This is clear from the new U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, which has just been approved by Nouri Al-Maliki's "independent" cabinet. It is most likely to be endorsed by the Iraqi parliament on Monday, November 24. The majority in it belongs to the pro-government Shiites, and since it has decided that a simple majority (rather than two thirds, as the opposition insisted) is enough to approve it, it is clear what the outcome will be.
If it were possible to read the agreement in advance, many things would become obvious. Once it is approved by the cabinet, it will automatically turn into an international treaty. The Iraqi prime minister and Washington have already declared that parliament is not going to amend the document entitled the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
Its main points look good only at first sight. First, the United States should withdraw its troops from cities and villages next summer, and by December 31, 2011, it should pull out all forces from Iraq. Second, U.S. soldiers guilty of crimes committed outside their bases, off post and off duty, will be tried by the Iraqi courts. Third, the United States will not conduct operations against other states from Iraqi territory. Fourth, all operations against terrorists, and all detentions of citizens will have to be approved by the Iraqi authorities.
The U.S. Department of State told journalists that this is what the agreement amounts to, and that it was the result of tough bargaining. Ostensibly, George W. Bush made incredible concessions, unthinkable just six months ago, and only because the al-Maliki cabinet is getting full control of the country. The White House did not dare say that the cabinet has already acquired this control, or independence, so to speak, or that democracy is being asserted in all spheres of life in Iraq.
All these concessions by Washington signal the approach of the season of "good will and holiday cheer" which is called Christmas. The agreement is timed to December 31, 2011 because this is the expiration date of the UN mandate under which the coalition forces operate in Iraq. The UN adopted a relevant resolution in May 2003, that is, two months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There was no resolution sanctioning the intervention. The UN merely endorsed the mandate of the occupational forces to prevent chaos in Iraq. Experts on international law admit that the invasion itself was absolutely illegal and undertaken under a false pretext: Washington told the world community that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The new agreement separates the U.S. forces from the UN mandate. By and large, it gives official seal to the aggression against Iraq in 2003 and its subsequent occupation. This shows how unrestricted Washington is in its attitude to international law.
Other provisions are also quite interesting. Washington rightly deserves the fame of a city with more lawyers per capita than all other major capitals put together. Indeed, Bush did not want to commit himself to a deadline for the withdrawal. But the date of December 31, 2011 is couched in such vague wordings that it is possible to extend this deadline beyond January, or February 2012, or further.
In his election speeches Obama promised to start stage-by-stage withdrawal immediately, and to complete it by next summer. The new agreement delays this by a whole year. The president-elect should feel good about it because his military advisors unanimously say that his promise was unrealistic. Now he can blame Bush for the delay.
As for the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts over U.S. soldiers, this is a total bluff. It sounds good but amounts to nothing. The problem is that Americans kill thousands of Iraqi civilians, women and children while on duty. It is enough to mention how they bombed a wedding or how they destroy peaceful crowds which they call terrorist gatherings. Neither Americans, nor Britons leave their bases.
But the most intriguing point is that the United States will preserve its military presence in Iraq even after 2011. American instructors will remain there to train Iraq's security and armed forces. An exact figure is not mentioned, but it amounts to several thousand. Under the accord, the presence of U.S. troops may be prolonged if Iraq so requests. Who can guarantee that it won't?
Formally, the United States transfers control of the air to Iraq but again not without tongue in cheek. Its officers will be in charge of all Iraqi air traffic control services, which means that it will continue controlling the air space in the entire region, including Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
A commitment not to conduct arrests without telling the Iraqi authorities is nothing new. As for the promise not to attack other countries from Iraqi territory, the United States never had this right, although this fact did not stop it from bombing Syrian villages last October.
Iraq is occupied by foreign troops; its government is very corrupt; it is being torn apart by religious strife; its neighbors - Iran, Syria, and Jordan - are displeased with it; its Kurds are obviously eager to secede. Iraq has so many ailments that it is unclear how to start the treatment.
The new agreement will not cure any of them. Any occupation is sticky. It is easy to start but very difficult to end it.
Both the United States and Iraq should be treated for the Iraqi war and its consequences, but it is not clear how.
The worst thing is that having invaded Iraq, Americans have changed the existing confessional, ethnic and clan status. They have replaced the ruling Sunnites with the Shiites, and instilled in the Kurds the will for autonomy. In fact, Iraq has been placed on a huge mine of separatism and civil war. Immediate U.S. withdrawal is bound to lead to the downfall of the current government. It would be a blatant lie to call it "independent" and "democratic," or claim that it has "enhanced its power and reputation in the country." Any serious strife in Iraq will inevitably spill over into Syria and Jordan.
Many experts believe that Washington should start not only troop withdrawal but also direct talks with Damascus and Tehran without any terms. Everything in the region is so intertwined that it is impossible to guarantee peace in Iraq without involving its neighbors.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
