the selling of Iraq
Nov 25th, 2008 by admin
The selling of Iraq
By Hussein Shariatmadari
On Saturday, May 11, in an article entitled ‘Iraq on the Edge’ Kayhan predicted that the US will not be able to ignore the Iraqi people’s demand. It also referred to the draft SOFA deal as the US reaction such a failure. The article stated that selling Iraq to the US is the exact translation of the disgraceful SOFA, prepared by the Americans and initially agreed by Iraqi/US officials on March 17.
By referring to the international treaties and UN Charter regarding the rights of occupied countries, the article emphasized that if the security treaty is finalized, it would turn Iraq into a US garrison and colony in the Middle East – something like a new version of Israel but ‘Islamic’ and at the service of the hegemonic power.
As it turned out, the Iraqis and their religious leaders objected to the treaty, especially Grand Ayatollah Sistani. The Iraqi officials refused to sign it and recommended certain amendments. On November 18, and despite protests, the Iraqi cabinet approved the deal under the bogus name of “Security Agreement”. The draft treaty was sent to the Iraqi parliament for final approval on Wednesday, November 26.
The deal is still considered a defeat for the US even in its present form – as the Americans failed to get their original deal signed in the first place. At any rate, the amended treaty still means selling Iraq to the US and its colonial nature has remained intact.
Few points are worth mentioning about the amended security, though:
1-Article 12 of the treaty lays emphasis on the capitulation rights of US forces in Iraq. The article has been amended under Iraqi pressures. However, its Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 impose capitulation with a different connotation, also known as “Word Game”.
Under Note 1, basic rights have been given to the Iraqi government to prosecute US soldiers during special operations for general offences and mistakes. But Note 4 states that the arrested soldiers will have to be handed over to the US officials within 24 hours! Article 5 also states that they will be prosecuted under the US law! In other words, Article 12 is same as capitulation – the very same colonial rule that led to the popular uprising in Iran under the leadership of the late Imam Khomeini in Khordad 15 and his subsequent arrest and exile.
2-Note 1 of Article 4 is about duties under which Iraqi government could seek help from the US forces for ensuring security, including fight against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
US assistance in the note has been imposed on Iraq. In other words, the Iraqis want the occupying US forces to remain on their soil! However, under Note 50 of 1969 Vienna Convention, the Iraqi government should be free to ask for help which is not the case here.
There is no legal definition for Iraq security and stability in the note, which means the Americans will be free to define it as they see fit. As it turns out, the US could easily attack other neighboring states under the pretext that they are a threat to Iraq’s security. Iraqi government will also be obliged to cooperate.
However, Note 1 of Article 4 cancels Article 28 and the Iraqi officials should stop assuming that their soil will not be used to strike their neighbors.
3-Article 7 states that US forces are allowed to keep their military warfare in approved areas – and whatever that is needed to implement the security treaty. Washington has cunningly inserted the colonial contents of the previous draft treaty in Article 7 of the amended one:
US can control the use and transfer of military equipment by Iraq and they have only guaranteed that these will not be kept near residential areas. The agreement has no executive guarantees as under the article the Iraqi government has no information about the numbers and the types of stored military equipment, and this has to be given to them by US forces. So they are not going to jointly supervise it. The concern is that the Iraqis could be misinformed or kept in the dark.
Also given the past performances of the US and its broken promises, the guarantee seems rather silly. The question is which international/legal body will be going to guarantee the US guarantee?!
4-Article 9 allows the US military vehicles, airplanes and ships use Iraq’s land, waters and airspace, and they will be issued permits every year. This puts the Iraqi land, airspace and waters under US control. Iraq has also been obliged to unilaterally grant the permits each year with no right to decline!
The article also states that the Iraqi government has the right to inspect these vehicles, ships and airplanes. But it also emphasizes that this will be the case only if it has intelligence information – agreed by both sides – on their contents and/or place of origin and destination. The question is who is supposed to give such sensitive information to the Iraqi government?!
5-A major concern which forced the Iraqi government to sign the new deal was Resolution 661 issued by the UN Security Council in 1990. Based on the resolution, the Iraqi government – under Saddam’s rule – falls under Paragraph 7 of UN Charter. The Iraqis are concerned that if they don’t sign the imposed treaty their government will remain subject to Paragraph 7; their country will be considered a threat to regional security and peace (subject of the paragraph); and they will have to continue to suffer the pressures caused by UN sanctions and restrictions!
Such a warning has been elegantly inserted in Article 25 of the new treaty that “the US will do all it can to support Iraq and bring it back to where it was before Resolution 661.” It is worth mentioning that:
A-The US has not accepted any commitment in this particular article and has only promised help!
B-The resolution could be suspended only by the UN Security Council and its members – and not the US.
Under the international law’s section of ‘State Succession’ and international disputes: “The rights of the past government cannot be transferred to the new one as the new government starts with clean hands and is not responsible for the transferred disputes of the previous one.”
Under 1983 Vienna Convention regarding state succession, financial debts of a previous government are transferred to its successor but penalties for criminal acts will remain with the former and are not transferrable. In any case, the Iraqi officials need not worry about Resolution 661 and Paragraph 7 of UN Charter.
6-Article 51 of 1969 Vienna Convention is about rights in international treaties. It states: “If a country signs a treaty with another country under duress and threat, that treaty will not be legally binding.” Article 49 and 50 of the Convention make similar arguments.
Iraq is under the US and British occupation and the occupiers are directly interfering in its internal affairs. Naturally, under the circumstances, the new security agreement reached between the American and Iraqi officials has no legal merits.
Based on news reports, the Iraqi people and their government are against the new security treaty. They are also under immense US pressures to sign it. That explains why they have put all their hopes on the Iraqi parliament to reject it.
7-The Iraqi people and their Shi’ite/Sunni religious leaders believe that the outrageous treaty is a paper to sell their country. In circumstances as such, their representatives at the parliament are unlikely to ratify it.
In short, the US knows that it cannot stay in Iraq forever. This is because if such a disgraceful treaty is imposed on Iraq, a new round of fierce resistance will certainly emerge – an uprising in which all Iraqis will play a part, with little or no consideration at all.
