceptable to the Americans, and the American demands are unacceptable to the Iraqis,” Maliki said. “Iraqis will not consent to an agreement that infringes their sovereignty.” The disposition of the negotiations will determine the future of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Last week, members of the two ruling Shia parties leaked details of the U.S. proposal, telling McClatchy News that the United States is “demanding 58 bases as part of [an] agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.” 

THE FUTURE U.S.-IRAQ RELATIONSHIP: A new agreement is necessary to legalize the U.S. presence in Iraq after the United Nations mandate expires at the end of 2008. In November 2007, President Bush and Maliki signed a non-binding “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship” that set out parameters for negotiating an “enduring” political, economic, cultural, and security relationship between the United States and Iraq. The Bush administration said that the proposed agreement would not be submitted to Congress for approval, with one analyst noting that this was “purely an executive agreement.” However, critics have pointed out that status of forces agreements have not traditionally committed the United States to guarantee the security of other countries. In testimony to Congress in March, the Center for American Progress’s Lawrence Korb stated that the agreement was “substantially broader in scope than standard Status of Forces Agreements. The fact that the administration does not intend to submit the agreement for congressional approval is a testament to their own recognition of how the broad the implications of this agreement are.” The United States has similar agreements with numerous countries where American soldiers are stationed on foreign soil, like South Korea, Japan, and Germany, but “none involve soldiers carrying out active combat operations.” 

IRAQI POLITICIANS UNITED AGAINST: The proposed agreement has met with vocal political opposition in Iraq. Ironically, while genuine movement toward Iraqi political reconciliation has been elusive, a diverse coalition has formed in opposition to the agreement. In Washington, D.C. two weeks ago, Sunni parliamentarian Sheik Khalef al-Ulayyan said, “When we look at this treaty, we don’t just think it’s a treaty that affirms the occupation of Iraq. … It looks like a treaty that will be the annexation of Iraq to the United States.” In a letter to Congress, more than 30 members of  Iraq’s Parliament rejected any agreement that is not “linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying America military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.” A representative of Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Sistani reported that Sistani had told Maliki that “everything should be done to get back total [Iraqi] sovereignty on all levels.” Supporters of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have held regular protests against the agreement, and Sadr has called for the agreement to be put to a popular referendum. Iran has also registered displeasure with the proposed agreement, with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, telling Maliki that the presence of U.S. troops was “the main obstacle on the way to progress and prosperity in Iraq.” Iranian leaders have expressed concern that U.S. troops stationed in Iraq could be used in an eventual attack on Iran. Underscoring the careful line that Maliki must tread between his Iranian neighbor and American sponsor, Iraqi and Iranian defense ministers recently “signed a memorandum of understanding to boost defense cooperation” between the two countries.

THE FUTURE OF THE US IN THE MIDDLE EAST: The conclusion of the proposed agreement with the Iraqi government will have broad implications for the future U.S. military posture in the Middle East. Establishing bases in Iraq from which to project American power through the region has been one of the underlying goals of the war from its inception, and partially explains why the United States has been willing to accommodate parties such as Maliki’s Da’wa and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (who are close to Iran but also support U.S. goals), at least in the short term. Conservative pundit Dick Morris spoke for much of the pro-war community when he told Fox News that, after 4,000 American casualties in Iraq, “I want bases out of that.” If the administration gets its way, American troops would be stationed in the heart of the Middle East for the foreseeable future — likely fueling continued extremist anti-American sentiment and political unrest. This highlights the tension between the U.S. goals of a democratic Iraq and a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. For that presence to be legal and legitimate, it must be subject to agreement by the Iraqi government. But it is extremely unlikely that any Iraqi government that agrees to an extended U.S. presence — especially on the terms the U.S. is currently demanding — will be viewed as legitimate by the Iraqi people.

www.americanprogessaction.org