• Home
• 
  
  
• Issues
  • Prevent War
  • Iraq
  • Cluster Bomb Ban
  • Nuclear Disarmament
  • Federal Budget
  • Environment
  • Civil Liberties
  • Native American
  • More Issues
• Take Action
  • Action Center
  • Contact Congress
• Join the Network
  • FCNL Network
  • On Quakers
• Grassroots Toolkit
  • Who's Your Rep?
  • 2008: Be a Peace Voter
• For Congress
• For Young Adults
• FCNL Green Building
• Donate
• Links

Iraq and Region Update for November 30, 2007

Welcome to FCNL's Biweekly Iraq and Region Update
November 30, 2007

This update includes a report on the "Declaration of Principles" agreed to this week by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki; recommendations for lobbying; and a selection of key articles, documents, and reports.

I. In Congress (or in this case, while Congress was out)

Congress was out of town this week for the Thanksgiving recess and an intense media spotlight focused public attention on the Arab-Israeli meeting in Annapolis. The White House chose this moment to announce that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have signed a "Declaration of Principles" that could lock the U.S. into a long-term, Korea-style military presence in Iraq before Mr. Bush leaves office.

The Declaration calls for the U.S. and Iraq to conclude detailed agreements next year on political, economic, and security cooperation. The planned agreements would present Congress and the next president with a fait accompli. President Bush would leave his successor a signed agreement between the U.S. and Iraq committing the U.S. to station some 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. And President Bush would bypass Congress by making the accord with Iraq an executive agreement instead of a treaty.

Details of the Agreement

The Declaration of Principles lays out three areas of U.S.-Iraqi cooperation and sets the goal of negotiating a detailed agreement covering each of the areas by July 31, 2008.

• In the "Political, Diplomatic and Cultural" sphere, the U.S. will support Iraqi democracy against "internal and external threats" and the Iraqi constitution against "any attempt to impede, suspend, or violate it."
• In the "Security Sphere," the U.S. will "deter foreign aggression against Iraq" and support "efforts to combat all terrorist groups."
• In the "Economic Sphere," the U.S. and Iraq are committed to "facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq."

What Does This Agreement Mean?

Does this agreement mean that the U.S. will have a large and long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq? General Douglas Lute, Assistant to the President for Iraq and Afghanistan, was asked this question at a White House press briefing on Monday. His response: "So shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, U.S. presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States. So it's too soon to tell what shape and size that commitment will take. But you can be sure that that will be a key part of the negotiations that are framed in [the Declaration of Principles]."

Pressed whether the Declaration of Principles envisioned permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, General Lute said, "That's another dimension of continuing U.S. support to the government of Iraq, and will certainly be a key item for negotiation next year."

General Lute made no mention of long-term U.S. troop numbers in Iraq, but Iraqi officials quoted on background in wire service reports expected some 50,000 U.S. troops to remain in bases outside Iraq's cities under the agreement to be negotiated.

"We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress," General Lute said. "We have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place," he said, "and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty."

A New Gauntlet for Congress

The audacity of this administration's gambit is breathtaking. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson wrote on Tuesday, "A lame-duck president with a 30 percent approval rating" is in effect claiming "that he alone has the authority to keep our Iraqi occupation going for years to come, preempting the power of both Congress and the next president to chart a different course." (See article here.)

When Congress returns from recess next week, it will have to decide how to respond. Will it have what Meyerson termed "the gumption and the sense to oppose a pact with the Maliki government that commits our forces to an open-ended presence in a nation of unreconciled sects?" Congress should have at least enough gumption and sense to remind the administration that it has already passed legislation banning permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. It might even come up with enough gumption and sense to call administration officials to hearings on Capitol Hill and pass legislation requiring congressional approval of any agreement with Iraq.

But what Congress really needs is enough gumption and sense to refuse to vote more funds for Iraq until the administration agrees to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces and is engaged in vigorous diplomacy to stabilize Iraq and the region after a complete U.S. withdrawal. For Congress to find that kind of gumption and sense, it will have to hear a lot more from a lot more of us.

II. Keep on Lobbying

The U.S. will admit only some 2,500 Iraqi refugees in 2008, although the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has referred more than 14,000 to the U.S. for resettlement this year. The number of internally displaced Iraqis has more than doubled since January, despite the U.S. troop surge and the recent reported decline in civilian casualties in Iraq. Thousands continue to flee the country every day, and the U.S. has done little to respond to the humanitarian crisis that its invasion of Iraq has created.

A bill introduced in the House by Representative Earl Blumenauer (OR) would begin to redress this failing. The Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act (H.R. 2265) makes provision for asylum in the U.S. for up to 35,000 Iraqis per year and allows Congress to allocate money for assistance to the internally displaced and Iraqis who have sought refuge in neighboring countries. (The bill would have to be followed by specific appropriation bills for money actually to be spent.)

Passage of this bill would be a step in securing aid for Iraqi refugees, which in turn should be a first step in meeting the U.S. responsibility to rebuild Iraq. See if your representative has cosponsored H.R. 2265 and, if not, urge that he or she do here.

III. Articles, Documents, and Reports

After Annapolis

The International Crisis Group's new report, "The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Annapolis and After," outlines the important challenges to be met to reach a peace accord. "Prospects are uneven at best, Robert Malley, Crisis Group Middle East Program Director, notes. "But the decision to jettison the incremental approach and deal with the endgame gives some, however fragile, reasons for hope." Read the briefing here

Brzezinski Urges U.S. to Seek China's Help to End Iran Nuclear Stalemate

Zbigniew Brzezinski urges the U.S. to seek Chinese aid in negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program in an op-ed in the Washington Post. "Once it is more active in the negotiating process with Iran, China could help break the stalemate," much as Beijing did in successful negotiations over North Korea's nuclear weapons program, the former U.S. national security advisor. Read the op-ed here

U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles May Increase Importance of Iraq War Issue in '08 Elections

Commenting on this week's announcement of a U.S. agreement with the Iraqi government to negotiate the long-term stationing of large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq, Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson writes, "If Bush tries to lock the next president into permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, he may also be locking in a Democrat as the next president. Having to defend permanent U.S. bases in Iraq would be difficult enough for Republicans on the 2008 ballot… But imagine the political dilemma for Republican candidates if Bush argues that he can put such an agreement into effect without getting Congress's approval." Read the article here