Ali Allawi: This raises huge questions over our independence
Thursday, 5 June 2008
Print
Email
In 1930 the Anglo-Iraqi treaty was signed as a prelude to Iraq gaining full independence. Britain had occupied Iraq after defeating the Turks in the First World War, and was granted a mandate over the country. The treaty gave Britain military and economic privileges in exchange for Britain's promise to end its mandate. The treaty was ratified by a docile Iraqi parliament, but was bitterly resented by nationalists. Iraq's dependency on Britain poisoned Iraqi politics for the next quarter of a century. Riots, civil disturbances, uprisings and coups were all a feature of Iraq's political landscape, prompted in no small measure by the bitter disputations over the treaty with Britain.
Iraq is now faced with a reprise of that treaty, but this time with the US, rather than Britain, as the dominant foreign partner. The US is pushing for the enactment of a "strategic alliance" with Iraq, partly as a precondition for supporting Iraq's removal from its sanctioned status under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. It is a treaty under any other name. It has been structured as an alliance partly to avoid subjecting its terms to the approval of the US Senate, and partly to obfuscate its significance. Although the draft has not been circulated outside official circles, the leaks raise serious alarm about its long-term significance for Iraq's sovereignty and independence. Of course the terms of the alliance for Iraq will be sweetened with promises of military and economic aid, but these are no different in essence from the commitments made in Iraq's previous disastrous treaty entanglements.
The Bush administration has set 31 July as the deadline for the signing of the agreement. Under the present plan, the draft of the agreement will have to be brought to Iraq's parliament for approval. Parliament, however, is beholden to the political parties that dominate the present coalition, and there is unlikely to be substantive debate on the matter. The Shia religious leadership in Najaf, especially Grand Ayatollah Sistani, has not clearly come out against the agreement, although his spokesmen have set out markers that must be respected by the negotiators. The Najaf religious hierarchy is probably the only remaining institution that can block the agreement. But it is unclear whether the political or religious leadership are prepared to confront the US. President Bush, with an eye on history, is seeking to salvage his Iraq expedition by claiming that Iraq is now pacified and is a loyal American ally in the Middle East and the War on Terror.
It is only now that Iraqis have woken up to the possibility that Iraq might be a signatory on a long-term security treaty with the US, as a price for regaining its full sovereignty. Iraqis must know its details and implications. How would such an alliance constrain Iraq's freedom in choosing its commercial, military and political partners? Will Iraq be obliged to openly or covertly support all of America's policies in the Middle East? These are issues of a vital nature that cannot be brushed aside with the Iraqi government's platitudes about "protecting Iraqi interests". A treaty of such singular significance to Iraq cannot be rammed through with less than a few weeks of debate. Otherwise, the proposed strategic alliance will most certainly be a divisive element in Iraqi politics. It will have the same disastrous effect as the treaty with Britain nearly eighty years ago.
The writer is the former finance minister of Iraq
Post a comment
Limit: 1000 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by Independent.co.uk's Terms of Use
Comments
14 Comments
The more I hear from GW Bush and his colleagues, the better I like Iran.
Posted by Mark D | 07.06.08, 01:31 GMT
Oh, I can't beleive who is critizing the US?? their close friend Allawi! what is this? and for what reason..this man after fully participated in all the mess Iraq is going through since the invasion and occuipation of 2003 he is trying to tell us that he is a diffrent person, patrioatic Allawi!! after becoming rich from taking part in the curroptin, he is no became honest person!!
those are all criminal alonf with Bush and his administration
Posted by Suzan Elian | 06.06.08, 11:57 GMT
Don;t beleive this criminal person, he and al-Maliki, al-Hakim, Talabani, Barazani, adel Abdulmahdi, Muqtada are all part of the criminal group that destroyed our homeland, they must pay the price, they must be hang for their crimes
Posted by Mohammed | 06.06.08, 11:44 GMT
Allawi, part of those who encourged and helped US in invading and destroying Iraq, nomatter what he is writing now, Iraqis will never foprget this to him and to all those puppet, you will be at trial one day and imprisoned for your participation in crimes against humanity
Posted by Naser | 06.06.08, 11:27 GMT
>>>President Bush, with an eye on history, is seeking to salvage his Iraq expedition by claiming that Iraq is now pacified and is a loyal American ally in the Middle East and the War on Terror.<<<
Yes, "pacified" being the operative word there!
How can the escalation of American commitment five years after the initial failure in Iraq be considered a "victory"? Well, how can we ever win a "war on terror"? This is a war on a concept. Moreover, a concept that academics still can't agree upon the correct wording of a definiton for. A war against an idea that is ridiculously abstract and therefore seemingly alllows a global conflict with no bounds of previous experience. Think about it. The war on "terror", this time the enemy is not something physical but rather a method by which the militarily weak can defend themselves against the militarily rich. The Bush administration, through these means, has actually made it permissable to do anything in the name of the "war" on "terror".
Posted by the angry parrot | 06.06.08, 04:04 GMT
Let me get this straight, scores of Shiite fundamentalists like al-Maliki, al-Hakim, et al spent the last three decades in Iran and/or Syria so that they could transform a secular Iraq into a vassal state of the USA?
That's papably absurd.
Judging by the total lack of pro-US legislation and dealings passed by the Iraqi Parliament and the abundance of pro-Iranian legislation and dealings, it is quite obvious the US has inadvertently fathered a rogue nation, one with extremely close and long standing ties to extremists in Iran.
What is extremely sad is that this anti-American nation is what GWB did in a direct, but inadvertent, response to the horrific attacks of 9/11.
After oceans of blood and three trillion dollars what do Americans get?
Bush's Islamic Republic???
Posted by Homer | 06.06.08, 03:34 GMT
Dont be foolish about the immunity. All US military are subject to the law and articles of the UCMJ which is far more strict and specific than any civilian faces in a democracy. Not to mention any military's troops regardless of country of origin campaigning in another country is subject to the laws of their country of origin during the conflict and not the country they are fighting in. If there are breaches of law that are specific to the country in conflict then they must take it up through diplomatic channels or file breach of Geneva convention complaints which all US military are subject to.
Military contractors should also be subject based on contract to the UCMJ and the law there in. I am unsure if they are.
Regardless of immunity, this treaty is puzzeling at best and seriously flawed. US troops have spent 5 years of blood to earn the Iraq people's hearts and minds and this will throw almost all of those gains away. Iraq must be independant in every regard for victory.
Posted by blackstaff | 05.06.08, 20:14 GMT
From Max in Brussels: a "Strategic alliance" between the U.S & Iraq.
Sorting out the problems, let us remark in the first place, that such an imposed "accord" should wipe out the prestige and authority of any Iraqi government. More than ever, it is obvious that American intervention in Iraq just aimed at consolidating their hold on a promising oil-producer "up for grabs".
Secundly, it is likely to reinforce extremists'influence as there are in Iraq a number of people who really want to regain a complete national identity.
Thirdly, it will surely give a new impetus to Iranian influence, confirming their criticism concerning the real motivation of U.S. intervention in Iraq.
To sum it up: from an Iraq point of view, this is unacceptable.It is not an "alliance", just a colonial diktat whilst for the Arab and Muslim world, it will be considered as the negation of the much vaunted "democratic principles" a favourite G.W.Bush argument.
Good heavens ! Lawrence of Arabia, where are you ?
Posted by Max Wegener | 05.06.08, 15:50 GMT
US is attemting to wipe its war crimes in Iraq by pressering Iraqi government to grant its troops "immunity" from future prosecution in "exhange" for diplomatic relations. The issue of military bases is a smoke screen because US now want to wash its hand off the disaster it faced in Iraq. Sadr and Ayatollah Sistani, the most powerful men in Iraq, hve seen through this plot. Sistani has already gave fatwa that he would not allow this deal to go ahead. Iraqi government has also rejected this deal.
Posted by Peter | 05.06.08, 15:23 GMT
Mr Allawi and everyone interested in the Middle East, PLEASE read Pulitzer Prize winner and ex-NYT ME bureau chief Chris Hedges' piece "The real consequences when America is at war". It's at Salon.com.
It's about the ignorance, fear and indiscriminate cruelty of the troops stationed there, under orders or with the connivance of their commanding officers. It destroys everyone's conscience, Iraqi and US/UK, troops' and civilians'. We have known all along that war is about going on the rampage with impunity, while lying to yourself that you are doing good and deserve gratitude, not opprobrium. And "of course" killing civilians in their hundreds of thousands is just "collateral damage" for the greater good...Iraqi culture, in all its forms, is 5000 years old. It survived the Ottoman Empire, even Saddam, just about. It may not survive its second Western occupation and the blind, stubborn ignorance and arrogance that go with it. It's all about "self-fulfilling prophecy": "Me good, you bad".
Posted by Julia Iskandar | 05.06.08, 13:39 GMT
14 Comments