The public opinion and political parties have paid, and continue to pay,
special attention to the Iraq-US negotiations that are considering the fate of
foreign troops, that are present in our country since the occupation in April
2003, and the relationship between Iraq and the United States. It will be
recalled in this regard that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had signed with the
U.S. President George W. Bush on November 25, 2008 "a declaration of
principles on the long-term relationship of friendship and cooperation between
the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America," which was considered
at the time as a general framework that paves the way for negotiations aimed
to reach a bilateral agreement governing the relationship between the two
countries on security, political, diplomatic, economic and cultural levels, to
be completed before July 31, 2008.
It is known that Iraq had been placed, because of the dictatorial regime's
policies and its external wars of aggression, under Chapter VII of the UN
Charter according to Security Council Resolution 661 in August 1990, after
considering the situation in Iraq at the time to be a threat to international
peace and security.
After the fall of the dictatorial regime in April 9, 2003, the UN Security
Council Resolution 1483 (May 2003) was adopted, which conferred international
legitimacy on the occupation and its Authority. A subsequent resolution, UNSCR
1511(October 2003),
stipulated the formation of the Multinational Force under a unified command,
and the mandate of the latter was subsequently renewed in Resolutions 1637
(2005) and 1723 (2006). All these resolutions
were issued under Chapter VII, on the basis that the situation in Iraq
continued to be "a threat to international peace and security", thus requiring
that Iraq remains under a kind of international trusteeship and with its
sovereignty violated.
In addition to this, the mandate of the Multinational Force was automatically
renewed, without coupling this renewal with a serious review of the role of
these forces and regulating their presence and powers in accordance with a
mechanism that is agreed upon between the Iraqi government and the United
States. The latter was assigned by Resolution 1511 the task of being in charge
of these forces and presenting periodical reports on their operation to the UN
Security Council. This is despite the fact that Resolution 1546
(June 8, 2004) had stipulated the ending
"officially" of the occupation and its Authority, and that the interim Iraqi
government would take over its functions.
The UN Security Council issued, later on, Resolution 1790 on December 18,
2007, which extended the mandate of the Multinational Forces until December
31, 2008. The Security Council explained in that resolution that the Iraqi
Government's request for an extension would be the last, with the hope of
ending Iraq's subjugation to the provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter
and enabling Iraq to restore its full normal status as a state enjoying full
sovereignty and powers, and to regain its international legal status, i.e. its
position before adopting UNSCR 661 in 1990.
According to various sources, the negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq began
last February, and the pre-set date for their conclusion, 31st July
2008, has passed; yet no signs of a quick deal looms on the horizon.
Statements from the two sides have continued, with contradictions and
sometimes an optimism that does not match what has been reported about
difficulties facing the negotiators.
Why have the negotiations been prolonged? What are the contentious issues?
What does the Iraqi side want, and what does the American side want? What
pressures are the Americans exerting? Are the frequent visits, and most
recently Negroponte's visit, aimed at putting pressure? Why was the American
response, to a number of issues raised by the Iraqi side, delayed? There
remain many questions that need specific, accurate and official answers.
However, the negotiations continue, until now, behind closed doors and under a
blackout, with a lack of transparency generally prevailing. Here we are
talking about the necessity of taking a public official position, instead of
statements or leaks that fail to inform the citizens who are anxious to know
the truth about what is going on and what is actually taking place.
The negotiations that are taking place are of a high degree of importance and
sensitivity, now and in the future, and they ought to be characterised with
full transparency, clarity and openness, informing the people firsthand about
their details, and keeping the Parliament aware of how they are proceeding.
While negotiations are still continuing, despite some optimistic statements
about an agreement being close between the two sides, we believe, along with
other democratic and patriotic parties and forces, that the criterion for the
legitimacy and acceptability of any agreement with any state is linked to the
extent of its commitment to the higher interests of the people and the
homeland, and to the rules of international law, and the guarantees under the
UN Charter for the right of every people to freely choose their political,
economic and social system. This is embodied in the need to respect the will
of the people and their right to ensure full their sovereignty and
independence, and non-interference in their internal affairs.
In the concrete case of Iraq, as we approach the end of the mandate of the
Multinational Forces under Security Council Resolution 1790, the agreement to
be held between Iraqi and American governments, so as to replace the status
quo, must take into account and respect, in a clear and unambiguous manner,
the unequivocal desire of the Iraqi people to regain their full sovereignty
over their land, waters, airspace, wealth and resources, and to abolish the UN
resolutions that violate and curtail this. Based on the above, we believe that
the agreement must ensure:
- Avoiding the setting of open or hidden (or secret)
conditions or restrictions that infringe the sovereignty of Iraq.
- Ending the presence of foreign and American troops,
and defining a time scope for achieving this in accordance
with a specific, progressive,
schedule, that is linked to the
rehabilitation of Iraqi forces and developing their efficiency,
to enable them to take over fully the handling of security.
- A declared commitment not to establish permanent military
presence or bases on Iraqi territory.
- A commitment not to make Iraqi territory a springboard
for attack or interference in the affairs of neighbouring countries.
- Respect for the Iraqi law and will in the specified
period during which the presence of American troops would continue.
And rejecting the immunity demanded by the American side
for its forces, or for security companies,
or for other parties, and all
associated movement or transfer of materials,
whether on land or in the skies of Iraq. The
emphasis here is on putting all this under the control and supervision of the
Iraqi side and through coordination with it.
- A commitment to rid Iraq of Chapter VII and to ensure its
normal return as an active member, enjoying full
rights, of the international community.
- Helping Iraq to tackle the consequences of the occupation
and military operations, and supporting it to
rebuild its economy and institutions, and improve
the services.
We are aware that the negotiations are taking place between two unequal sides,
particularly in terms of the U.S. military presence on Iraqi territory. We are
also aware that America will exert various pressures and will seek to exploit
differences and conflicts between the political forces and blocs, and between
the central government and the Kurdistan region, as well as resorting to wide
use of the media and issuing repeated statements casting doubt about the
policy of the Iraqi government and its ability to manage things and govern,
and to talk about the security and military situation and its fragility. We
also recognize that it will seek to employ all this to weaken the Iraqi
negotiating delegation and undermine Iraq's position, in order to extract
gains and pass an unfair and unbalanced agreement.
However, in connection with the
above-mentioned, the Iraqi
government has many factors that can contribute to strengthening its position
if properly used. In the forefront of these factors
is the will of the people who aspire to see their country free,
fully independent and sovereign,
and unfettered.
We realize that the national interests that can be achieved
in the ongoing negotiations with the American side are subject,
to a large extent, to the
strength of the negotiating position of the Iraqi side and to the extent of
the Iraqi government's success in creating the
prerequisites to achieve a national consensus to rely upon in these
negotiations. In this regard,
we can only emphasize:
- The importance and the need for transparency,
clarity, openness and informing
the people about the negotiations and their progress,
so as to strengthen the popular and political support for
the positions to which the government declares it is committed and insists on.
The media have to be properly used in this context.
- The government should strive to deepen national unity and
consolidate the true meaning of national reconciliation.
- Acting to involve the various political parties,
blocs, and representatives of the
people, and to inform them of the stages and
complexities of the negotiations.
- Seeking to create an appropriate political and security
atmosphere, and to work to overcome the accumulated
disagreements on various issues, including the need
to tackle the state of estrangement between the federal government and the
Kurdistan regional government.
- Proper use of the Arab,
regional and international positions that seek peace and peaceful solutions
that work against the foreign military presence, and
to employ this in the interest of the position and demands of the Iraqi
government. In this context,
too, comes the possibility of
making use of the struggle and competition in the US elections,
and the positions of the American public opinion.
We look forward, along with our people,
to ensuring that our country enjoys full sovereignty and
independence, and to ending any foreign military
presence on our territory, in whatever form and
under whatever name.
