Iraqis Demand Timetable For Withdrawal

On Monday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki raised the prospect of “setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.” During an official visit to Abu Dhabi, the capital of United Arab Emirates, Maliki told a gathering of Arab ambassadors, “Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty.” The new emphasis on sovereignty may reflect Maliki’s growing confidence in the Iraqi army, which some analysts suggest is unfounded, after recent victories against al Qaeda in Iraq. It also reflects the pressure that Maliki is feeling from members of his parliamentary coalition, as well as from Iraqis themselves, many of whom oppose the continued U.S. presence. Since President Bush has consistently opposed any timetable for withdrawal, claiming that it would “embolden our enemies,” Maliki’s statement setting the stage for a possible conflict between the demands of the Iraq people and Bush’s plans for basing troops in Iraq. The U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S. presence in Iraq expires at the end of 2008.

IRAQIS STRESS RETURN OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY: The Bush administration has pushed hard to get a long-term agreement signed by the end of July, but this prospect seems increasingly unlikely. Many Iraqi parliamentarians have resisted supporting an agreement that they say is being negotiated in secret, with an American administration that is on its way out. “I don’t know anything about this agreement and neither does parliament,” said Ezzedine Dawla, a Sunni MP. The temperature was raised again several weeks ago, when a U.S. special forces unit shot and killed a cousin of the Prime Minister in a raid in Maliki’s hometown of Janaja, in Karbala province, an area supposedly “under full Iraqi control.” “Iraqi authorities say the raid was conducted without their knowledge or coordination.” Last week, Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari stressed that recognition of sovereignty should be the central concern of any agreement, declaring that there will not be “another colonization of Iraq.” Zebari also announced on Monday that “security contractors working in Iraq will no longer receive immunity from prosecution,” voicing a major Iraqi demand. Acknowledging the approaching deadline, Zebari cited three options: “Either we conclude a status of forces agreement; or we have an interim agreement until a SOFA can be completed; or we go back to the Security Council at the end of the year and ask for another extension.” Late on Monday, Maliki’s office released a statement indicating his support for the second of those options, a U.S.-Iraqi “memorandum of understanding“ that would extend the presence of American troops for a short period of time.

BUSH STRESSES AMERICAN SECURITY IMPERATIVES: Consistent with his tendency to maximally assert executive branch prerogatives, Bush has attempted to freeze Congress out of the security agreement negotiating process. In November 2007, 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. Because the agreement would commit U.S. forces to continued combat operations in Iraq, Congress has repeatedly tried to assert its proper constitutional oversight role. In June, Congress heard testimony from several Iraqi parliamentarians opposing the security agreement. Congress also received a letter signed by “31 Iraqi lawmakers [saying] they will insist on ratifying the agreement as is required by [Iraq's] constitution.” Iraqis and Americans responded negatively to reports last month that Bush intended to establish some 50 U.S. military bases in Iraq. This would ensure a continued U.S. presence and the use of the country as a base of operations for future military adventures in the region, a central element of Bush administration’s plan for transforming the Middle East. Bush denied that he seeks “permanent bases” in Iraq but also stressed that “a strategic relationship with Iraq is important…for Iraq, it’s important for the United States, and it’s important for the region.”

REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS FINALLY STEPPING UP?: Regional governments have been slow to work with the new Iraq. Currently, there are five Arab embassies in Baghdad: Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon, and Tunisia. However, “the diplomatic representation at these embassies is at the level of charge d’affaires, and there is no Arab ambassador in Baghdad to date.” Last month, Zebari reported that Kuwait and Bahrain had committed to sending ambassadors to Iraq. The United Arab Emirates recently announced that it was forgiving $7 billion in Iraqi debt and would also post an ambassador to Baghdad. George Washington University professor Marc Lynch noted the significance of Maliki’s choosing “the venue of a meeting with Arab ambassadors” to raise the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. “Not only would such a withdrawal please most Arabs,” Lynch wrote, “depending on how it is handled, but it would also increase their perceived need to do something.” Iraq continues to seek debt forgiveness from other Arab states for debts incurred during the reign of Saddam Hussein.

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, Benjamin Armbruster, and Matt Duss

This material [article] was created by the Center for American Progress

Net News Publisher