Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Iraq, the sovereign colony?

Boston.com
GLOBE EDITORIAL
Iraq, the sovereign colony?
June 15, 2008
PRESIDENT BUSH has been treating Iraq less as an ally than a vassal. He has 
been pushing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to accept two long-term 
agreements that would, as many Iraqis rightly object, compromise Iraq's 
sovereignty and independence.
Bush and Maliki agreed in November on principles for a "status of forces 
agreement," which will be needed as a legal basis for American troops to 
remain in Iraq after the United Nations' mandate for them expires Dec. 31. 
The agreement would set rules for US forces in Iraq. Since March, Iraqis and 
Americans have also been negotiating a "strategic framework agreement" to 
define more broadly the long-term political and diplomatic relations between 
the two countries.
The two agreements have been reopened for negotiation. Though Bush speaks of 
Iraq as a free, democratic ally, the original versions gave the United 
States privileges in Iraq more suitable to the relationship between a 
colonial power and its protectorate.
The contents of the agreements were not cast in the form of a treaty because 
a treaty would have to be ratified by the US Senate. Bush plainly does not 
want senators asking troublesome questions about the implications of an 
open-ended Iraqi approval for 58 American military bases on Iraqi soil.
Five of the 58 are sprawling megabases that replicate the amenities of an 
American town. Balad Air Base, north of Baghdad, has air traffic comparable 
to Chicago's O'Hare Airport. No wonder some Iraqis see these bases as proof 
that Bush invaded Iraq to gain control of its vast oil reserves and to 
establish a new permanent military presence in the heart of the Middle East.
'Enduring' bases
The prospect of what the Pentagon calls "enduring" military bases in Iraq 
should worry Americans as much as it does Iraqis. True, a President Barack 
Obama or a President John McCain would not be obliged by the Bush agreements 
to maintain any particular troop levels in Iraq. But if Bush got his way, 
the two documents would have set in motion a military and bureaucratic 
dynamic that would not be easy to reverse.
Should Bush obtain a legal basis for the occupation from the Iraqi 
government rather than the United Nations, he would surely cite it as an 
after-the-fact justification for his war policy and its toll in lives and 
treasure. He could use this treaty-equivalent as proof that he had indeed 
reshaped a strategically vital area of the world, endowing Iraqis with 
freedom, democracy, and stability.
Because of fierce Iraqi resistance to the original terms of the two 
agreements, American and Iraqi negotiators have been revising them to narrow 
the prerogatives of the occupier. But even if the two sides reach a 
compromise, Iraqis will not soon forget the concessions that the 
administration tried to extract from Maliki's dependent government. They 
reeked of arrogance, and they fueled the most paranoid claims heard from 
anti-American forces in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world.
Beyond the demand for long-term military bases, the administration had 
insisted on legal immunity for all its troops and contractors alike. The 
initial versions granted US forces authority to arrest anyone it wanted in 
Iraq, without having to turn the detainees over to Iraqi courts. Perhaps 
most insulting of all for Iraqis, Bush had originally insisted on control of 
Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet and license for American forces to launch 
military operations from Iraq against any target - without even having to 
consult Iraqi authorities.
Dialing down the colonialism
Fortunately, Bush has instructed his negotiators to back down on some of the 
most egregious infringements on Iraqi independence. Private contractors will 
not have immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts. Detainees captured by US 
forces will be transferred to Iraqi authorities after combat ends. US troops 
will not conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government. And 
the administration will pledge that American troops will not attack another 
country from their Iraqi bases.
This latter revision was the key assurance that Maliki carried to Tehran 
recently. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, nevertheless 
declared, in public, that the American occupation of Iraq was the main cause 
of Iraq's difficulties.
Like it or not, Iran's cooperation is vital to stability in Iraq. Yet Bush's 
policy has effectively prevented Tehran and Washington from acting on their 
overlapping interests in averting chaos in Iraq. As long as the Iranian 
regime fears that Iraq may become a launching pad for an American attack on 
Iran, Iran will try to force a rapid, complete US withdrawal. But Iran also 
has cause to worry that once US forces have departed, Iraq - or segments of 
the population - will be drawn back into the Arab fold.
What is needed in America's relations with Iraq and Iran is foresight - and 
the diplomatic acumen to transform a volatile three-cornered relationship 
into a foundation for regional security. This means allaying fears of 
American neocolonial ambitions in both Baghdad and Tehran. That will be the 
job of the next president. Bush should not be doing anything that makes a 
difficult mission harder than it already is.
© Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
 

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/06/15/iraq_the_sovereign_colony/
Iraq, the sovereign colony?
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + June 15, 2008
PRESIDENT BUSH has been treating Iraq less as an ally than a vassal.
He has been pushing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to accept two long-
term agreements that would, as many Iraqis rightly object, compromise
Iraq's sovereignty and independence.
more stories like thisBush and Maliki agreed in November on principles







the Muslim world.Continued...

Dialing down the colonialism




© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.