NO! It is not all over in Iraq!

Gordon Brown has announced the complete withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by mid-2009. The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele hails the State of Forces Agreement as a “deal [that] gives Iraq's national resistance almost everything it fought for.” Really? Is the occupation all but over?

On the contrary. As Sami Ramadani explains in The Guardian:
“Encircled by US tanks and marines, stationed in and around the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq's ‘sovereign’ parliament has approved two military, economic, cultural, and diplomatic pacts with the USA.”
The one that captured the headlines is the status of forces agreement (Sofa). Much more important is the strategic framework agreement (SFA), which slipped through almost unnoticed. A copy was not available even to the US Congress.
“The SFA is an open-ended pact, which ties Iraq to the USA militarily, economically, culturally and diplomatically. No more, no less.”

And while Sofa states that all US forces will withdraw by the end of 2011, reality lies in another sentence found in the SFA pact, which states that the US will not seek a ‘permanent’ military presence or bases in Iraq.

There to stay?

But how long is non-permanent? More than half a century, as in Korea? Or 100 years as John MaCain mused? Ramadani again:

“The Iraqi government made much of the clause that US soldiers would come under Iraqi jurisdiction. The caveats are such that this is rendered meaningless. For a US soldier or civilian to be arrested
by Iraqi authorities, before they are handed over to the US forces ‘after 24 hours,’ they have to be both ‘off duty’ and have committed ‘grave’ crimes outside US facilities and bases. How many off-duty US soldiers, one might ask, would venture into the streets of Baghdad, let alone those of Najaf or Fallujah?
“Considering that the Sofa is supposed to cover the three years up to the full withdrawal of the US forces, it is important to note that the open-ended SFA has one ‘principle’ that opens the door for renewing Sofa after the 3-year deadline for withdrawal: ‘The temporary presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is at the request and invitation of the sovereign Government of Iraq.’
“A pro-US, corrupt regime in Baghdad, that is hated by its own people, will obligingly ’request’ and ‘invite’ the occupiers to stay. That is if the people haven't toppled it by then.”

“It is obvious, when one reads the tens of SFA clauses relating to the military, security, cultural, economic, energy, health, environmental, information technology and judicial spheres, that the US is going to impose on Iraq a series of ’agreements’ during its ‘legitimised’ occupation of the country in the next three years. They will start with the infamous hydrocarbon law to totally control Iraq's oil resources.”
US strategy in Iraq
Sami Ramadani concludes that US troops will remain in Iraq to:
· Strengthen and secure a pro-US government in Baghdad
· Support such a government by all means possible, including the use of US combat forces stationed at numerous massive military bases
· Strengthen the Iraqi armed forces, which will pursue US interests and replace US forces in fighting the anti-occupation resistance. This is a strategy similar to Vietnamisation that will be pushed forward under the banner of fighting al-Qaida terrorism, which is detested by the Iraqi people. To further reduce its own casualties, the US will rely heavily on aerial bombardment and Apache helicopter gunships
· Secure lucrative economic contracts, particularly after forcing the oil law through the Iraqi parliament
· Exercise control over the Middle East’s oil, which remains a key US objective
· Use Iraq [as a base from which] to back US strategy in the Middle East: ie. escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, strengthen Israel, weaken Iran Syria, the Palestian people and the Lebanese resistance
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/iraq-middleeast
British withdrawal
Seumas Milne, again in The Guardian, has made a realistic assessment of the situation:
“If British troops are indeed withdrawn from Iraq by next June, it will signal the end of the most shameful and disastrous episode in modern British history. Branded only last month by Lord Bingham – until recently Britain's most senior law lord – as a ‘serious violation of international law’, the aggression against Iraq has not only devastated an entire country and left hundreds of thousands dead, it has also been a political and military humiliation for the invading powers.”
Milne confirms the true nature of the SFA:
“Since his November triumph, Obama has gone out of his way to emphasise his commitment to maintaining a ‘residual force’ for fighting ‘terrorism’, training and protection of US civilians – which his security adviser Richard Danzig estimated could amount to between 30,000 and 55,000 troops.”
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/11/iraq-withdrawal-comment-debate



Justice for Iraq!

If Britain does become the latest in a long line of US allies to leave Iraq, will it simply be ‘withdraw and forget’? What hope will there be of justice for the people of Iraq, reparations for the damage done, compensation for the victims, prosecution of the war criminals who launched this unprovoked invasion? What restitution for the million dead Iraqis, the million left disabled, five million orphans, five million refugees, the economic destruction and permanent damage to the country’s cultural heritage?
Iraq Occupation Focus has launched a campaign for Justice for Iraq. Last July, a conference of over 100 activists, many of them Iraqis, adopted the following statement:
We call on those states responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to terminate their illegal and immoral war, and express our solidarity with the people of Iraq in their struggle for peace, justice and self-determination.
In particular we demand:
· An immediate end to the occupation
Urgent action to address the humanitarian crises facing Iraq's people, including help for the more than three million refugees and displaced persons
An end to all foreign interference in Iraq's affairs, including its oil industry so that Iraqis can exercise NO! It is not all over in Iraq

Gordon Brown has announced the complete withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by mid-2009. The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele hails the State of Forces Agreement as a “deal [that] gives Iraq's national resistance almost everything it fought for.” Really? Is the occupation all but over?

On the contrary. As Sami Ramadani explains in The Guardian:
“Encircled by US tanks and marines, stationed in and around the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq's ‘sovereign’ parliament has approved two military, economic, cultural, and diplomatic pacts with the USA.”
The one that captured the headlines is the status of forces agreement (Sofa). Much more important is the strategic framework agreement (SFA), which slipped through almost unnoticed. A copy was not available even to the US Congress.
“The SFA is an open-ended pact, which ties Iraq to the USA militarily, economically, culturally and diplomatically. No more, no less.”

And while Sofa states that all US forces will withdraw by the end of 2011, reality lies in another sentence found in the SFA pact, which states that the US will not seek a ‘permanent’ military presence or bases in Iraq.

There to stay?

But how long is non-permanent? More than half a century, as in Korea? Or 100 years as John MaCain mused? Ramadani again:

“The Iraqi government made much of the clause that US soldiers would come under Iraqi jurisdiction. The caveats are such that this is rendered meaningless. For a US soldier or civilian to be arrested
by Iraqi authorities, before they are handed over to the US forces ‘after 24 hours,’ they have to be both ‘off duty’ and have committed ‘grave’ crimes outside US facilities and bases. How many off-duty US soldiers, one might ask, would venture into the streets of Baghdad, let alone those of Najaf or Fallujah?
“Considering that the Sofa is supposed to cover the three years up to the full withdrawal of the US forces, it is important to note that the open-ended SFA has one ‘principle’ that opens the door for renewing Sofa after the 3-year deadline for withdrawal: ‘The temporary presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is at the request and invitation of the sovereign Government of Iraq.’
“A pro-US, corrupt regime in Baghdad, that is hated by its own people, will obligingly ’request’ and ‘invite’ the occupiers to stay. That is if the people haven't toppled it by then.”

“It is obvious, when one reads the tens of SFA clauses relating to the military, security, cultural, economic, energy, health, environmental, information technology and judicial spheres, that the US is going to impose on Iraq a series of ’agreements’ during its ‘legitimised’ occupation of the country in the next three years. They will start with the infamous hydrocarbon law to totally control Iraq's oil resources.”
US strategy in Iraq
Sami Ramadani concludes that US troops will remain in Iraq to:
· Strengthen and secure a pro-US government in Baghdad
· Support such a government by all means possible, including the use of US combat forces stationed at numerous massive military bases
· Strengthen the Iraqi armed forces, which will pursue US interests and replace US forces in fighting the anti-occupation resistance. This is a strategy similar to Vietnamisation that will be pushed forward under the banner of fighting al-Qaida terrorism, which is detested by the Iraqi people. To further reduce its own casualties, the US will rely heavily on aerial bombardment and Apache helicopter gunships
· Secure lucrative economic contracts, particularly after forcing the oil law through the Iraqi parliament
· Exercise control over the Middle East’s oil, which remains a key US objective
· Use Iraq [as a base from which] to back US strategy in the Middle East: ie. escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, strengthen Israel, weaken Iran Syria, the Palestian people and the Lebanese resistance
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/28/iraq-middleeast
British withdrawal
Seumas Milne, again in The Guardian, has made a realistic assessment of the situation:
“If British troops are indeed withdrawn from Iraq by next June, it will signal the end of the most shameful and disastrous episode in modern British history. Branded only last month by Lord Bingham – until recently Britain's most senior law lord – as a ‘serious violation of international law’, the aggression against Iraq has not only devastated an entire country and left hundreds of thousands dead, it has also been a political and military humiliation for the invading powers.”
Milne confirms the true nature of the SFA:
“Since his November triumph, Obama has gone out of his way to emphasise his commitment to maintaining a ‘residual force’ for fighting ‘terrorism’, training and protection of US civilians – which his security adviser Richard Danzig estimated could amount to between 30,000 and 55,000 troops.”
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/11/iraq-withdrawal-comment-debate



Justice for Iraq!

If Britain does become the latest in a long line of US allies to leave Iraq, will it simply be ‘withdraw and forget’? What hope will there be of justice for the people of Iraq, reparations for the damage done, compensation for the victims, prosecution of the war criminals who launched this unprovoked invasion? What restitution for the million dead Iraqis, the million left disabled, five million orphans, five million refugees, the economic destruction and permanent damage to the country’s cultural heritage?
Iraq Occupation Focus has launched a campaign for Justice for Iraq. Last July, a conference of over 100 activists, many of them Iraqis, adopted the following statement:
We call on those states responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to terminate their illegal and immoral war, and express our solidarity with the people of Iraq in their struggle for peace, justice and self-determination.
In particular we demand:
· An immediate end to the occupation
Urgent action to address the humanitarian crises facing Iraq's people, including help for the more than three million refugees and displaced persons
An end to all foreign interference in Iraq's affairs, including its oil industry so that Iraqis can exercise their right to self determination
Compensation and reparations from those countries responsible for war and sanctions on Iraq Prosecution of all those responsible for war crimes, human rights abuses and the theft of Iraq's resourcetheir right to self determination
Compensation and reparations from those countries responsible for war and sanctions on Iraq Prosecution of all those responsible for war crimes, human rights abuses and the theft of Iraq's resource

No reason to stay

Justice for Iraq will never of course concede that there ever was a good reason for British or any other foreign troops to be occupying Iraq. But if Iraq is now an "emergent democracy" then the wishes of the Iraqi Parliament should be taken as final marching orders to get out now!

Then there will not be any problems with the legal status of any troops. From then on any help and advice offered to the Iraqi people could be on their terms and not on the terms of the occupiers.

The latest Iraq Occupation Focus newsletter makes interesting reading. As the formal military occupation starts to be wound down the prospects for Iraq in terms of human rights and access to basic services such a decent water supply are extremely bleak.

Human rights and Iraq now: the results of Liberal intervention

When pressed about Iraq these days the warmongers (Jack Straw on a recent Any Questions springs to mind) usually fall back on the argument that a dictator was overthrown and that Iraq is now a fledgling democracy. You get the feeling that the neo-cons and associated new labour henchmen can actually feel quietly satisfied.

This is all nonsense. Anmesty International reports that the legal system is a travesty. This is perphaps not unexpected as the country is ruled by death squads and the instutional forms have been nurtured under the watchful eyes of the US Republican establishment.

That is if you manage to get in front of a court when the occupiers arrest you. More likely you will be held without trail as legal processes are not seen as neither here nor there by the occupiers.More likely you would be held as a "risk" in other words regardless of your innocence and the lack of evidence resulting from your innocence.Indeed your only crime might be working for Reuters.

Just the sort of situation that a home secretary near you can deport people back to face continuing serious human rights abuses.

The Justice for Iraq campaign is based on five demands. This article addresses the first: an immediate end to the occupation.

Exit strategy: what exit strategy?
The Status of Forces Agreement stipulates the withdrawal of US combat troops after three years. Justice for Iraq asks Sami Ramadani if this could be the beginning of the end.

In the film “W” Oliver Stone has Dick Cheney reply to a question about an exit strategy: “There is no exit strategy – we’re staying”.

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), due to be ratified by the Iraqi parliament on 27 November, suggests that the withdrawal of US troops by 31 December 2011 signals an end to the occupation and a return to Iraqi sovereignty. But Iraqi exile and dissident Sami Ramadani says this is yet another deception in the long war on Iraq.

“The Iraqi government and institutions are all located in the US-controlled Green Zone – it’s as if Iraqi soldiers were occupying Capitol Hill with Maliki dictating to Bush. To think that SOFA restores Iraqi sovereignty is ludicrous.”

The purpose of the agreement, he says, is to replace the UN Security Council mandate that runs out at the end of this year. “At the moment the UN has some say. What the US wants is an agreement that legitimises its presence and gets the UN out of the way.”

In fact, Ramadani explains, SOFA is part of a larger treaty that has no fixed timetable – the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA).

SOFA, it turns out, is all about staying.

• First, while SOFA talks of full withdrawal by December 2011, the SFA implicitly suggests that the US will demand a military presence. The SFA implies this by stating that the US would not ask for permanent bases: “How long is permanent or non-permanent?” Ramadani asks. Anything less than forever, it seems, could qualify.
• Second, US military personnel will remain unaccountable to the Iraqi authorities: “If on duty, Iraqi law cannot touch them, and if off-duty soldiers or civilians are arrested by Iraqi security forces they must be handed over to the US authorities within 24 hours. Furthermore, off-duty US soldiers and civilians usually stay within their immune bases and facilities.”
• Third, apparent concessions like the willingness of the US to relinquish Iraqi air space are worthless: “The US has completely destroyed Iraq’s air force so this is meaningless.”

SOFA then, merely adds a few details on security to the SFA. Signed by Maliki and Bush in March 2008, this all-encompassing treaty covers not only the political and military but also the economic and cultural future of the country. Iraq is facing a long-term relationship with the US that will penetrate every aspect of life.

To add to the sense of undiminished pressure on Iraq, the SFA provides for the negotiation of further treaties and, when the SOFA three year period for troop withdrawal has expired, the Iraqi government can ask the US military to stay longer. “And I daresay (they will ask, and) the US will oblige,” Ramadani adds.

Pronouncements by president-elect Obama do nothing to allay fears that the US occupation will continue, albeit in a modified form. “The SOFA and SFA treaties do not contradict anything Obama has said. Forget about interpretations – he (has gone no further than saying that he) is opposed to permanent military bases. And he has insisted on having ‘residual forces’ in Iraq.”

SOFA is likely to be ratified by the Iraqi parliament despite opposition from many quarters. Ramadani says that as far as he can judge, the population is overwhelmingly against it. “However, their wishes are not reflected in the government – there is a huge gap.

“In terms of the forces in parliament, the Sadrist block – about 30 members – is calling for immediate withdrawal, and the 15 members of the Al Fadhila party said they would vote against the agreement unless it is was amended to their satisfaction. Others are also contemplating rejection – quite brave when you consider that the guards and tanks outside parliament are all American.” he adds.

On the eve of the vote, Ramadani speculates: “The US might get its pact agreed if the Iraqi government succeeds in its manoeuvre to pass it through a simple majority rather than the two-thirds required by the constitution to ratify treaties.”

Some members of parliament plan to be absent when the vote is taken. “Those who agree to SOFA are seen as traitors, so they’re reluctant to support it. If you can imagine – it’s like trying to appease Hitler after WWII has started.”

Ramadani thinks that Britain too, could favour a SOFA to legitimise its presence in Iraq: “A document to show the British public that they are no longer in occupation, but are there because the Iraqi government has asked them to stay.”

If Oliver Stone is right that the US launched the occupation without an exit strategy, then the Iraqi people can only despair of a return to normality. Ramadani concludes: “To have even a semblance of normality, the troops must withdraw. The occupation is divisive – it commits and attracts violence; it is a poisonous presence.”

Sami Ramadani lectures in sociology at the London Metropolitan University.

JFI conference - Hans Von Sponeck Speech

See list on the right hand side, for the links for all other speeches made at the conference

Justice for Iraq conference
Saturday 19 July 2008

10.30am-11am: Registration

11am-1pm: Why we need justice for Iraq

• Sami Ramadani, Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation
• Hans von Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq
• Haifa Zangana, Iraqi writer and columnist
• Liz Davies, Iraq Occupation Focus

1pm-1.45pm: Lunch

1.45pm-3.15pm: Workshops

Workshop 1: Stopping the corporate carve-up

• Greg Muttitt, Platform
• Kamil Mahdi, University of Exeter

Workshop 2:The humanitarian crisis

• Milan Rai, Justice Not Vengeance/Peace News
• Marion Birch, Medact
• Sarah Parker, Coalition to Stop Deportations to Iraq

Workshop 3: War crimes: ending impunity

• Jehangir Jilani, Public Interest Lawyers
• John Hilary, War on Want
• Mazin Younis, Iraqi League

3.15pm-3.30pm: Break

3.30pm-5pm: The way forward: Iraq solidarity for the long-term

• John McDonnell MP
• John Hilary, War on Want
• Kamil Mahdi, University of Exeter
• Carole Turner, Stop the War Coalition

5pm: Ends

11.00-17.00, Saturday 19 July 2008
United Reformed Church
Buck Street, Camden (close to Camden Town tube)
London NW1 8NJ

Entry by donation (suggested amount: £7/£5 unwaged)

For more information download the event leaflet or visit the Justice for Iraq blog at: www.justiceforiraq.net.

Justice for Iraq Facebook group >>
Event page on Facebook >>

Organised by Iraq Occupation Focus
Contact: iraqfocus@riseup.net