A little while ago, blog threads ran hot on the topic of the Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo Bay, which had to do (inter alia) with the application of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention.
Now, as a result of a number of atrocities committed, the Iraqi Government, distressed that US troops (and bizarrely, contrary to State Department policy, contractors and other civilians) in Iraq are exempted from the reach of the Iraqi justice system by UN Resolution 1546, wants the UN Security Council to revoke the resolution. It’ll be interesting to see how the Bush administration responds to this request from the sovereign government of Iraq.
Actually, Kim, the Catallaxy thread which is the second you cite is still running hot. Catallaxy is breaking all comments thread records by virtue of GMB’s endless ability to comment and the seeming willingness of 3 or 4 people to keep up. Whether or not anyone else but those 4 or 5 people keep reading after it becomes the Birdy show is another matter, I suspect.
http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=1883
But, yes, there’s an interesting question here as to how sovereign the Iraqi government will prove to be, when push comes to shove. The US Government has always refused to cede jurisdiction of its military to any other courts or investigative bodies (I think Clinton may have negotiated an exemption for the ICC treaty, but the Senate still rejected the treaty). But the exemption for civilians and contractors is extraordinary, and it will be extraordinary if, having been extended in 2004, the US still refuses to give it up. The justifications and stoush on the Security Council may be very interesting when it comes to the limits of Iraqi sovereignty.
Having mentioned the refusal to allow military members to be subject to external jurisdiction, I still think there’s a very good case for the rhetoric about Iraqi sovereignty to be tested. The US military is no longer legally an occupying force, and formally there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. Generally the US negotiates country by country agreements covering the relationship between the host government and troops it has stationed on their territory. These negotiations can be genuine, as demonstrated in Japan and the Phillippines, for instance, when for various reasons at different times, the US presence became unpopular. If Iraq is a sovereign nation, the US should be negotiating such an agreement with it, rather than relying on a UN mandate given for transitional reasons 2 years ago. That’s if the claim that the situation has really changed is genuine.
Of course Bush had no scruples about violating Iraqi imposed no fly zones when he helicoptered in to his visit with the Iraqi PM, much to the latter’s embarrassment.
It was a bit inevitable wasn’t it? There was always going to be a point when the silly exemption (which should never have been enacted in the first place) had to come to an end. What bothers me somewhat is the fact that the media haven’t been running hot on the topic of the exemption for quite a while, yet its importance is massive.
Of course Iraqi sovereignty is the innevitable culmination of the issue, as you point out, and I hope that it gains the attention that it sorely deserves. Coverage of the war seems to have become somewhat jaded.
With sovereignty denied, it would be understandable for people to consider the Iraqi Government effectively a puppet of the West. In fact, I think such a notion would be quite sensible. However, the implications of Iraq as nothing more than a instrument of the west, sitting smack bang in the middle east are likely detrimental.
Either the insurgents gain credibility and/or the hegemons learn to push the envelope further. Neither I think is particularly helpful to either international security or for the future of Iraq.
Agreed, Bruce and Mark.
Clinton did negotiate an amendment to the ICC Treaty, Mark, but Jesse Helms with his usual demagogic tomfoolery was behind having it thrown out, as I recall.
Oh, on the Birdy phenomenon, I wonder what people who carry on those threads for 200 or so comments (assuming half are Birdy’s – probably the ratio’s greater but anyway) get out of them.
Extraterritoriality is quite common for foreign military forces …. but for civilians and for “military contractors” it is unusual. The issue of Iraqi sovreignty is one that will cause a lot of trouble for the Americans – or rather, for their Crazy Emperor.
Buried on page 5 of the SMH and completely unreported on the ABC and News Ltd websites is the astounding news that no Iraqi’s were interviewed as part of the ADF’s enquiry into the recent shooting of the Iraqi Trade Minister’s bodyguards.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/defence-admits-it-snubbed-iraqis/2006/07/11/1152383741839.html
Does anything more perfectly encapsulate (along with the AWB scandal) the profound hollowness behind the lofty rhetoric of the Howard Government regarding Iraq and the utter contempt it shows towards the Iraqi people?
The Iraqi government has decided to cease to be a puppet.
This has been Sistani’s game plan all along. He has cleverly used Bush’s hubris against the US plans and policies for Iraq. His constant threat of bringing the Shiite masses out onto the streets is the killing counterwieght to all that extremely expensive military hardware that the Bush Clique has invested in Iraq.
Ever since that vainglorious proclamation of “Mission Accomplished” the US has been forced to pretend that they were “nation-building” in Iraq. This became their only spinnable pretext when all of the others turned out to be idiotic untruths or actual deliberate lies.
But “nation building” was a fallacy. In fact, a large proportion of those billions of borrowed dollars the Bush Clique squandered in Iraq were sunk into creating a Shiite militia. Now the Shiite forces want to finish the job that the Bush Clique has so amply armed them to do–they want to win the coming civil war.
But, with enormous cunning, the Shiites seek through this resolution to remove the Americans as a decisive factor in the coming civil war. How can the Americans stay in Iraq if their troops are subject to the domestic laws of a sovereign state?
And how can the Americans reject the demands of the Shiites in the UN for full national sovereignty and still avoid the charge that they seek to perpetuate a puppet regime in Iraq? If the Bush Clique blocks this UN resolution, Sistani still reserves the right to call the Shiite masses onto the streets.
I’m truly impressed with the patience and astuteness of the leading Shiite figures in Iraq.
Checkmate, Chimp.
I don’t think it’s checkmate.
The ultimate test of sovereignty is their ability to demand that the US troops et al leave.
All Bush has to do is say ‘no’, and it’s the Iraqis’ bluff that’s called. Bush saying no to the immunity removal is not in itself a defiance of sovereignty; he will be asserting that it’s a continuing condition of their ongoing involvement.
Non-application of domestic law by agreement is not the ousting of sovereignty.
If the Iraqis then say ‘get out’, and the Americans refuse, that would conflict with sovereign power.
But I doubt that they will.
I don’t like chimpo but there’s no point in misconstruing this demand or its refusal.
I don’t klnow if this is being discusses elsewhere on LP but the USSC has held that the Geneva Conventions must apply to Guantanamo Bay.
About time too. Only four years too late.
Maybe not quite checkmate, but it does look suspiciously like an endgame.
But surely that would affect their standing in the international communit… oh never mind.
Agreed.
True as far as it goes. But the domestic consequences of this refusal in the US have to be taken into consideration. Republicans are already worried about the political consequences of the Iraq fiasco on their political survival. It would be a tough sell to go to the US voters and say: “Yes, the Iraqi government has attempted to set conditions on our deployment in Iraq that we have decided to be unacceptable, so we’re staying on despite the wishes of the Iraqi government.
That can only happen if the rescission of the UN Resolution is voted down or if one of the permanent members of the Security Council vetoes the resolution. Britain might do that. But realistically, only the US is likely to veto it. It would never be voted down on a straight up and down vote.
To veto this resolution would be a very bad look indeed.
True again. But on the face of it, the Iraqi government seems keen to redefine the application of domestic law to include Americans.
And I repeat that the trump card is extrajudicial — the mobilisation of the Shiite masses.