The US and the Iraqi administrations' long-term partnership could come at the cost of Iraq's independence and the region's stability, writes Salah Hemeid For some time preparations for US-Iraqi talks on long-term future relations have been under way. On Saturday Iraqi and US negotiators were to meet to start work on a blueprint for a deal to come up with the legal basis for a US troop presence in Iraq. But the meeting was abruptly shelved amid a controversy over how much good it will bring to the deeply divided nation and to the volatile region. Iraqi government spokesman Ali Al-Dabbagh denied there were talks scheduled for Saturday after Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said earlier the talks would begin in earnest on Saturday and that Ambassador Ryan Crocker would lead the US delegation. US Embassy spokesman Phil Reeker said the talks would focus on security and the future role of the US military, diplomatic and political relations between Baghdad and Washington, and economic and cultural ties. In November President George W Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki announced during a video conference a "Declaration of Principles" stating that the two governments will start negotiations on a cooperation pact that will set the agenda for a future American relationship with Iraq. On the surface, the document appeared as a mutual "expression of friendship," as it has been characterised by Iraqi and US officials. But a closer look reveals a blueprint for how the Bush administration plans to commit America to a long- term military presence in Iraq, pledging to protect the government in Baghdad from internal coup plots and foreign enemies. The agreement has been in the works since last August when the Al-Maliki's government officially requested the long-term strategic relationship with Washington. The public unveiling of the proposed arrangement arrived at a time when the administration has been trying to showcase recent improvements in security in Iraq following the deployment of an additional 30,000 US troops last year. Some of those forces are scheduled to begin leaving Iraq probably by mid-year following a reported drop in violence. The rest are due to be withdrawn by the summer of 2009, although there has been little sign of the political reconciliation which was the main objective of the surge strategy. US forces operate in Iraq under a United Nations mandate that expires at the end of 2008. The Shia-Kurdish-led government does not want that extended, so the two governments need to forge guidelines to allow American forces to remain beyond the end of this year. Iraqi officials have been tight-lipped on details of the contacts saying that they are only seeking the renewal of the UN Security Council mandate for Iraq for one more year. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said his government wants to see assurances that Washington will stand by Iraq in the long-term bilateral accord which it hopes to be concluded by July. "What we would like to see in this agreement really is a continued commitment by the US government to stand by the Iraqi government against foreign threats and against internal threats," Zebari said in an interview with a Western news agency in January. The substance of the pact has become a politically charged issue in Washington in a presidential election year with opposition Democrats saying the accord must not bind a future leader to protecting Iraq and keeping troops there in the long term. Leading Democratic candidates have pledged to end the unpopular five-year war and bring home the 150,000 troops fighting militants and sectarianism. News reports have suggested that the agreement will establish permanent US bases in Iraq, prompting concerns, especially among members of Congress and presidential candidates that the coming talks might aim at drafting an arrangement to make the presence of American troops in the troubled nation permanent. Another concern is that the Bush administration might try to circumvent Congress, which is controlled by Bush's political opponents in the Democratic Party, by signing a document which is less straightforward than a treaty, which needs Congressional approval. In defending the agreement Bush administration officials say discussions have only just begun about what the actual US positions will be in negotiations with Iraq, and it is too soon to say what the agreement might contain. The administration also strenuously denies this is a treaty and has already made it clear that it won't take the issue to Congress. Instead, administration officials compare the impending US-Iraq military relationship to a "status of forces" agreement which it already has with many countries around the world. As for Iraqis, they are no less divided over the future of relations with the United States. Some Iraqis see a long-term US military presence as a foreign occupation, others as liberation, and the rest merely as a guarantee of security, out of necessity. In 2004, leaders of the interim Iraqi government shelved talks about signing a formal agreement to allow more than 100,000 US soldiers to remain in Iraq, after realising that the idea was extremely unpopular. They asked to postpone talks until after Iraq is restored sovereignty for fear that they would be accused of treason. Now, it is not clear how the Iraqi parliament will react when it is asked to approve a long-term security treaty with the United States. Whatever the document is eventually called, and whatever method is used to approve it, it is expected that many groups will flatly reject a permanent American presence in Iraq. Nearly half of Iraq's elected members of parliament, both Shias and Sunnis, signed a letter last year demanding a full US military withdrawal from Iraq within the next two years. Some of the Iraqi leaders are not mincing any words when talking about the issue. Kurdish leaders such as Zebari called it a "long-term treaty". Of course, the Kurds' enthusiasm is understandable, as the Kurds feel that a strong long-term American military presence will provide protection to their semi- autonomous entity in northern Iraq against threats from traditional enemies like Turkey and Iran. Some top Shia leaders who depend on US protection and officials negotiating on Iraq's behalf have implied that large numbers of US troops will be needed in Iraq for at least another decade. Trying to sell it to the public, these leaders claim the pact will then allow them to restore Iraq's sovereignty by ending its commitments under Article 7 of the UN charter. Whatever the advantages these leaders will try to showcase in order to sell the deal to Iraqis, any agreement on a long-term US military presence will certainly face significant challenges. One main concern is that any long-term presence will infringe on the nation's sovereignty. Also, there are fears that US troops will be granted immunity from criminal prosecution similar to those in Japan, South Korea and Germany where American soldiers engage in crimes such as rape and remain above the nation's laws. Iraq's neighbours will also look at such a military presence as a threat to their national security and the region's stability. It will also give fodder to conspiracy theories and sceptics who have always argued that the Bush administration launched the war in order to occupy Iraq and steal its oil and not to liberate it from some tyrant.
