Bush Hides Treaty With Iraq Behind a Bush

by Swan | January 24, 2008 at 11:06 am

1222 views | 15 Recommendations | 3 comments

How many times have we heard our president tell us that the troops will be coming home [insert every statement here.][q
url="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18357565"]President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a joint letter in November. On the surface, the "Declaration of Principles" appears as a mutual "expression of friendship," as it has been characterized by administration officials.

But a closer look reveals a blueprint for how the two administrations plan to set the foundation for the future of America's involvement in Iraq.[/q]

With the benefit of hindsight; when we put particular statements together uttered by various members of our administration, a different picture begins to emerge when we think of the long term future of Iraq.

Bush Language: "enduring relationship."

Condoleeza Rice Language: "a relationship with Iraq
for the long term."

Robert Gates (Defence Sec.) Language: "a
mutually agreed arrangement whereby we have a long and enduring presence."

What does the language adopted by all, have in common?

Each one speaks about a long-term presence of American troops in Iraq - and to their alarm, Congress are seriously beginning to think that Bush means - decades.

If one remembers back, President Bush delivered a speech last January where he advised the public that increasing the troops in Iraq, would hold the violence back, long enough for the Iraqi police to become better trained and handle their own security.

The months came and went, till September when a report revealed that the
army had made "some progress" but was far from ready to
protect it's own. The report had gone on to say that the current Iraqi
police force had been infiltrated by sectarian death squads and should be
disbanded.

Today, Iraqi ground forces themselves are saying that their units lack
strength in numbers and are asking for better weapons - and for the U.S., to
stay for the a further undetermined time.

Iraq's minister of defense agrees, saying that the country's security forces wouldn't
be ready to control internal security for another four years. As far as
protection from external threats go, he'd already predicted the their inability
to last until 2018.

Rep., Bill Delahunt (D-MA) has instigated a series of congressional hearings
to explore what all the vague language used by the administration really means.
However, the administration officials seem to have answered him by one of two
ways: they've ignored him or declined.

Delahunt believes that there are "secret negotiations"
underway between the Pentagon; State Department officials and their Iraqi
counterparts regarding the future relationship between Washington
and Baghdad.

There is already a Declaration of Principals between Iraq and U.S., that was confirmed in a communiqué from Iraqi leaders in August of 2007. The signed correspondence was promptly
endorsed by President Bush.

It was clear then, that the two leaders were committed to their long-term
friendship and cooperation as two fully sovereign and independent states, for "a
free, democratic, pluralistic, federal and unified Iraq."

I actually managed to find a copy at the White House web site - a range of
issues were covered including complete cooperation in the political, economic,
cultural and security fields.

Fact Sheet: U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation

The U.S.
and Iraqi "Declaration of Principles" is a shared statement of intent that establishes common principles to frame our future relationship.

This moves us closer to normalized, bilateral relations between our two countries. With this declaration, leaders of Iraq
and the United States commit to begin negotiating the formal arrangements that will govern such a relationship.

Iraq's leaders have asked
for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring
relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready
to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects
our mutual interests, promotes regional stability,
and requires fewer Coalition forces.

In response, this
Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize
U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq
regain its rightful status in the international community – something both
we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the
Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final
year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed
arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter
VII mandate expires.

The UN Chapter VII
resolution that is binding under international law gives the MNFI legal
authorization to “take all necessary measures to preserve peace and
security”. Both the U.S.
and Iraq are committed
to Iraq
moving beyond an international presence based on a UN Security Council
Chapter VII mandate.

Iraqis have expressed a
desire to move past a Chapter VII MNFI mandate and we are committed to
helping them achieve this objective.

After the Chapter
VII mandate is renewed for one year, we will begin negotiation of a
framework that will govern the future of our bilateral relationship.

The Declaration Is A Continuation Of A Commitment That Began This
August

The governments of Iraq
and the United States
are committed to developing a long-term relationship as two fully sovereign and
independent states with common interests.

The August 26 Communiqué
signed by the five political leaders – Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, the
three members of the Presidency Council, and Kurdish leader Ma'sud Barzani
– on August 26, 2007, and endorsed by President Bush states:

"The leaders considered it important to link the
renewal of UN Resolution 1723 for another year with a reference to the ending
of Iraq's Chapter VII status under the UN Charter and the concomitant
resumption of Iraq's normal status as a state with full sovereignty and
authorities and the restoration of Iraq's legal international status, namely
the status that it had before UN Resolution 661 of 1990. In this context,
the leaders affirmed the necessity of reaching a long term relationship with
the American side … that is built on common interests and covers the various
areas between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America. This goal
should be realized in the near future."

President Bush endorsed
the August 26th communiqué:

President Bush:
"I welcome and accept the expressed desire of the Iraqi leadership
to develop a long-term relationship with the United States based on common
interests. The United
States is committed to developing this
relationship and to strengthening diplomatic, economic, and security ties
with the Iraqi government and its people." (President George W.
Bush, Remarks, Kirtland AFB, NM, 8/27/07)

President Bush:
Iraq's leaders
"understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and
security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi
leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America.
And we are ready to begin building that relationship – in a way that
protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American
troops." (President George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, The
White House, 9/13/07)

The Declaration Sets The U.S. And Iraq On A Path Toward Negotiating
Agreements That Are Common Throughout The World

The U.S. has security
relationships with over 100 countries around the world, including recent
agreements with nations such as Afghanistan
and former Soviet bloc countries.

The relationship envisioned will include U.S.-Iraqi cooperation in the
political, diplomatic, economic and security arenas. The United States and Iraq intend to negotiate
arrangements based upon a range of principles:

Political and Diplomatic:
The U.S. and Iraq have committed to strengthening Iraq's democratic
institutions, upholding the Iraqi Constitution, supporting Iraqi national
reconciliation, and enhancing Iraq's position in regional and
international organizations, so that it may play a constructive role in
the region.

Economic: Both
countries have agreed to support the development of Iraqi economic
institutions and further integration into international financial
institutions, to encourage all parties to abide by their commitments made
in the International Compact with Iraq, to assist Iraq in its efforts to
recover illegally exported funds and properties and to secure debt relief,
and to encourage the flow of foreign investments to Iraq.

Security: To
support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi
Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis;
support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight
against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its
affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups,
such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security
assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to
ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory.

Source: The
White House

It makes for an interesting read.

Examining the document a little more, one sees that there is a provision that
declares America will maintain Iraq's stability from "internal and external threats."

Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst said at the Congressional Research
Service stated:

"The declaration of principles would appear to commit
the United States
to keeping the elected Iraqi government in power against internal threats.”

"I leave it to the lawyers to determine whether that's
the definition of a treaty or not but it certainly seems to be — is going to be
— a hefty U.S. commitment to Iraq for a long time."

It's sure not the future that Americans had hoped for our
boys in Iraq.

Now here's the thing - as an "agreement"
alone, it's up front and transparent with no dirty dealings going on behind the
bushes - but what if it's actually a treaty?

So you think to yourself, "so what - it's all
good." However, such decisions have to be made legally, via
Congress and ratified.

Not unsurprisingly, the administration deny that there is any treaty, because it would then have to admit
that Bush side-stepped Congress to further his own goals for Iraq. Officials have compared
the Iraqi-US military relationship to a "status of forces"
agreement - a military relationship that the U.S.
already holds with around one hundred countries all over the world, including Australia, Japan,
South Korea and Germany.

Conveniently, such an agreement doesn't have to be passed by
Congress.

For their part, Iraqi leaders aren't mincing words. They call the
upcoming agreement a treaty. At a recent press conference in Baghdad, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar
Zebari called it a "long-term treaty."

Are there dirty dealings
going on behind the bushes?

Here's my final question for anyone who cares to answer it:
How can Bush promise to keep our troops in Iraq as peace keepers, when US.
Congress has already passed three laws that prohibit any U.S., funding to be used for permanent U.S. military installations in Iraq?

Sources:

The
White House

National
Public Radio

NPR:
Anne Garrels

NPR:
Guy Raz

Image Sources:

AFP/Getty Images: Jim Watson

NPR:
Essam-al-Sudani

NPR:
Ahmad Al-Rubaye