There is lots of reaction in ‘western’ media to the Iraqi cabinet passing the Status of Force Agreement (SOFA). Even an English translation (.doc) (h/t Helena) of the SOFA, including version changes, is available. Article 24/1 now says (red = newly inserted, ‘must’ replaced ‘shall’):
All U.S. forces must withdraw from all Iraqi territories no later than December 31st 2011.
While there are still ambiguities, the SOFA seems to be not as bad as it was.
But from the beginning of the negotiations the talk was about TWO agreements, the SOFA and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) and in fact, two agreement have been signed:
Apart from the troops pact, the two men signed a long-term strategic framework, which Crocker said would define relations between the countries for years in "economy, culture, science, technology, health and trade, just to name a few."
"It reminds us all that, at a time when U.S. forces will continue to withdraw from Iraq in recognition of the superlative security gains over the last few years, our relationship will develop in many other important ways."
Next to Crocker’s words we only have this slightly expanded but similar talking point from Maliki’s spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh repeated by :
“The second agreement frames the principles of cooperation between the two countries in the fields of politics, diplomacy, culture, health, environment, economy, and power, in addition to information and communication technology and implementing law and judiciary,” he explained.
Why did Crocker avoided to mention the ‘implementing law and judiciary’ point in that new U.S-Iraq agreement? Hmmm …
And what is the agreement’s status? The SOFA will have to pass the Iraqi parliament. How about the SFA? Will the parliament get a vote on that treaty or will it not?
Somehow the SOFA seems to be a shiny object held out to keep our eyes away from the piece of work that might well be the real ‘long-term strategic’ sell out of Iraq.
Even the imperial Council of Foreign Relation in its backgrounder seems to have no idea what that second document includes. The experts it asks are simply guessing.
Both the SOFA and the SFA are based on the quite vague Declaration of Principles signed by Bush and Maliki a year ago. One ‘principle’ included therein is:
Facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.
That point could mean that the U.S. will get some exclusiveness or special preference in buying up certain Iraqi assets.
Or what about this one:
Supporting the building
of Iraq’s economic institutions and infrastructure with the provision
of financial and technical assistance to train and develop competencies and capacities of vital Iraqi institutions.
Will
there be U.S. ‘trainers’ in every ministry of the Iraqi government
‘developing competencies and capacities’ of the nominal minister?
If such points are now more specifically laid out in the Strategic
Framework Agreement, as they should be, the SFA certainly deserves some
serious scrutiny from the Iraqi and the U.S. people.
But there is zero information available about its real content.
All the media seem concerned with is that shiny SOFA object held out
to them. But what is in that paper the other hand of the various con
artists in DC and the Green Zone are holding back?
That Crocker and al-Dabbagh have so little to say about it means that it is important.