the hearing will come to auto recently i noted that my friend and colleague from massachusetts who chairs the senate foreign relations committee  that's obviously senator john kerry noted that iraq had become the forgotten war well i agree iraq no longer commands daily headlines and here in congress the debate now focuses on health care reform and there are multiple briefings and hearings on afghanistan but just because something's forgotten does not mean that it's gone away  pharma secretary of state colin powell one former president george w bush before the it invasion of iraq you break it you own it and he was right and this hearing is about the status of that ownership our responsibility if you will in december of last year the united states and iraq signed an agreement that is commonly known as the status of forces agreement our sulfa being the acronym i refer to it simply as the us iraq bilateral agreement because it was much more in my opinion than a typical cell phone and this subcommittee  had held a number of hearings as it was being negotiated and i believe that those hearings influence than improved the ultimate agreement that was signed  by prime minister maliki and president bush and while i continue to have concerns about it however and one of those concerns is the subject of today's hearing one purpose of the bilateral agreement was to replace the united nations security council mandate for s troops and other international forces in iraq this mandate was what is known as a chapter seven mandate chapter seven of the charter concerns and i'm quoting action with respect to threats to peace breaches of the peace in acts of aggression in effect a chapter seven mandate means that the international community the of the security council has passed legally binding resolutions regarding a particular country irrespective of that country's people of government might wi now the u s iraq bilateral agreement effectively ended the chapter seven mandate regarding international forces in iraq and this was welcomed in iraq as an acknowledgment of its sovereignty and national dignity after all a chapter seven mandate sensually says that you are a ward of the international community that you're not capable are trustworthy enough to run your own country and the anyone but especially a people as proud as the iraqi people this is profoundly insulting and whether a number of other chapter seven mandate still remains in a force regarding iraq most of them stem from the saddam hussein era article twenty five of the bilateral agreement committed the united states to working with our to address these remaining chapter seven mandates and resource iraq to full sovereignty in the family of nations unfortunately this is not as easy as it sounds these mandates cover a range of issues from border disputes to compensation claims from the first gulf war to the bank account which protects iraq's oil revenue from lawsuits to now obsolete provisions regarding weapons of mass destruction depending on how they are defined there are almost twenty different mandates many of them require iraq to take certain steps some of which they have not are they have not accomplished for them to be eliminated each of these mandates must be discussed and debated and voted on in the security council and the reality of the security council is that russia china france and the united kingdom as well as the united states can veto any resolution for any reason that's it's clear that this will require the expenditure of considerable political capital by the united states at the united nations some might say that we have enough on our plate it's time to move forward and address other pressing issues but let me suggest that we have given our word in a formal document and as secretary powell observed we have a moral obligation to the people of iraq and that simply cannot be denied i would also be specially made and i think this is particularly important that while it might be off the front page in many ways iraq it's stability in a split tensional prosperity are essential in the middle east in the entire region and a stable middle east is essential to our national security as well as world peace so iraq is as important as ever i'll be it it may be forgotten by some so this hearing is an effort to find out what needs to be done to terminate these mandates what are the mandates under discussion what is a process for eliminating them what do the iraqis have to do to help us help them how does this affect iraq's internal politics and its relations with its neighbors what are the prospects for a possible referendum in january if we do not a limb in a at least some of these m s what are the implications for american forces remaining in iraq the sharing and i think the most important briefing in which two distinguished parliamentarians from iraq will come before this committee and give us their perspective we'll explore all of these issues but before i introduce this distinguished panel let me turn to my friend from california the ranking member of this committee dana rohrbacher of any opening comments he might have that have been made concerning the ongoing conflict in iraq the chairman was first one to take notice of the status of forces agreement that could be the reason he was the first one to take notice is the fact we looked at that issue and demanded to play its rightful role during the last administration as that agreement went forward so i am here to learn about where we stand now now the decisions have been made that our troops will be withdrawing and are currently and actually involved in withdrawing and what legal documents and agreements and mandates that we have and i'm here to listen and learn and i do know one thing that we all need to ponder what the whole iraqi  episode in american history means to us as people and as a nation we have lost forty three hundred of our young people  iraq forty three hundred people and tens of thousands more wounded many of them will love lives for the rest of their life they will live in misery perhaps the leg perhaps half of their faces been shot off perhaps they won't be able to walk around children thousands of americans and forty three hundred killed a trillion dollars of treasure american a trillion dollars what does this all m and what is it all about and that trillion dollars i might add had it not been spent for that purpose may well have prevented us from going into the magnitude of the economic crisis that we're facing today think of the price that we have paid to incredible price and we need to ponder what this all means to us as  commitments we will make in the future and i believe that the decision to go into iraq in the first place was a decision based on a  benevolent and i believe a benevolent intent was of the american people all of us who were participated in that decision because we did believe that the willing to commit ourselves and rest the price that we paid in order to free the people of iraq from this dictatorship again we need to ponder to see if that is indeed the case was that worth it we got rid of saddam hussein and then of course more and more casualties and more and more treasure trying to prevent radical islamic  taking advantage of the chaos and the confusion what happens after that transition after a dictatorship into some other kind of government was all that worth it what's what about and what are the remnants that are left behind that we have to deal with now today we're going to hear about the legal remnants and some of the agreements and and i'm here as i say to learn about that because that's something we have to deal with as well we have to deal with some of the relationships and some of the situations that existed before our intervention in that situation islamic dictatorship in iran and we have a group of people who were permitted to stage themselves from iraqi territory and are now caught in a situation that had we not intervened wouldn't exist so the fact is and it is up to us to confront the issue of camp ashraf and what happens to those people i would hope that considering that we spent all of money and all of the blood trying to establish a country that would be more democratic and have work concern for human rights that the government of iraq would operate was some of those values instead of with an iron fist and trying to exert its authority over situations like and and i would hope that the forty three prisoners that they have taken from camp ashraf will be treated well which i doubt but that their human rights will be respected and human rights of those people  respected how the government of iraq acts from now on will be will determine for the people of the united states whether or not it was worth us to go in and spend the lives of our children and spend the treasure that we could have used on our own families here and if it is a democratic government and they treat people with respect and human rights that will determine whether or not the american people will look back and say yes it was worth giving my son's life to see that that vicious dictatorship was removed but they make the wrong decisions in these areas mr chairman i believe that there will be a deep resentment of the american people to the leaders in our government who sent them there but also to the people of iraq who have not lived up to the opportunity that we paid such a dear christ to give them with that i'm very interested testimony thank you for holding this hearing today thank you thank you dana  american member of the u n international law commission from one thousand nine hundred seventy two to two thousand he worked in the legal advises office at the department of state including two years is acting legal claims and he headed the u s delegation with the rank of ambassador to the u n and negotiations on conventional weapons he has written the book on the un security council in the post co op period in on international humanitarian law in recent conflicts as well as multiple lot of goals and in other pieces i would note that professor matheson currently has consulting contract  with the state department in the amount of twenty thousand dollars concerning the kosovo case before the international court of justice whether he's appearing here today in his own capacity and not as a representative of the united states government next we have dr can catch one of the congressional research service he serves as a senior middle east analyst for the u s congress with a special  iran iraq and the persian gulf states afghanistan and terrorist groups operating in the middle east and south asia he's a busy he's a busy guy these days he's also written numerous articles in various outside publications including a book entitled the warriors of is lamb rand's revolutionary god and his given numerous official presentations and briefings at conferences g in two thousand and seven following a distinguished career in all three branches of government what's particularly interesting for the purposes of this hearing is that he served from two thousand and five to two thousand and six as a member of the college of commission is the united nations monitoring verification and inspection commission commonly known as you must act which was a mandated mandated operation regarding iraq that has since been terminated he continued to serve on the un secretary general's advisory board in just a minute matters and has joined the un committee on the prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism in two thousand to an assistant secretary of state and from then into two thousand and six he had it at various times bureaus of the department of state including the bureau of control and the bureau of international security and nonproliferation and we have to know the cause for the record that he has also helped positions on the thank you very much mr chairman i have summited a written statement i suggest it be included in the record and then i'll give a summary at this point my statement attempts to describe where matters stand with respect to the various chapter seven measures which are still in effect with respect to iraq and particularly in light of the provisions of the us iraq agreement from last year you've already noted that article twenty five of that agreement does recognize that the situation of iraq is fundamentally security council itself has agreed with this general objective and in fact over the past few years it has itself taken a number of steps to revoke or to modify some of the more onerous chapter seven measures that had been applied to iraq after the g for in particular a lifting of the trade in financial sanctions an easing of u n control over iraq the oil and gas revenues the expiration of the multinational force in july of this year the u n secretary to fund investments in infrastructure projects in iraq in any event article twenty six of the u s iraq agreement says that the u s is going to support iraq final resolution of the compensation  issue the second area of unresolved issues relates to other iraq debts and assets at the end of last year the security council decided at iraq's request to continue in effect a number of measures that have been put in place to handle iraq funds and assets specifically the deposit of iraqi oil export funds into a development fund which is now administered by iraq and the operation of an international advisory monitoring board to monitor july report said that iraq was now basically ready to assume oversight responsibilities but it didn't know that there were certain unresolved technical questions outstanding with respect to iraq internal controls and the deposit of certain funds into this development fund it's also important to resolve the large volume of claims against iraq and debts of iraq that date back to the saddam regime  this includes claims of u s nationals and this is necessary so that iraq can resume its normal responsibility of a sovereign state for its assets and liabilities and again article twenty six us iraq agreement says that the united states will ballistic missiles and most importantly it includes all nuclear items and activities except for certain limited medical and other purposes now at the time iraq was required to accept effect the restrictions on iraqi nuclear and other activities and the resolutions say that these will continue and tell the security council determines that iraq is in compliance with council resolutions and the international energy agency decides that iraq is in full compliance with nuclear safeguards agreements and neither of these steps has yet occurred apparently there is some further work required on technical issues  to possible future rockey peaceful nuclear activities and i think probably there is also a policy or perhaps it's a tactical question about whether the complete listing of all of these restrictions at this point example after the goal for the security council created a boundary commission to resolve the iraq kuwait border dispute which had been one of the ostensible causes for the goal for and when that process of demarcation was completed the council guaranteed the newly demarcated boundary so the question arises as to whether it might be desirable to continue that guarantee of the boundary in force there are also a series of measures to locate and to repatriate the remains in the property of kuwait and third country nationals who were missing during the gulf war go on arms shipments to non governmental entities in iraq remains there are measures to facilitate the return of iraqi cultural property and so on secretary general's report this year identified a number of unresolved issues with respect to these items so it may be necessary to continue these in effect until those remaining issues are resolved in conclusion i think all parties are agreed on the principle that iraq should be restored to the legal and international status that it enjoyed prior to the gulf war but as you said it's not quite so simple some measures apparently need to continue in effect for an interim period until technical questions are resolved that includes for example the administration of the oil proceeds and their protection from attachment some issues probably could only be eliminated when questions between iraq and other states are resolved in the good example of this is the compensation issue with respect to and it might be that the council decides that certain other matters should be kept in force for a temporary period for policy reasons and the boundary question may fall into that category what i would stress on the whole is that this process of an orderly resolution of these remaining chapter seven issues need not be taken as any kind of derogation from iraqi sovereignty nor should it be taken as any kind of statement that iraq is not a full equal state on a par with others in the international  community the security council has used chapter seven in many occasions in the past to deploy peacekeeping forces other missions to take other measures without derogating from the sovereignty of states that might be involved and in fact all states have  and many iraqi views and positions are colored by efforts to outflank outmaneuver and constrain rival factions these tendencies will only grow in the run up to the january sixteenth two thousand and ten national elections in iraq has not been taken yet compounding the factional tensions is the perception that prime minister maliki is in a strong position politically this is largely a result of the strong showing of his  the january thirty one two thousand and nine provincial elections his showing in those elections was in turn a product of his benefiting from an improved security situation his positions in favor of a strong central winner in these elections the subsequent efforts to form provincial administrations demonstrated that he still needs to bargain with his rival factions including that of the radical young shiite cleric solder who is studying islamic theology in iran with the intention of trying to improve his standing in the clerical hierarchy possibly as a result of his strength and position maliki is seen by rivals as increasingly he is widely assessed by u s and iraqi experts as attempting to gain control of the security services and build new security organs loyal to him personally rather than institutions some of  security officials he perceived as insufficiently loyal he has also reportedly been using security forces to politically intimidate opponents including in diyala province for example four thousand special operations commandos part of the iraqi security forces the official forces of iraq report maliki's office of the commander in chief and not to the defense or interior ministry some of maliki's opponents and critics say these political tactics mimic the steps taken by saddam hussein when he was rising to power to centralize his rule maliki has also use the u s iraq agreement for his own political interest to some extent contributing to the perception of him as a strong leader was his insistence on certain concessions from the united states in the negotiations on the security agreement first and foremost was his demand that the agreement include a firm timetable for the united states to withdraw from iraq and that was included in the security agreement and president obama has delineated a drawdown plan that comports what the agreement there is a specific stipulation in the security agreement which maliki had wanted that the by june thirtieth of this year the united states would withdraw forces from iraq cities u s military thirtieth and that was accomplished there was also a demand purportedly urged by the iranians in the security agreement that there's a provision that the facilities in iraq cannot be used by the united states to attack other countries particularly iran and that was a demand that was included also in the security agreement on the other hand maliki's political position is not unassailable argued that he might sink or swim perceptions of changing security situation his potential position could potentially weaken even dramatically if the security situation deteriorates january of this year so it's about one hundred ten million dollars per month that iraq is paying for this compensation iraq that is funds that could be better for economic development to wait of course wants full reparations i would say president obama in his meeting with maliki on july twenty second made a clear statement supporting position saying the iraqi people should not be held to account for what charter i did want to note at the outset for the record that i am a registered lobbyist for the kurdistan regional government of iraq i believe however that i was not invited to appear today as a spokesman for the kurdistan regional government but rather in my personal capacity so anything that i say today will represent my own personal views and not necessarily those of the kurdistan regional government or anyone else as you know i was a late addition to this panel and therefore i have not studied this issue to the same degree as my distinguished panelists i do however share the view that as a general proposition the struggling democracy that is today's iraq should to the maximum extent possible be treated as a normal sovereign nation restrictions that were imposed by the international community on saddam hussein's regime need to be reassessed in the vastly improved situation that prevails today i therefore support the bush administration's undertaking  article twenty five of the u s security agreement to use its best efforts to help iraq take the steps necessary to its previous international legal standing i believe that the main contribution i can make today with the members of the subcommittee my own experience as an official of the bush administration in seeking to free iraq from one of the chapter seven mandate that remained in place even after the removal of saddam hussein from two thousand and five to two thousand and six i represented the united states as a member of the college of commissioners of the united nations monitoring verification and inspection inspection it was known as this commission was established in the commission or the organizations budget was in excess of ten million dollars per year which was substantially less than previous year's lot of money for an organization that had no real work left to do shortly after i was his career on the professional staff of this committee mr what is just as a now retired career foreign service officer who distinguished himself in this and many other endeavors over a period of more than two decades at the state department mr record  continue to pursue the abolition of on mobic during their service on the college of commissioners and with the passage of time they countered less resistance to the idea united kingdom and france eventually joined them in providing leadership on this issue with the adoption of security council resolution seven hundred sixty two the main lesson i would draw from this experience for the remaining chapter seven mandate that we're discussing today is that we need to look at where we need expect resistance to change in these mandates and we should look skeptically at rationalizations that may be offered for continuing to treat iraq differently than other countries with that mr what kind of progress is being made in terms of the discussions on the note and the negotiations that are going on would you give it a satisfactory obviously we're going to have an opportunity to hear from two distinguished parliamentarians from iraq but in terms of the process itself what is the current status what are the most difficult issues of the most on the issues and is there a timeframe which is reasonable to assume that most particularly the dip more difficult issues can controls accounting controls and so on which hopefully might be resolved simply by a greater more concentrated effort by iraqis and others to resolve the technical questions some involve more substantial interests for example the compensation question issue which obviously is a question of whether the burden of these paid claims upon the new iraq regime or will be borne by kuwait and there hopefully iraq  kuwait could negotiate a resolution of that but obviously that involves some serious substantive interests on both sides those discussions ongoing well the secretary general's report suggests that there have been discuss indicated that that probably will not be decided until things sort out politically in terms of the forthcoming elections with the referendum as i said earlier in my own remarks and let me just throw this at you i think is really important for the united states not only to assist in terms of meeting it obligations under the bilateral agreement but they continued to stay engaged and i think it's clear that the elections that will be held in january are of critical importance in terms of what occurs not only in iraq subsequently but in in in the entire region let me pose terms of those elections to reassure the iraqi people of the integrity of the electoral process clearly what has occurred in afghanistan is profoundly disturbing  and is potentially destabilizing in afghanistan i had a conversation in fact yesterday he's not here now but with  the administration and the united states to provide for a substantial presence to provide for security in terms of  electoral process as it as it develops and hopefully culminate in a free and fair and fully engaged citizenry going to the polls in  twenty thousand u s forces in iraq the current understanding is the u s will stay roughly at that level until the election so there will be about one hundred twenty thousand u s what do you think about the available if a problem occurs but again i think my own sense is that there is so much riding on these particular elections at least from my perspective particularly given what we observed occurring in afghanistan where the election results are very much in doubt maybe presson the pressing both our own administration as well as the maliki government to ensure that there is a more fully engaged and and visible presence of american military in a backup role obviously respecting the sovereignty of iraq but i  because what i see occurring is the if there is not an election that has the confidence of the iraqi people there potential flaw deterioration in terms of what clearly is a very fragile situation while democracy while elections certainly not the absence if you will of democracy you've got to have them to get to the point where you have institutions that are viable and the tool any comment none seeing that i'm going to recognize my friend from california thank you very much mr chairman and again thank you for calling this hearing let me know if you were the one of the first members of congress focus on very detailed account of where we stand at the moment and how the political issues where the where stands in iraq and how they affect these outstanding issues and of course misrata matter let me just note that your testimony was very enlightening because it gives us an insight into some of the unseen challenges that we must overcome in order to solve and to deal with the outstanding issues so all of this panel   i think that when we deal when we confront the issue we must understand that kuwait was a country that was destroyed destroyed by the invasion of iraq it would be the iraqi invasion of kuwait cause the equivalent of millions of lives lost to the united states  analogous situation to our population and what happened in kuwait it would have been the equivalent of the killing of millions of americans and the destruction of all of our major assets and not to mention the buildings that were gu the treasure that was looted it would be the equivalent hundreds of thousands of them had been taken in the united states and murdered while in captivity i think there is a totally iraqi troops withdrew the destruction of the amount of oil that was burned and destroyed and infrastructure that was was just an overwhelming percentage of their national economy so let's not discount that i'm not i don't know perhaps maybe the solution lies not and having the iraqis now invest in projects in kuwait here when we look at this we have a people iraq people of iraq were not in control of their government was not a democratic government that planned this invasion how much  morally and legally do the people of one country have when they are controlled by a dictatorship that commits them to certain actions that end up causing this type of  destruction is that a moral obligation and legal obligation of one people to repay what their dictatorship and brought upon them even though if it had been a democracy at the time iraq probably would not have invaded kuwait questions obviously both sides have equities here in new iraq government and the iraqi people have a certain legitimacy in saying why should be held responsible for saddam sins on the other hand as you point out the kuwaiti people were not responsible for that either in the long run i think probably there is a need for some kind of pragmatic solution for this as a matter of fact if the current situation goes on it would take fift twenty fifteen or twenty years to be repaid in any event so kuwait has an interest in a long term satisfactory relationship with iraq so does iraq with kuwait so logically there should be some kind of a mutual accommodation what you said i think there's no question under international law about the responsibility of iraq for the damage that was inflicted on the government and people of kuwait i think there may be a question that should be asked about one of the prime contributors to hitler's rise to power in germany was france in particular on the repayment of onerous war reparations that basically crippled the german economy and created a of dollars in one way or the other so we need to keep that in mind and i think the point misratah make is that yes even though some of this the timing of repaying some of these debts or dealing with the outstanding issues that are left might be costly this is they do what's right they will be able to meet that challenge one one last area mr government so with that in perspective i personally believe that the kurds have demonstrated a certain friendship toward the united states that has not been demonstrated by other people in iraq  and we have not and we have repaid that friendship and loyalty while our troops were there by not having a council and we don't even have a council in erbil in the kurdish regional area twelve other countries do what are you what do you see and then i will ask the panel what they see as the leftover situation that we have to deal with and will it be dealt with in terms of to work on in order to improve that relationship and hopefully lay the ground for a peaceful stable relations with iraq after one word answer you optimistic or pessimistic  ranking member senior republican on the committee dealing with the middle east mr chairman thank you for allowing me to sit in there really appreciate that i think the only questions that i have deal with the and i'm not sure you're the ones i had to be talking to perhaps we should be discussing this at the briefing that's going to follow but i'd like to get your views as experts on the long term stability of iraq especially in view of the fact that iran is next door and they're still involved in some of the nefarious activities there and whether or not  iraq is going to be able to with its own military and its own force be able to defend the new democracy that they have there there's been a number of people with whom i've talked to have some serious reservations and doubts about whether or not iraq will be able to survive if we pull out by i think when is it next june and whether or not we ought to adjust that time timetable although mr maliki and or stan is pretty firm in his in his desire to have us leave by that time so i just like to get your assessment of that think you're qualified to make that assessment and  range intentions and what is the united states first doing about it and second under the geneva convention what is the rest of the world how they do that situation i personally am concerned about what happens to them that said iraq has agreed under our agreement and under international law to certain stipulations under international law there are limits to what the iraqi government can do about the situation they cannot just simply send them would be one pretty nervous person sir yes sir ok so what are we doing to make sure that i mean other than say in the iraqi government's agreed under international law they told us they're going to be good guys and treat the iranians the camp ashraf nicely what what are we going to how do we see this playing out tell me how this is going to play out i understand the politics over the years has changed but what he thinks going to happen to these folks e iraq as a signatory presumably to the convention against torture and dealing with those particular provisions if there is  reason to believe or small likely that sending an individual to a country even if it's country of home origin where there's more than likely chance of torture are in you main in degrading treatment wouldn't the convention the treaty obligate the iraqi so i think that by international treaty we are in a i we going to accept the assurances put forth by by the iraqi government in many respects that's why the elections i want to get back to that are so critical in terms of their integrity and i'm sure these are issues that will be debated sure some of you are aware that mr rubb ocker and i have had a number of hearings on twenty two chinese muslims from the northwest in china who are weak r and where because of our obligations under the convention against torture and given the history of the chinese communist government  wiggers we find ourselves in a position where we cannot legally by virtue of that treaty and i would suggest morally return them to communist china where there's a likelihood that they would be about your future that what do you see what is your opinion of not the iraqi government but the iraqi people's kind of sense suggest that one alternative perhaps hasn't been examined is the possibility of moving camp ashraf into the kurdish regional area rather than where it is and that might be think about that and may perhaps make an offer in that regard of the country i think there is a dimension here with camp ashraf which is that whoever finds themselves with these people in their we'll probably have a serious diplomatic problem with iran historical perspective reclaiming my time i do you know back to that year well i thank the gentleman from that rather interesting discussion and let me thank the panel for their testimony and  prime minister allawi and salam locke the leader of the national dialogue front so we will recess for well three or four minutes and then re convene for the briefing