Foreign Affairs Hearing on Declaration of Principles

The Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight is currently holding a hearing, "The November 26 Declaration of Principles: Implications for UN Resolutions on Iraq and for Congressional Oversight."Defense Secretary Gates testified on Wednesday that the agreement with the Iraqi government, which was previewed in the Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America, which was drafted in November, "will not have a security component." However, he also testified that "I'm told that the Declaration of Principles that was signed in November was not considered by our government to be a security commitment," despite the following language in that document:

First: The Political, Diplomatic, and Cultural Spheres

1. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats.

Third: The Security Sphere

1. Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.

2. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups, at the forefront of which is Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation, and destroy their logistical networks and their sources of finance, and defeat and uproot them from Iraq. This support will be provided consistent with mechanisms and arrangements to be established in the bilateral cooperation agreements mentioned herein.

3. Supporting the Republic of Iraq in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces to enable them to protect Iraq and all its peoples, and completing the building of its administrative systems, in accordance with the request of the Iraqi government.

Full Committee Chairman Tom Lantos invited the State Department to appear at this hearing, but they declined, instead giving only a classified briefing.

Watch the hearing live via committee webcast or on C Span 3.

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Delahunt gives opening remarks:

Chairman Delahunt: "Secretary Gates appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday and seemed to minimize the declaration of principles as nothing more than a press release. He testified that the Administration is not seeking to make, and in fact he pledged that it would not make, security commitments to defend Iraq. All that is being negotiated, he said, is a standard Status of Forces agreement that governs the conduct of U.S. forces in another country. Now on its face, this would appear to be a major reversal of the Administration's position. So it's all the more important now to remove any confusion, and explore the apparent contradictions between the declaration of principles signed by our President, George W. Bush, and the testimony of Secretary Gates."

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), who has introduced legislation on the matter, gives testimony:

Rep. DeLauro: "In November, we note that President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki agreed to a declaration of principles for a long term U.S.-Iraq relationship to be finalized by July 31st. I too am concerned about the security commitments and assurances our nation plans on providing, according to this declaration. As has been described as well, when you take a look at 'defending Iraq's democratic system against internal and external threats.' What are these undefined threats? Would we be obliged to preemptively strike Sunni fighters beyond Iraq's borders? Or even strike homegrown armed factions Maliki's own government deems to be a threat?"

Douglas Macgregor, Ph.D, Retired U.S. Army Colonel, and Senior Fellow at the Straus Military Reform Project, gives testimony:

Macgregor: "I think any elected official contemplating the commitment of US forces to the security of a government like Iraq's, a government that already confronts powerful armed opposition inside its own borders, should recognize the potential damage that the government's reliance on US military power would cause to its legitimacy."

Oona A. Hathaway, Associate Professor of Law at Yale Law School, gives opening testimony:

Hathaway: "So there's a central principle that I want to establish that is the foundation of my remarks today. And that is, the President cannot make an international agreement that exceeds his own Constitutional authority without the agreement of Congress. That's the bottom line... what is not permissable, however, as has already been said, is to include in that status of forces agreement, SOFA agreement, a guarantee to come to the defense of another country. What I believe is also not acceptable would be to include in that status of forces agreement immunity for private military contractors..."

Michael J. Glennon, Professor of International Law at The Fletcher School of Tufts University:

Glennon: "I don't want to impute any illicit intention to the Administration, but I would simply observe that the Administration has an understandable incentive to overstate the scope of the commitment in its communications with the Iraqis, and to understate the scope of its commitment in its communications with the Congress. It is essential that the Congress not be led to believe that there is no security commitment, when there is one. It is also essential that the Iraqis not be led to believe that there is a security commitment if there is not one. When it comes to the role of the United States in Iraq's future security, Congress and Iraq must be on the same page. If they are not, the consequences could be catastrophic..."

Extended transcript:

Glennon: "It is possible that the Administration may now be moving away from the broad construction of the declaration of principles of the sort that I have just outlined. But it seems to me that it would be, at this point, premature to jump to any such conclusion. First, I've read the entire transcript of his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. This comment was not included in his prepared statement, it was made in answer to questions from Senators Kennedy and Levin and if you read the commentary surrounding his response to Senator Levin I believe it's fair to say that it's not clear to what extent this position was carefully thought through. And as the Chairman emphasized in his opening statement it's important to note the President, after all, did sign the Declaration of Principles, which seems on its face to be inconsistent with the statement made two days ago by the Secretary of Defense. Leading to the conclusion that is all the more important for Congress to get to the bottom of this, to get the facts straight and to insist upon clarity. I don't want to impute any illicit intention to the Administration, but I would simply observe that the Administration has an understandable incentive to overstate the scope of the commitment in its communications with the Iraqis, and to understate the scope of its commitment in its communications with the Congress. It is essential that the Congress not be led to believe that there is no security commitment, when there is one. It is also essential that the Iraqis not be led to believe that there is a security commitment if there is not one. When it comes to the role of the United States in Iraq's future security, Congress and Iraq must be on the same page. If they are not, the consequences could be catastrophic..."