Hearing of the House International Relations Committee - Transfer of Sovereignty in Iraq

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY IN IRAQ

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE HENRY HYDE (R-IL)

WITNESSES: MARC GROSSMAN, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS; PETER RODMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS; LIEUTENANT GENERAL WALTER SHARP, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANS AND POLICY, THE JOINT STAFF

LOCATION: 2172 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. June 30th we've got to do this transfer, because we promised it-whole place explodes if we don't. Now, it looks like we'll be transferring sovereignty not to somebody that we select but someone more selected by the United Nations, which means we may be transferring sovereignty to somebody we disagree with. But I was saying even before this hearings, in knowing that this sovereignty would be pretty meaningless. Right now Iraqis control water systems, schools, et cetera, and we're in control of security, and supposedly that's what is going to continue. Now I hear from our panelists two things. First, we're not going to leave; and, second, the Iraqis get to decide whether we leave or whether we stay. These statements are consistent only if we believe that it is absolutely impossible that the Iraqis selected by the U.N. and influenced by their desire to be popular with their people next year, will not ask us to leave, or will not put restrictions on what we do. Yet if you look at the polling in Iraq, kicking us out could make somebody very popular. And restraining us here or there would be almost absolutely necessary for any Iraqi that didn't want to just go off into political oblivion this January.

So let's explore what this transfer of sovereignty means-not in light of some parallel universe in which all the Iraqi people love us and the best way to political power and political popularity is to embrace the Americans as closely as possible. But let's deal with the real world where Americans are unpopular-this recent problem with prisoners multiplies that-and where any Iraqi government seeking popularity might want to restrain us. Let me provide a scenario. Let's say the new sovereign on July 1 tells us to release each an every prisoner at the prison at Abu Ghraib, and including those who have killed Americans-just says the abuse that happened there was so bad, just being there was punishment enough-let them go. Is that something that our troops would follow, and would we release those who murdered Americans in cold blood?

GEN. SHARP: Let me try to answer both, and then I'll pass it off to Secretary Rodman, who can get a little bit more in the last part.

First off, we are committed and want to work very closely with the Iraqi security forces, both now and after transition --

REP. SHERMAN: General, I have limited time. What happens? The Iraqi government on July 1 tells America, Let these people go. They tell us, Don't arrest a single Iraqi. And on July 2nd somebody kills an American, and they tell us, Don't go into our town and arrest that person. Do we follow those instructions, or do we say sovereignty- schmovereignty, we're not going to release those who kill Americans, we're not going to release those who kill Americans, we're not going to fail to arrest them. Yes or no, not tell me that you love the Iraqi people, et cetera.

GEN. SHARP: I'm sorry, sir, I was trying to answer your first question.

On the second question, the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511, and as codified in the transitional administrative law, allows us to maintain the security and stability-requires us to maintain the security and stability in Iraq. In order to do that, we have the authority --

REP. SHERMAN: Even if the sovereign government tell us not to do something? What does sovereignty mean if the U.N. can say a foreign power can go into any of your cities and arrest any of your people? What kind of sovereign is that?

GEN. SHARP: The transitional administrative law, as agreed to by the Iraqis, has asked us --

REP. SHERMAN: Which Iraqis?

GEN. SHARP: The current Iraqis --

REP. SHERMAN: The ones we hand-selected-yeah, those Iraqis.

GEN. SHARP: Has asked us and has told us in the law that is in the transitional administrative law, to stay and to provide security and stability in Iraq. In order to be able to do that, we have the authority to be able to detain and maintain prisoners who have done acts against the coalition.

REP. SHERMAN: So your position is that because 30 Iraqis that we selected signed documents that says we have certain authority, that the sovereign government of Iraq in July cannot restrict us in our desire to arrest Iraqi citizens, and you call that sovereignty?

REP. HYDE: The gentleman's time has expired. The chair will intervene and suggest that there's no constitution in the world that has-that will supersede the innate right of self-defense, and that our troops have the right to defend themselves, and if that means incarcerating murderers, they can do it regardless of what the temporarily sovereign government of Iraq-the gentleman proposes a false dilemma.

REP. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would add than when General Pershing invaded Mexico, seeking out those who had killed Americans, most of the world thought that was a violation of Mexican sovereignty.

REP. HYDE: Well, viva Zapata. (Laughter.) We will always defend our troops, and we have the right to do so, and we'll exercise it. And I don't see anything counter the sovereignty. An illegal order is no order, and the order to release murderers or people being held for trial would be in my judgment illegal-certainly immoral.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT