Andrew Sullivan links to this rather disturbing report on negotiations between the United States and Iraq over future U.S. military bases in the country:
The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.
(…)
US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.
(…)
Iraq’s foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq’s funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq’s independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new “strategic alliance” with the United States.
The original reports are here and here.
The more important question, of course, is why the United States needs a permanent military presence in Iraq to begin with, and why the Bush Administration isn’t talking about it.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
The utility of a base in Iraq is its proximity to other places in the Middle East where the US might want to take military action some time in the future.
If that base is a no-go there are jump off bases being prepared in Romania and Bulgaria. Good places, but not the same as a base in Iraq.
If our National Security objectives include securing Persian Gulf oil as Jimmy Carter said back in the 70s, or as long as that remains a US National Security objective, then the closer your bases the better your deterrence, or when that fails, the more effective your force.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
We’ve managed to secure the Persian Gulf with a Naval presence for 30 years or more. Permanent basing in Iraq would make even less sense than the fact that we still have troops in Germany almost 20 years after the Cold War ended.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am
[...] looks like the permanent basing negotiations with the Iraqis that are I wrote about the other day aren’t going anywhere after all: The Bush administration is conceding for the [...]