Canadian Armed Forces Station in Afghanistan

RFE/RL correspondent Heather Maher asked Middle East expert and former National Security Council adviser Steven Simon, of the Council on Foreign Relations, to explain the controversy and predict what will happen.

RFE/RL: Could you explain why a U.S.-Iraq security pact is needed?

Steve Simon: There are two agreements in the works. One is a "status-of-forces agreement," which is necessary because if you’ve got your military forces in another country, their presence there needs to be regulated. Because, young men, all in uniform, carrying guns, and having the run of the place can make trouble.

You know, I say this in a very jocular way, but it actually becomes a very serious issue. And if your troops are going to make trouble, there needs to be some prior agreement with the host country as to how that trouble gets resolved. Who has judicial responsibility when there’s a problem? And these things need to be negotiated, and the results of the negotiation codified in a "status-of-forces" agreement.

RFE/RL: And the other agreement the United States is seeking with Iraq?

Simon: The other agreement is meant to give shape and content to the future of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship across a range of topic areas, from the economy to security. And on security, there are some provisions in the agreement that are a bit vexing both to Iraqis and to some Americans.

Tremendous Sensitivity

RFE/RL: Last week thousands of followers of the Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr protested the idea of a joint U.S.-Iraqi agreement, shouting things like, “No to the occupation!” Sunnis also oppose the deal, saying it will compromise national sovereignty and “Iraqi interests.” Members of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government have called for major changes to the draft agreements. What is their opposition based on?

Simon: Well, there’s a history here. Because of their experience with the British, who at one time occupied Iraq -- in fact, they did for many years, on and off -- there’s a tremendous sensitivity among Iraqis about being under foreign domination. And certainly since 1958, they’ve considered themselves to be completely independent of foreign rule. And the way in which the United States has gone about pursuing an agreement, which many believe is meant to pave the way for a long-term military presence, has reminded Iraqis, rather unpleasantly, of their experience with the British.

So, in a nutshell, an agreement of the sort the U.S. seems to be seeking right now is bringing to the surface Iraqi fears of a long-term foreign domination, and they just don’t like that.

RFE/RL: It’s been reported that U.S. negotiators have certain demands that they are trying to put in the final agreement. Among the most controversial are granting U.S. forces the ability to arrest and detain Iraqis and to enjoy immunity from Iraqi laws. Then there’s the issue of military bases. The lead State Department negotiator, David Satterfield, told Al-Jazeera that the United States rejects the idea of "permanent bases." But to many Iraqis, long-term lease agreements are the same thing as permament occupation. How is the United States going to get Iraq to sign off on this?

Simon: Look, I am hard-pressed to see this flying with Iraqis. You know, if an American rapes an Iraqi woman, and the U.S. says, "Well, we have a status-of-forces agreement that says we will take care of this problem and it’s none of Iraq’s business," popular feeling in Iraq will be aroused. I think there will be some serious anger. And I think Iraqi authorities who are negotiating these agreements are very aware of these pitfalls. The long-term leases [are] just right out of the British book, and I think that that’s going to rub a lot of Iraqis seriously the wrong way.

But there’s another side to this, too, which is how well this agreement is going to fly on the U.S. side, in terms of American domestic politics. Because one of the agreements, in its current draft, offers U.S. security assurances to Iraq. And, you know, American lawmakers who will have to approve this agreement -- if the final version contains phrases like that -- are going to look askance at those sorts of assurances. They’re going to say, "Why should we do this?" And they’re going to ask certain questions, like "What is the Iraqi government’s relationship to Iran?" and "What’s the nature of Iran’s influence in Iraq? How do the Iraqis view Israel? Do they view Israel as an enemy?"

And, depending on the answers to those questions, American legislators are going to say: "Well, no. This is not a state that the United States ought to be promising help for, in some kind of contingency."

Treaty Arrangement

RFE/RL: Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has said that any agreement must be approved by the Iraqi parliament. But isn't the White House arguing that these are administrative agreements, which don’t need the approval of the Iraqi parliament -- or the U.S. Congress, for that matter?

Simon: That absolutely is what the White House is saying. And I strongly doubt that the agreement in its current form will be viewed, certainly on the American side, as something that can be negotiated solely as a matter of administrative arrangements, between two governments. I think they’re going to look at the current document very much as a treaty arrangement. And in my experience, when you have draft agreements that offer security assurances, then that agreement crosses a threshold in American law, under which the agreement is required to be submitted to Congress for approval.

So I think the [Bush] administration is certainly very eager to cast it as an administrative agreement so as to keep it out of public view and keep it away from Congress. But I don’t think that Congress -- especially a Democratic Congress -- is going to take very kindly to that.

RFE/RL: The United States initially said it wanted to have an agreement by July, but that seems impossible, given the opposition that has sprung up. The U.S. election on November 4 will bring in a new president, and then the UN mandate expires on December 31. Considering these time pressures, what do you see happening in the next few months with the negotiations?

Simon: I think the way the parties will try and get around this is either to have the UN mandate extended, or put together a skeletal agreement that is cast as an interim arrangement that will buy time and form a bridge between whatever the current arrangement is and whatever the next arrangement might be. So there are two work-arounds, and I suspect that one or the other will be employed.

The report helps determine whether the United States imposes sanctions or other punishments on countries that are seen as not doing enough to fight the practice. The report puts countries in one of three levels, or "tiers," that represent how well the United States views such efforts: Tier 1 for those doing a good job, down to Tier 3 for those doing an unacceptable job.

Virtually all of the nations of Eastern, Central, and Southeastern Europe are in Tier 2, while Russia and Tajikistan are on the so-called "watch list" of Tier-2 countries because they could slip to Tier 3. Uzbekistan is among four countries that have moved up. It used to be designated as a Tier-3 country, and now is on the Tier-2 "watch list." Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are in Tier 2, except for Turkmenistan, which is listed as a "special case" because of the lack of information from the country.

Georgia in classified as Tier 1, while Armenia and Azerbaijan are on Tier-2 "watch lists."

Afghanistan is classified as Tier 2.

Iraq and Kosovo are listed as "special cases" due to their political transitions.

On May 29, the UN issued a report declaring that the rate of crimes against people and property in the Balkans has improved to the point that the Balkans are considered safer than Western Europe. But the State Department report says human trafficking remains a problem in the Balkans, particularly in Moldova.

"Moldova fell to Tier 3 for the first time, reflecting its government's failure to tackle trafficking-related corruption, as reflected in the handling of several high-profile cases of complicity by government officials in trafficking," said Mark Lagon, the State Department's senior adviser on trafficking in persons. "This failure created a significant impediment to the government's ability to fight trafficking overall."

May Lose Financial Assistance

Lagon said the State Department hopes the new government in Moldova will root out corrupt officials, improve the country's weak law enforcement, and make other efforts to protect victims of human trafficking.

Until then, Moldova -- along with Fiji and Papua New Guinea -- may lose some U.S. financial assistance that isn't involved in trade or humanitarian aid.

In releasing the report, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted that since the United States began issuing the annual reports in 2000, an increasing number of governments around the world have given greater attention the problem of human trafficking.

"Today -- because of our efforts, the efforts of our allies, and reports like the one we are releasing today -- there is much greater global awareness about the brutality of human trafficking," she said. "Globally, human trafficking is a multidimensional threat. It deprives people of their human rights and dignity, it increases global health risks, it bankrolls the growth of organized crime, and it undermines the rule of law."

But Rice said the more governments delve into the problem, the more trouble they find. Certainly, she said, traffickers have always found ways to kidnap and transport people for labor and prostitution, and there's never been a shortage of victims in regions such as Southeastern Europe, India, China, and the Philippines.

But Rice said that even in countries where such practices are uncovered, the people responsible for this 21st-century slavery too often go free.

"For the first time, in this year's report we closely examined prosecution data and made a disturbing discovery," Rice said. "Although more countries are addressing sex trafficking through prosecution and convictions, the petty tyrants who exploit their laborers rarely receive serious punishment. We see this as a serious shortcoming, and as we move our efforts forward, we and our allies must remember that a robust law enforcement response is essential."

NGOs Not Properly Trained

What's equally disturbing is that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) -- which frequently offer the first refuge for victims who manage to escape the traffickers -- aren't trained or otherwise equipped to handle the victims.

Lagon said that last winter he met two young Romanian women at a shelter in Bucharest for survivors of sex trafficking in Western Europe. They finally escaped to the care of an NGO in the West, then were repatriated to the Bucharest shelter. But Lagon said that once the two women were back in their native country, one was eventually found to have an advanced case of tuberculosis, and the other was suffering from severe syphilis.

"Why weren't these women given proper medical attention before they were repatriated? The time loss made their conditions immensely worse," Lagon said. "Despite increased attention by law enforcement to sex trafficking, we are not seeing -- as the findings of this report [show] -- significant victim protection and victim services provided. This trend has to be reversed or we'll never be able to help significant numbers of victims become survivors. The dehumanized must be restored to their full humanity."

Lagon said the purpose of the report is to diagnose the problem of human trafficking and, from year to year, to track progress -- or lack thereof -- in combating it. In compiling the report, he said, he's highlighted five trends in worldwide human trafficking that need special attention by governments.

"Weak prosecution of labor-trafficking offenses. Secondly, weak trafficking-victim protection. Third, forced labor creeping into new growth industries. Fourth, domestic servitude, and luckily problems there are gaining recognition," Lagon said. "And fifth, closing a window of vulnerability for migrant workers is an imperative."

But Lagon said the thread that unites these five trends is something even more disturbing -- the demand for slave laborers and sex workers.

The dispute centers on a part of Bush's speech to Israel's parliament on May 15. In it, he spoke of the hostility against Israel by the Islamist groups Hamas and Hizballah, and of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

And then came the remark that proved so explosive back home:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We've heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The Democratic Party, which hopes to capture the White House in November's election, reacted with outrage. That's because its presidential front-runner, Senator Barack Obama, has said he would be willing to meet with leaders of hostile nations such as Iran.

Obama's fellow senator, Joseph Biden, called Bush's remarks "bull****."

'Politics Of Fear'

In a statement, Obama accused Bush of engaging in the "politics of fear" and of launching a "false political attack." He said he had never supported engagement with terrorists.

And the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, another top Democrat, said Bush's remarks were "beneath the dignity" of his office.

"We have a protocol, a custom, informally around here, that we don't criticize the president when he's on foreign soil," Pelosi said. "One would think that would apply to the president, that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil. I think what the president did in that regard was beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel. And I would hope that any serious person would disassociate himself from the president's remarks, who aspires to leadership in our country."

That last remark appeared to be aimed at John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate in the November presidential election.

McCain didn't address the "appeasement" comment, instead calling Obama naive for being willing to meet Ahmadinejad.

As for the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush's remarks were general and that the president had not singled out Obama. Sometimes, she said, a candidate running for office mistakenly thinks "the world revolves" around him.

With wire service reports