US
Signs Deal For Long-Term Occupation Of Iraq
By Jerry White
28 November, 2007
WSWS.org
President Bush and the Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki signed an agreement Monday paving the
way for the long-term occupation of the Middle Eastern country and its
transformation into a semi-colonial protectorate of the US.
The “Declaration of
Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship”
outlines plans for the establishment of permanent US military bases
in Iraq to suppress internal opposition to the US-installed regime and
protect US economic and political interests throughout the region. It
also provides for preferential treatment for US energy conglomerates
and investors to exploit Iraq’s newly opened up oil resources.
The new agreement—signed
during a secret videoconference between Bush and Maliki—without
the slightest democratic pretenses in each country—exposes the
repeated lies, peddled by the White House ever since the April 2003
invasion, that the US had no intention to set up permanent military
bases or carry out an long-term occupation of Iraq.
The declaration calls for
the current United Nations mandate—which has provided a legal
fig leaf for the US occupation—to be extended one more year and
thereafter to be replaced by a bilateral economic and security pact
between the two countries.
The full details of the pact—including
the size of the US occupying force—are to be worked out by July
31, 2008 and are scheduled to take effect in early 2009, i.e., after
Bush leaves office. Although the agreement will commit US troops to
remain in the country for years, if not decades, the White House insists
that it will not rise to the level of a formal treaty, requiring congressional
approval.
Maliki signed the declaration
without any serious parliamentary debate. Sunni Arab and Shia politicians
immediately denounced it, saying the agreement would lead to “US
interference for years to come.” The Association of Muslim Scholars,
a Sunni group, said the Iraqi signatories of the declaration would be
looked on as “collaborators with the occupier.”
Under the proposed formula,
Iraqi officials told the Associated Press, Iraqi forces will take charge
of internal security, and US troops will relocate to bases outside the
cities. They foresee at least 50,000 American troops remaining in the
country indefinitely. The White House says the bilateral agreement will
not contain timetables for the withdrawal of troops.
White House deputy national
security advisor Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute said the declaration
signaled that the US “will protect our interests in Iraq, alongside
our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner,
able to increasingly contribute to regional stability.”
US forces will protect the
interests of American energy companies once the country’s vast
oil wealth—the second largest proven oil reserves in the world—are
opened up to international and in particular US investment. This is
only possible by intensifying US military repression of the Iraqi people
and crushing popular opposition to the US-installed regime and the American
occupation.
At the same time permanent
US bases are being set up to project American military power throughout
the Middle East and provide US forces increased capabilities to launch
attacks against Iran, Syria and other countries.
Debka-Net-Weekly, a web site
associated with Israeli military intelligence, said the US has plans
to remove 100,000 troops by the end of 2009, leaving behind 50,000-70,000
in 20 huge land and air bases. “These bases,” the site wrote,
“are under construction; they will be secured by broad swathes
of space, fortified with weaponry and remote-controlled electronic devices.”
US troops will be responsible for protecting Iraq’s borders from
“external threats,” Debka reported, adding, “US air
strength and special forces in these bases will have rapid deployment
capabilities for reaching points outside Iraq at need.”
The US launched the Iraq
war to establish unchallenged domination of the Middle East and fend
off the growing inroads into the energy-rich region by its economic
rivals, such as China and Russia. The economic advantages of occupying
Iraq are spelled out in one of the principles outlined in the new US-Iraqi
declaration, which calls for “facilitating and encouraging the
flow of foreign investment to Iraq, especially American investments,
to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.”
Another declares US support
for aiding Iraq’s “transition to a market economy,”
which includes opening up the nationalized oil industry to the control
of ExxonMobil, Chevron and other US energy conglomerates.
Earlier this month the Iraqi
government, guided by American legal advisors, cancelled a contract
originally signed by the Saddam Hussein government in 1997 with the
Russian company Lukoil, for the development of the vast oil field in
Iraq’s southern desert. The West Qurna fields—with estimated
reserves of 11 billion barrels, the equivalent of the worldwide proven
oil reserves of ExxonMobil, America’s largest oil company—will
now be opened to international, and in particular, US bidders.
Vladimir Tikhomirov, the
chief economist at the Russian bank UralSib, told the New York Times,
“From the Russian government perspective, Iraq is seen as occupied
and its administration directed by Washington, particularly when it
comes to oil. The Russians see the cancellation of the contract in Iraq
as part of the US drive to keep control over the major oil fields there.”
The declaration of principles
is loaded with Orwellian language aimed at concealing its nakedly imperialist
aims. The US—which launched an illegal war and occupation that
have resulted in the virtual destruction of an entire society and the
deaths of more than one million Iraqis—declares its commitment
to “deter foreign aggression.” All those who oppose the
occupation are “terrorists” and “outlaws” who
must be defeated and “uprooted” from Iraq.
The real face of the American
military presence was shown this week when US troops fired on vehicles
at roadblocks in Baghdad and north of the Iraqi capital, killing at
least five people, including three women and a child, in two separate
shootings.
The commitment to a long-term
occupation hardly provoked a murmur from the Democratic Party. House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized Bush for planning to leave office with
a “US army tied down in Iraq and stretched to the breaking point,
with no clear exit strategy.”
While opposing Bush for failing
to efficiently wage the war the Democrats defend the same economic interests
as the Republicans and have made it clear they will not end the occupation
if they take control of the White House in 2009. In fact the military
scenario envisaged in the deal signed by Bush corresponds to the bipartisan
plans being worked out between the Bush administration and the Democrats
for a “post-surge Iraq.”
Leading Democrats, such as
presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have argued
for the reduction of US forces and their redeployment from the cities
to “over-the-horizon” positions where they could strike
opponents of the US-backed regime, as well as Iran. Clinton in particular
has argued that pulling US troops out of the cities would reduce US
casualties, thereby making the long-term occupation of Iraq more politically
palatable in the US, while still keeping forces available to defend
US economic interests.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.