Making American protection compatible with Iraqi sovereignty

At the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the possible extension of the UN Mandate for Iraq, Chairman Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) talked about reviewing the role that the Iraqi Parliament expected to play in the approval of the extension of the UN Mandate to December 31, 2008. Delahunt explained that members to Prime Minister al-Maliki and the UN Security Council called for the inclusion of a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, otherwise they would not support the extension of the UN Mandate.

Delehunt also explained that despite the recent dramatic change in public statements by both Iraqi and U.S. executive branches concerning a timetable for withdrawal of American troops by 2010, it is still “very much in question” whether an agreement can be reached by December 31, 2008. He said that members in the Iraqi Parliament also have expressed that they feel they have not been adequately informed as to the substance of the agreement and its implications for Iraq sovereignty. Delahunt said that from the beginning, it has been his position that a short-term extension of the UN Mandate is the best course of action, saying that “these issues are too important to be dealt with through a hasty, secretive approach.” He stressed that everyone should accept the need for a reasonable and responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops and recognize and respect the aspirations of the Iraqi people for sovereignty, and insist on legal protection for American troops.

Former Prime Minister of Iraq, Ayad Allawi, explained that Iraq is in the process of negotiating a security agreement with the U.S. to organize the security relations between the two countries and agree on the framework for final withdrawal. This agreement, Allawi said, should include diplomatic, economic, cultural, educational, and security aspects, and needs to be transparent and attain the approval of the Iraqi Parliament and people. Allawi explained that the security agreement has reached a deadlock and other options need to be explored. Extension of the UN Security Council resolution under Chapter 7, Allawi said, is an option, but it may be unacceptable in Iraq, while a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter 6 needs to be further studied.

Allawi said that it is also very important to discuss a time frame for reduction of U.S. forces. He said a reduction must be linked to measures of progress in Iraq and the conditions prevailing in the country. Iraq needs an army, police and security forces with commitment to defending the country’s sovereignty and unity, Allawi said, and needs America’s help in building them.

Dr. Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, said that Iraqi people are showing signs of impatience with the pace of U.S. withdrawal. He explained that 144 of the 275 members of Parliament signed a letter calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, mostly due to the attitudes of the Iraqi people. Kull said that if the U.S. government wants to play a constructive role in the future of Iraq it must understand the dynamics of public opinion and the forces of the political universe within which Iraqi leaders are operating. He also explained that the U.S. has effectively occupied Iraq, but has not effectively liberated it. Kull said that the U.S. needs to address the feeling held by most Iraqis that they are not being treated as a sovereign power.