There is a very strange story just starting to get around to some blogs, and I am not quite sure what to make of it. But if there's any substance to it, it amounts to the most important story coming out of Iraq right now. I have not found any American newspapers that even allude to it, so far -- in fact the only source I can find is a Pakistani newspaper that itself sources a blog written by an Iraqi living in the US, who is citing an interview with the Speaker of the Iraqi Council of Representatives, conducted by Al Arabiya News Television out of Dubai.
The funny thing is, the basic point that the Speaker is making in the interview seems to be completely correct -- it's just that no one in the American or European press ever bothered to notice it.
Here is the basic point. Quoting from the Iraqi Constitution:
Article 58:
The Council of Representatives specializes in the following:
First: Enacting federal laws.
Second: Monitoring the performance of the executive authority.
Third: Elect the President of the Republic.
Fourth: A law shall regulate the ratification of international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives.
Article 58 (in this English language version) of the Iraqi Constitution says that the Iraqi Council of Representatives must pass a law to regulate the ratification of international treaties. The point is: no such law has yet been passed.
And that means the Iraqi Parliament cannot ratify any Status of Forces Agreement with the United States.
Now, if that isn't enough to get your attention, let me add that the Speaker of Iraqi Parliament, in that interview with Dubai television, says that it would impossible to get any such law passed by the end of the year.
Rather than go through the Pakistani newspaper that sources the blogger, I will simply quote from the blogger himself. Raed in the Middle:
In a rare and important interview, conducted by Al-Arabiya, with Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani, the head of the Iraqi parliament, he explained how the Iraqi parliament is against signing an agreement with the US.
Dr. Al-Mashhadani discussed both the political and procedural aspects of signing the treaty.
Technically, the Iraqi parliament is not ready to ratify any international treaties because the "law to ratify international treaties and agreements" has not been approved by the parliament yet. This law is required by the constitution (article 61 paragraph 4), and it requires a 2/3 majority of parliament to approve it. This alone will take months to debate and pass. After that, and according to how the "law to ratify international treaties and agreements" looks like, the Iraqi parliament can start discussing the agreement with the US, and it will most likely need another 2/3 majority approval to pass it.
Politically, the majority of Iraq's MPs are against singing any agreements with the US as long as the US is occupying Iraq. It's impossible for the Maliki government to get the approval of a simple majority of MPs, let alone 2/3 majority.
Note that Raed cites article 61, paragraph 4 of the Iraqi Constitution. In the English versions of the Constitution I can find, it's actually article 58, paragraph 4. I don't think that matters.
What does matter is that, if this is correct, then the entire negotiation process between Maliki and his parliament is a farce. Maliki is going to sign the SOFA without parliamentary approval -- he will have to. And -- if I could employ a little understatement -- that will not make Iraqis very happy.
Quoting now from the Pakistan Daily:
Iraq's executive branch has a history of circumventing the legislature, according to Foreign Policy in Focus Fellow Erik Leaver: The administration did not consult parliament in 2007 when it agreed on the extension of the UN mandate allowing a continuing US presence in Iraq. However, says Leaver, because parliament has been so publicly vocal in its insistence on being involved in the SOFA process, ignoring the legislature may have heavier consequences this time around.
"I would expect a legal challenge in Iraq - and perhaps the US - if the accord moves forward in an exchange of memos," Leaver told [sic]. "Beyond legal challenges, enormous political pressure would be put upon him, perhaps causing a rise in instability and a certain delay in the scheduled [2008] fall elections in Iraq."
When Eric Leaver refers to an "exchange of memos" here, he means Bush and Maliki signing a SOFA completely on their own, with no ratification from parliament. Apparently this is what will have to happen, if any agreement for the continued legal presence of US troops in Iraq beyond 2008 is to be possible.
But that means all of Maliki's talk of demanding a timetable on behalf of the Iraqi people, with the threat to Bush that any SOFA would have to be approved by parliament, is just bluster, or smoke, and both Bush and Maliki know it.
I have nothing further to add, here. The basic point being made seems to be unarguably correct -- but what it means is unclear. If the Iraqi parliament hasn't acted on Article 58, then they cannot ratify treaty. If they cannot ratify a treaty, and Maliki signs one anyway, a lot of Iraqis will be very, very pissed off. Stay tuned.