Same great taste without all those heavy Senate approval hearings.U.S. and Iraqi leaders signed a plan for bilateral relations, setting the stage for formal negotiations about the long-term presence of American troops in Iraq.
President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Monday signed the nonbinding agreement via video conference.
The Guardian (UK) reports:
"Iraq's government is preparing to grant the US a long-term troop presence in the country and preferential treatment for American investors in return for a guarantee on long-term security, it emerged today.
Iraqi officials said that, under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and American troops would relocate to bases outside cities. The proposals foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 US troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.
Preferential treatment for US investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2217387,00.html
Reading through the White House Fact Sheet on the, "US-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation," http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-1.html and the United Nations Treaty Guide, which states:
" Treaty as a specific term: There are no consistent rules when state practice employs the terms "treaty" as a title for an international instrument. Usually the term "treaty" is reserved for matters of some gravity that require more solemn agreements. Their signatures are usually sealed and they normally require ratification. Typical examples of international instruments designated as "treaties" are Peace Treaties, Border Treaties, Delimitation Treaties, Extradition Treaties and Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Cooperation. The use of the term "treaty" for international instruments has considerably declined in the last decades in favor of other terms."
This would sound like a Treaty to the average AP Government student. But alas, AP Government is all that because it is changing everyday. No text book definitions here. Afterall, we know the President has the constitutional power to negotitate treaties. They are ratified by that check to balance the executive branch, Senate approval.
But for this thing -- "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is,'' Bill Clinton once rationalized to the Grand Jury -- I guess it depends on what the meaning of treaty is.
Bush and Maliki set the stage for the formal negotiations by separately signing a "not-binding" agreement on a set of principles during a secure videoconference on Monday, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said at a White House briefing.
"It's a mutual statement of intent that will be used to frame our formal negotiations in the course of the upcoming year. It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations," he said.
If only Woodrow Wilson had videoconference technology in 1919.
11 comments:
Hmmm....although I find any attempt of progress towards moving forward in the transition of restoring Iraq to a self-sustaining state a step forward, I worry that the "non-binding" nature of this agreement may negate any effective results. I guess I can only hope that these set up plans will help pave the way for a new occupation plan, one that both parties can agree on in Congress.
I see this as a step forward. Although I can't say that I'm thrilled about the long-term American military presence in Iraq, I see it as something necessary. We made things a mess there, we ought to clean it up. But I do not understand the need for the Iraqis to grant American investors special privileges. That provision only gives Bush's political opposition more ammunition. Now they have what would seem to be proof of Bush's crooked motives for going into Irag. And if we are really about freedom, shouldn't we be installing a more true free market system in Iraq? So this agreement is flawed. But I do see it as progress.
political rhetoric...annoys the crap out of me...non-binding treaties, secret negotiations, what's next, paper mache laws?...Iraq is a problem. This is a fact. But this game of political doubletalk isn't going to get us anywhere. Sure its a step in the right direction, but this situation doesn't require steps, it needs strides. We need change, now, fast.
A lot of major treaties in effect today are merely executive agreements. I pretty much say leave the Senate confirmations to big treaties, like NAFTA or the START treaties.
As for the situation, I also see this as a major step forward in getting Iraq back on its feet under a freely elected government. Like my colleagues, however, I do not believe American investors should be given special treatment.
this means nothing. It's a formality, trying to diffuse the Iraqi problem for the Republicans in 2008. Simple as that.
Well I am glad that we will be able to cut down on the troop levels I am just as upset as the rest of us to see the business part of this agreement. This just shows that America no matter what we say we do, we always try to exploit 3rd world nations.
Four things that stuck out to me when I first read this blog post: (1) long-term troop presence, (2) preferential treatment for American investors, (3) non-binding agreement,and (4) it's a mutual agreement not a treaty. For some reason, it all makes me feel uncomfortable. Preferential treatment, or exploitation? It is a major step in the right direction but I feel that the United States is getting rewarded for the mess we made.
Sahil: Be a little patient. Of course we need change. Maybe smaller steps are better than large long strides. It's a delicate situation so if we make a mistake again, it's easier to go back a small step than reverse a huge one (if that makes any sense).
I agree with Rebecca and Sreeharsha. I may have said this earlier: Iraq's our mess, so we should clean it up. As for fast change, look at what happened to Russia in 1991. Basically, they tried to change too fast, and The Mob took over. Gradual change is the best course
The gradual process is definately the best treatment for Iraq. If we left now, Iraq would be an even bigger mess than it currently is. It's easy to say that we want our troops out now, but in the long run, I do not see this as a real option. The preferential treatment should be stopped. I can see that causing a lot of future conflict. I'm not sure it's really worth the contracts. I'm glad that we are starting to move in the right DIRECTION, but this is still far from what I see as the right PLAN.
Post a Comment