DAMASCUS - Following his cabinet's approval of a draft Status of Forces
agreement with the United States regulating the US presence in Iraq, Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki has the hardest sell of all to convince Iraqis the pact
is in their "best interests". Deep down, though, and with Iran looking over his
shoulder, he could well be banking on parliament rejecting the pact.
On Sunday, 38 ministers, including Maliki and his two deputies, finally signed
the controversial draft security arrangement with the US. In essence, it says
that the 152,000 US troops will withdraw from cities and towns throughout Iraq
by June 30, 2009, and pull out completely from the war-torn country by December
31, 2011. Parliament will vote next week to either accept or reject the pact -
it cannot make any changes.
President Jalal Talabani had tried, via US ambassador Ryan
Crocker, at the last minute to get President George W Bush to make further
amendments to the draft so that he could present it to the Iraqi people "with
head help up high", to no avail. After already making some concessions, Bush
was seemingly satisfied with the text and is determined to sign off on it
before his term expires in January.
Apparently, Maliki only accepted the current draft after emphasizing full
withdrawal by 2011 and making sure that US soldiers will not be immune to Iraqi
law if they commit crimes on Iraqi territory. The full text of the agreement
has not been published, but the general parameters include a 10-year mandate
for the US to guarantee the security of Iraq, in exchange for the right to use
Iraqi land, waters and skies to base and train troops and store military
equipment. In addition to 50 US bases, the deal calls for long-term American
supervision of the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and Defense.
This gives the Americans the almost exclusive right to rebuild Iraq, train its
forces and maintain personnel on Iraqi territory. It gives the US the right to
arrest or persecute any Iraqi working against its interests, within Iraq, and
pledges to protect Iraq from any war, coup or revolution. It also gives the US
control of Iraqi airspace.
Deputy Prime Minister Barhan Saleh said the Americans had threatened to freeze
no less than US$50 billion worth of Iraqi hard currency, and keep all of its
monetary debts to the US if an agreement was not signed before December, the
date that the United Nations mandate for the American presence in Iraq expires.
Most Iraqis - both Sunni and Shi'ite - are vehemently opposed to the pact, as
is neighboring Iran. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq called on the Maliki
government to think twice before committing Iraq to an agreement that grassroot
Iraqis considered "a pact of humiliation".
Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr called on his followers to establish a new
militia, called the "Judgement Day", to hamper the implementation of the US
pact. After coming to power in 2006, Maliki famously defended himself against
accusations of being a US stooge, saying, "I consider myself a friend of the
US, but I'm not America's man in Iraq."
He is now trying to sell the agreement - which he did not support from day one
- as being in Iraq's best interest. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), he argues,
has had an operational defense treaty with the US since 1994, which keeps
nearly 2,000 US military personnel on UAE territory. Qatar has had a military
agreement with the US since 1992.
Apart from members of his cabinet, few are buying this argument, certainly not
the Iranians, who are furious at the Sunday ratification. The Iranians claim
the agreement is a direct security threat to the region as a whole, and Iran in
particular. Traditional foes like Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, chairman of the Supreme
Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC), and Muqtada, have gone into high gear in recent
weeks, pressuring Maliki not to sign.
The first to come out and speak violently against the agreement was the
Qom-based Ayatollah Kazem al-Hairi, a very influential cleric in Iraqi
domestics, matched only by Sistani. He issued a religious decree - a fatwa
- prohibiting ratification of such an agreement long before similar
declarations were made in Najaf, the holy Shi'ite city in Iraq.
One Iraqi source who requested to remain anonymous told Asia Times Online, "I
never trusted Nuri al-Maliki. I would count my fingers after shaking his hands.
Although we have no proof at this stage, it is clear that plenty of money was
handsomely distributed last week in Baghdad, to make sure that the entire
cabinet - with no exceptions - ratified the agreement draft with the United
States. One day this will come out in the classified archives of the US,
perhaps 30 years from now."
The pieces of the puzzle have started falling into place, he added, "We now
realize why no serious effort was made at getting the resigned ministers from
the Sunni bloc, the Iraqi Accordance Front or the Shi'ite bloc of Muqtada
al-Sadr to rejoin the Maliki cabinet. Maliki knew that if they were in office,
they surely would have drowned the agreement within the cabinet of ministers."
Many in Iraq simply do not buy the argument that Maliki is a helpless man who
simply cannot say "no" to US dictates. And even if he were, they argue that it
would have been more honorable for him to step down than chain his country to a
long-term agreement with a country that all Iraqis agree is an occupying force.
All attention is now on the 275-seat parliament, which can make or break the
security pact. Maliki's United Iraqi Alliance, which holds 128 seats, will
likely vote for the agreement. That won't apply to the 44 members of the
Accordance Front or the 30 parliamentarians from the Sadr bloc. In what could
be a crucial decision, parliament still has to decide on what kind of majority
will be needed for the pact to be ratified.
What happened in Iraq on Sunday was basically a war of influence between Iran
and the United States. It was a struggle for Iraq. It is unclear, however,
whether Maliki said "yes" to the agreement after consulting with Iran, or
whether he acted against the will of his Iranian patrons. The latter is highly
unlikely, given the prime minister's strong bonds to the Iranians and his
strong commitment to Shi'ite nationalism.
Probably the Iranians reasoned it would be better to have Maliki approve the
agreement, and then work to drown or hamper it from within the Iraqi system.
This would be preferable to having him ejected from power by the Americans and
being replaced by someone who would cooperate with Washington and snub the
mullahs of Tehran.
At least Maliki has the ability to walk the tightrope between both capitals,
and does not work against Iranian interests in Iraq. Maliki and his allies lost
a battle with the United States on Sunday. They did not lose the war. The
cabinet signing the pact does not mean it will be approved by parliament on
November 24, the premier could well be thinking, and it is here that George W
Bush's proposed last legacy in Iraq might die.
Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
