After two delayed votes and several mass demonstrations, Iraqi lawmakers have finally approved the Status of Forces Agreement and Strategic Framework Agreement. The vote formally extends the U.S. occupation for at least three more years and gives Washington a piece of paper to legitimize its continued violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
|
Neither of these claims is accurate. The pact merely gives the appearance of a withdrawal on the horizon, but in no way guarantees one. The White House announced that the timetable for withdrawal outlined in the agreement is only an “aspirational” one, and subject to conditions on the ground. (New York Times, Aug. 22)
Furthermore, the pact allows for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s puppet government or its successor to negotiate a completely separate agreement in the future, allowing the occupation to be extended even longer if Iraq is deemed not “stable” enough.
The original version of the pact drafted by the Pentagon sparked such widespread opposition among Iraqis that the Iraqi parliament was forced to scrap the more blatant manifestations of U.S. control. Two major elements rejected by the Iraqi parliament were continued immunity for occupying forces from Iraqi law and the potential for Iraq to be used as a staging ground for future U.S. military aggression.
The pact officially guarantees that Iraqi land, sea, and air shall not be used as launching or transit points for attacks on other countries; on the other hand, it allows the U.S. military to “take appropriate measures to deter any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq.”
The pact also gives the Iraqi government more authority over the occupying forces, but is only given the right to exercise jurisdiction in the case of “grave premeditated felonies,” and only when those crimes are committed “outside their designated facilities and areas and while not on duty.” U.S. authorities reserve the right to decide whether or not an offense occurred “on duty.” The pact does not consider the daily unprovoked violence against Iraqi civilians a crime.
Shiite members of the Iraqi parliament compared the agreement to colonial mandates signed with Western forces following World War I. “The agreement was passed in an illegal way,” said one member opposed to the pact, “the way was rapid and the representatives were forced. We have started the era of mandates, not the era of withdrawal.” (New York Times, Nov. 28)
Parliament members who recognized the colonial nature of the pact disrupted the reading of the agreement, shouting, “Yes, yes, to Iraq! No, no to the occupier!” (The Columbus Dispatch, Nov. 28). This slogan has been echoed in the streets of Iraq by tens of thousands of demonstrators.
The Pentagon had to concoct a new justification for its presence in Iraq with the current U.N. mandate set to expire Dec. 31. In the face of overwhelming opposition to the occupation both in Iraq and in the United States, making it look like it is the will of the Iraqi people was a must. But the Iraqi parliament itself is an illegitimate government, constructed by the U.S. occupiers to best exert its domination, and does not represent the opinions of the majority of Iraqis. The strongest elements in the Iraqi government have relied on U.S. support to maintain power.
The security agreement must serve as a reminder to the anti-war movement—especially those who put their faith in Obama’s initial plans for a swift withdrawal—that regardless of who is in power, economic interests trump public opinion. When the Pentagon talks of “stability” and “conditions on the ground,” they are not referring to what conditions are best for the Iraqi people, but what conditions are best for U.S. corporations to profit from Iraq’s resources and for achieving U.S. imperialism’s geopolitical aims.
The Pentagon will continue to dance around the truth, creating new rationales for an illegal and extremely destructive occupation. The heroic resistance in Iraq and the anti-war movement in the United States are the only forces capable of creating the conditions that can bring the occupation to an end and restore Iraqi sovereignty.
