IRAQIS PEACEFULLY PROTEST US-IRAQ AGREEMENT, FIST FIGHT BREAKS OUT IN PARLIAMENT

Today, more than 20,000 Iraqis filled Firdos Square protesting the U.S.-Iraq security agreement, or so-called “status of forces agreement” that would define the U.S military’s role in Iraq for the next three years.
As the New York Times reports, “With powerful symbolism, demonstrators hanged an effigy of President Bush from the plinth that once supported the statue of Saddam Hussein that was toppled after Baghdad fell to U.S. troops on April 9, 2003.”

(On April 9th, 2003 it was the New York Times that declared “Jubilant Iraqis Swarm the Streets of Capital,” and the Boston Globe called it “Liberation Day in Baghdad”. Turns out the entire event was a “psychological operation” (i.e. a stage managed lie to manipulate Iraqis—if not the American public) put on by the Pentagon with not more than a “rent a crowd” of 200 Iraqis in the square which was cordoned off by Marines.

Liberation Day—Take Two?
“The Iraqi crowd applauded the downfall of Mr. Hussein’s regime, and also placed a black hood over the effigy of President Bush — a reference to the execution of Mr. Hussein on Dec. 30, 2006. They put a whip in the effigy’s right hand and, in its left, a briefcase on which were written the words “the security agreement is shame and dishonor.” While the protests were peaceful, “Iraqi Army snipers and machine-gunners took up positions on rooftops overlooking Firdos Square.”

And in the Iraqi parliament, a fist-fight broke out between Iraqi lawmakers.

We’re Leaving and Obama’s President—What are they complaining about?
So you’ve probably heard by now that this US-Iraq military agreement calls for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by 2011, and US troops will have to leave city centers this upcoming June. This is a far cry from the Bush administration’s preliminary attempts as of last year to complete a far more broad ranging security agreement that could lock in place a long term U.S. military occupation of Iraq.

Here’s some background for you. On New Year’s eve of this year, the UN mandate that gives legal cover to U.S. troops operating in Iraq will expire. Each year this happens, and the mandate is up for review at the UN Security Council and is extended without delay. But the very year the Bush administration is leaving office, they have been determined to pass an agreement to define the U.S. military role in Iraq after December 31st 2008 and well after Bush leaves office.

It is quite ironic that the Bush administration’s “security agreement” has become what looks like a “withdrawal agreement”. However, just a glance at Iraqi politics—from the fist fight in parliament to the streets—demonstrates that this agreement is stirring up potentially destabilizing controversy.

RED FLAGS ABOUT AGREEMENT
However, there are some deeply alarming red flags about this agreement surfaced by Representative Delahunt’s latest hearing, the 8th in a series put on by his subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee about this proposed agreement. I will name just two of them for now.

1) The Bush administration and the Maliki government says that this can be submitted to parliament for a simple majority vote. Many Iraqi parliamentarians and others argue that for this agreement to be approved, it must be approved by a two-thirds majority.

This is a pivotal controversy, since with a simple majority it could pass, but with a two-thirds majority it is highly unlikely. The Iraqi parliament—the only body directly elected by the Iraqi people—is critical of the U.S. occupation, while the Iraqi executive branch has historically been closely allied to the Bush administration and is pressing for the passage of this agreement.

2) There are two versions of the agreement—one official copy in Arabic and one official copy in English. The official copy in English was only just recently distributed to Congress, but they are not allowed to release it to the American public. The Arabic version was leaked and translated by Iraqi analyst Raed Jarrar. The language being presented to Iraqi and U.S. lawmakers is substantively different—including the language related to withdrawal. As Raed noted in his congressional testimony, usually such an agreement requires a “certificate of translation”, to verify that the Arabic and English texts are identical.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT YET ACQUIRED CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION FOR THE AGREEMENT IN THE ARABIC AND ENGLISH DRAFTS!

So the parliament is being asked to approve an agreement that may or may not be interpreted the same way by the English speaking power players, may or may not have strict deadlines for withdrawal, and may or may not be in accordance with the Iraqi constitution. Not to mention the idea of being in accordance with the will of the Iraqi people. And while the Iraqi and US administrations got more than a year to negotiate this agreement, the Iraqi parliament has a few weeks. In fact they are being pressed to have a vote on Monday.

Is it is any wonder that this is agreement is getting in the way of "national reconciliation efforts" that we always hear about in Iraq?

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook