Ali Allawi: This raises huge questions over our independence

[Brett]

Ali Allawi: This raises huge questions over our independence

Thursday, 5 June 2008

In 1930 the Anglo-Iraqi treaty was signed as a prelude to Iraq gaining
full independence. Britain had occupied Iraq after defeating the Turks
in the First World War, and was granted a mandate over the country.
The treaty gave Britain military and economic privileges in exchange
for Britain's promise to end its mandate. The treaty was ratified by a
docile Iraqi parliament, but was bitterly resented by nationalists.
Iraq's dependency on Britain poisoned Iraqi politics for the next
quarter of a century. Riots, civil disturbances, uprisings and coups
were all a feature of Iraq's political landscape, prompted in no small
measure by the bitter disputations over the treaty with Britain.

Iraq is now faced with a reprise of that treaty, but this time with
the US, rather than Britain, as the dominant foreign partner. The US
is pushing for the enactment of a "strategic alliance" with Iraq,
partly as a precondition for supporting Iraq's removal from its
sanctioned status under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. It is a treaty
under any other name. It has been structured as an alliance partly to
avoid subjecting its terms to the approval of the US Senate, and
partly to obfuscate its significance. Although the draft has not been
circulated outside official circles, the leaks raise serious alarm
about its long-term significance for Iraq's sovereignty and
independence. Of course the terms of the alliance for Iraq will be
sweetened with promises of military and economic aid, but these are no
different in essence from the commitments made in Iraq's previous
disastrous treaty entanglements.

The Bush administration has set 31 July as the deadline for the
signing of the agreement. Under the present plan, the draft of the
agreement will have to be brought to Iraq's parliament for approval.
Parliament, however, is beholden to the political parties that
dominate the present coalition, and there is unlikely to be
substantive debate on the matter. The Shia religious leadership in
Najaf, especially Grand Ayatollah Sistani, has not clearly come out
against the agreement, although his spokesmen have set out markers
that must be respected by the negotiators. The Najaf religious
hierarchy is probably the only remaining institution that can block
the agreement. But it is unclear whether the political or religious
leadership are prepared to confront the US. President Bush, with an
eye on history, is seeking to salvage his Iraq expedition by claiming
that Iraq is now pacified and is a loyal American ally in the Middle
East and the War on Terror.

It is only now that Iraqis have woken up to the possibility that Iraq
might be a signatory on a long-term security treaty with the US, as a
price for regaining its full sovereignty. Iraqis must know its details
and implications. How would such an alliance constrain Iraq's freedom
in choosing its commercial, military and political partners? Will Iraq
be obliged to openly or covertly support all of America's policies in
the Middle East? These are issues of a vital nature that cannot be
brushed aside with the Iraqi government's platitudes about "protecting
Iraqi interests". A treaty of such singular significance to Iraq
cannot be rammed through with less than a few weeks of debate.
Otherwise, the proposed strategic alliance will most certainly be a
divisive element in Iraqi politics. It will have the same disastrous
effect as the treaty with Britain nearly eighty years ago.

The writer is the former finance minister of Iraq

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ali-allawi-this-raises-huge-questions-over-our-independence-840511.html