In Focus:
Return of the Baghdad Pact
Bush wants to give Iraq one last gift: subservience to an agreement that perpetuates the US occupation and absolves invading and occupying US forces of their crimes, writes Galal Nassar
The US administration is in the midst of a desperate attempt to compel the Maliki government in Iraq to sign a "security agreement" before the end of Bush's term in the White House. This urgency is inspired by the desire to accomplish a number of ends, perhaps foremost among which is the desire to produce a political victory that would revive an element of respect for the outgoing administration whose foreign and domestic policies have come under scathing attack from all quarters of American opinion, including its own Republican Party.
It undoubtedly also feels that such a victory would help the Republican Party candidate, John McCain, gain some ground against his rival, Barack Obama, in the presidential elections. But even in the event of an Obama victory, a signed and sealed agreement with the Iraqi government would saddle the Democratic administration with obligations that it would find difficult to wriggle free of, as much as the substance of the agreement may go against the Democratic platform on this issue. In other words, the Bush administration wants to present the forthcoming administration with a fait accompli, regardless of who the next occupant of the White House is.
If the agreement, the cosignatories of which can hardly be said to be equal, is concluded it will effectively end the international mandate over Iraq. Iraq would then be regarded as a "free and independent" nation and Washington would be relieved of the burden of being seen as a colonialist power occupying a founding member of the UN and a current member of the family of nations, in spite of the ongoing and glaring breaches in international law, the UN Charter and the principle of self-determination.
The architects of the agreement and those who are engineering its implementation seem to have deliberately blinded themselves to the fact that it takes little mental effort to realise that, under the reality of occupation, any agreement or understanding signed between Washington and Baghdad lacks legitimacy. Perhaps this is what prompted the Arab Lawyers' Federation to issue a statement condemning the draft security agreement between Iraq and the US out of hand and describing it as a colonialist project that violates the sovereignty and independence of Iraq and that poses a threat to Arab national security.
Indeed, the proposed agreement differs little from the other pacts that the British or French colonial powers imposed on the region in earlier periods. Moreover, as the statement by the Arab Lawyers' Federation pointed out, since the Iraqi government lacks the sovereignty to act autonomously any agreement with the occupying power will lack a legitimate contractual nature. The statement further stressed that the articles of the agreement violate in substance the rules and principles of international law because they specify a timeframe for maintaining an illegitimate foreign military presence in Iraq.
The pressures being brought to bear on Iraq by Washington leave no shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi party is not of equal standing; reminiscent of the roles played by the British high commissioners and French consulates during the era of conventional colonialism.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waves the stick at the Maliki government and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warns of the "grave consequences" for Iraq that will result if an agreement cannot be reached quickly. In a subsequent statement he cautioned that if an agreement was not reached US forces in Iraq would have to cease all their activities. He thereby placed the Maliki government before two choices: either agree to the status of US forces or renew the UN mandate. Neither choice would keep the occupation forces from staying. The only change would be in the formality of its presence.
In light of these threats, some political experts on the Iraqi situation believe that the forthcoming days will bring a renewed wave of suicide bombings and booby trapped cars in crowded markets and the vicinity of mosques and other houses of worship and that these will be used to promote the idea of keeping US forces stationed in Iraq.
However the so-called Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is marketed, its actual provisions betray its true nature. The foreword clearly states that the US would have the right to keep "defence equipment" in the country. In a subsequent paragraph the term was defined to include "systems, weapons, ammunition, equipment, and materials used in conventional wars only, that the US forces need in accordance to this agreement."
Meanwhile, all the text offered to the Iraqi government and parliament (before a few non-essential modifications were incorporated to meet some of the demands of the Maliki government) did not extend beyond vague commitments spread out across 28 articles. General Petraeus, the newly appointed head of US Central Command, expressed the ambiguities surrounding the mechanisms for implementation of these commitments in a nutshell. They will be put into effect "as circumstances permit", he said.
The agreement is clearly tailored to the occupier's needs and whatever nods it makes to Iraqi aspirations will require long and arduous negotiations to bring into effect. By signing such an agreement, Iraq will have submitted its land, sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, oil and wealth exclusively to the authority of the occupying power and chained itself to a cunningly devised treaty with devious ends.
The agreement preempts a repercussion on the US from its occupation and destruction of Iraq. In stating that the occupying forces are there at the behest of the "sovereign" government of Iraq, it exempts the invading occupying power from having to pay any compensation in the long run and from even having to apologise for the crimes it has committed, which outstrip fascist and Nazi barbarities. The text is more explicit: "Except for contract related claims, both sides waive their rights to request compensation because of any harm, loss, or destruction of property, or request compensation for injury or death of forces members or civilian members from both sides occurring during their official duties."
Article 4 of the SOFA, covering the agreed upon activities of US forces, states that these forces will have the right to deploy land and air forces, detain persons suspected of threatening stability and security, and conduct military occupations. Iraq, for its part, must guarantee the accessibility of US forces and US contractors to the installations and areas agreed upon for use by US forces. It further stipulates that the Iraqi government authorises US forces to practice all the authorities and have all the rights to manage, construct, use, maintain, and secure installations and areas agreed upon.
In addition to US control over all entrances to the installations and areas agreed upon, the agreement states that "vehicles and ships operated by or exclusively for US forces are permitted to enter and exit and move inside Iraq for the purposes of this agreement." The same article also provides that no parties will be "allowed aboard US government airplanes and civilian airplanes contracted with the US Department of Defense and related ships and vehicles without US forces consent, and they cannot be searched."
A particularly interesting provision can be found in Article 12 pertaining to legal jurisdictions. Its intent is clearly to ensure immunity from prosecution for US soldiers, contractors and contracted personnel -- meaning mercenaries. It states, "The US shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over armed forces members and civilian members inside installations and areas agreed upon and during the performance of their duties outside the installations and areas agreed upon." Gates took the added precaution to reassure members of Congress that US soldiers would be guaranteed immunity in all circumstances.
Another eyebrow-raising provision gives the US the right to establish military bases to secure links and communications with US forces from Western Europe through Pakistan to the Philippines and Japan. It seems that former US president Jimmy Carter hit the nail on the head when he said, "Those who think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was purely for oil are deluding themselves." It is as though the Baghdad Pact is in the process of being reborn.
Other provisions are worded in a way that will give successive US administrations the right to create and train untold contingents of multinational troops through various private security firms. These troops will be able to be transported secretly across or within the borders of certain states, undoubtedly with the aims of igniting ethnic and religious strife, promoting the colonial power's interests and otherwise furthering the cause of US global hegemony.
The agreement, if signed, will smooth the way for similar agreements with the other parties that took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. British government spokesman John Wilkes said as much: "My country is waiting for the end of the negotiations between Iraq and the US over the anticipated security agreement because the British agreement will be similar to the American one."
Once again, US agencies are trying to secure and expand the scope of their "rights" in Iraq. According to Article 15 of the SOFA, the authorities of both sides will have the right to ask the authorities of the other side to relinquish their jurisdiction over a specific case. It further states, "The government of Iraq agrees to exercise its jurisdiction only after notifying the US in writing within 21 days of the discovery of a crime that it claims to have occurred and stating the importance of exercising this jurisdiction."
As vehement as the Maliki government's objections are to the substance of the draft agreement, its opposition seems to have less to do with the cause of national independence and unity in Iraq than it does with domestic alliances and regional allegiances. The differences between the occupying power and the parties that had originally supported the occupation stem precisely from the divided loyalties of those parties; parties that are currently keeping a close eye on how the current administration is handling its economic woes and trying to assess how the next administration will handle the question of Iraq.
The haze surrounding American plans for Iraq and even domestic policies, the apprehensions of regional powers with regard to a long-term US military presence in the region, and the pressures these powers are exerting on their allies inside Iraq are what account for the delays in concluding the SOFA. Nevertheless, this has not kept some from grumbling against the "ingratitude" of those who are in power in Iraq today. As one of these officials put it, were it not for American tanks none of them would have a foothold in Iraq these days let alone title and rank.
Signing the SOFA and bowing to international or regional agendas will not restore security and independence to Iraq. On the contrary, it will legalise the occupation. Iraq will not know true security and peace until the Iraqi people themselves take hold of the actual reins of power and exercise their right to self-determination in a truly free and sovereign Arab state.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/921/op2.htm
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est SOFA. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est SOFA. Afficher tous les articles
samedi 8 novembre 2008
dimanche 26 octobre 2008
Deal on American presence in Iraq close to collapse
by Marie Colvin
Senior Iraqi politicians have warned that a crucial deal between Baghdad and Washington governing the presence of American troops in the country is doomed to failure after eight months of talks.
“The Sofa [Status of Forces Agreement] is dead in the water,” said one Iraqi politician close to the talks.
He added that Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, believed that signing it would be “political suicide”.
The collapse of the deal would severely undermine American policy. An agreement is needed to put America’s presence on a legal basis after the United Nations mandate for its 154,000 troops in Iraq expires on December 31.
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, claimed last week that the deal was “mostly done”.
The draft pact, painstakingly negotiated in Baghdad by Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador, and US generals, calls for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq’s main cities by the end of 2009 and a complete withdrawal by 2011.
The Americans made what they considered to be a significant compromise by agreeing to Iraqi jurisdiction over any troops who committed “serious crimes” while off duty.
They also agreed that American soldiers acting on their own would no longer be able to arrest suspected insurgents. They would need Iraqi permission to make arrests.
Despite the concessions it emerged this weekend that Maliki, who has grown in stature as the Iraqi armed forces have taken control of security in the main cities of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul in the past year, would block the deal.
Two other serving members of Maliki’s government confirmed his view. Iraqi politics is focused on the forthcoming provincial elections, due early next year. Maliki also faces a general election in a year’s time.
Open support for the American presence is seen as a vote-loser, even though most Iraqis tacitly acknowledge the need for troops to remain in the country until their own army can enforce order.
An unofficial poll of MPs last week revealed that the deal would fall far short of gaining majority support in parliament.
“It is absolutely impossible under any circumstances that we will accept this booby-trapped agreement,” said Nasser al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the opposition group of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric.
“This is an agreement which takes Iraq out of direct occupation and puts it under colonialism with the help of the government of Iraq. It only serves the occupier,” said Rubaie, who is also an MP.
That view was echoed across the political spectrum. Politicians also pointed out that they saw no reason to sign such a contentious accord with the lame duck administration of President George W Bush.
“From a political point of view, how is it possible to sign an agreement with an administration which only has a few days left in power, taking into consideration the changes that will possibly take place if the Democrats were to come to power?” said Hussein al-Falluji, an MP for Iraqi Accord, a Sunni party.
If the deal fails the Americans may be forced to ask Iraq to return to the UN security council for a temporary renewal of their mandate, but the legal status of many of their actions will become uncertain.
Additional reporting: Ali Rifat in Amman
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article5014584.ece
Senior Iraqi politicians have warned that a crucial deal between Baghdad and Washington governing the presence of American troops in the country is doomed to failure after eight months of talks.
“The Sofa [Status of Forces Agreement] is dead in the water,” said one Iraqi politician close to the talks.
He added that Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, believed that signing it would be “political suicide”.
The collapse of the deal would severely undermine American policy. An agreement is needed to put America’s presence on a legal basis after the United Nations mandate for its 154,000 troops in Iraq expires on December 31.
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, claimed last week that the deal was “mostly done”.
The draft pact, painstakingly negotiated in Baghdad by Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador, and US generals, calls for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq’s main cities by the end of 2009 and a complete withdrawal by 2011.
The Americans made what they considered to be a significant compromise by agreeing to Iraqi jurisdiction over any troops who committed “serious crimes” while off duty.
They also agreed that American soldiers acting on their own would no longer be able to arrest suspected insurgents. They would need Iraqi permission to make arrests.
Despite the concessions it emerged this weekend that Maliki, who has grown in stature as the Iraqi armed forces have taken control of security in the main cities of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul in the past year, would block the deal.
Two other serving members of Maliki’s government confirmed his view. Iraqi politics is focused on the forthcoming provincial elections, due early next year. Maliki also faces a general election in a year’s time.
Open support for the American presence is seen as a vote-loser, even though most Iraqis tacitly acknowledge the need for troops to remain in the country until their own army can enforce order.
An unofficial poll of MPs last week revealed that the deal would fall far short of gaining majority support in parliament.
“It is absolutely impossible under any circumstances that we will accept this booby-trapped agreement,” said Nasser al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the opposition group of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric.
“This is an agreement which takes Iraq out of direct occupation and puts it under colonialism with the help of the government of Iraq. It only serves the occupier,” said Rubaie, who is also an MP.
That view was echoed across the political spectrum. Politicians also pointed out that they saw no reason to sign such a contentious accord with the lame duck administration of President George W Bush.
“From a political point of view, how is it possible to sign an agreement with an administration which only has a few days left in power, taking into consideration the changes that will possibly take place if the Democrats were to come to power?” said Hussein al-Falluji, an MP for Iraqi Accord, a Sunni party.
If the deal fails the Americans may be forced to ask Iraq to return to the UN security council for a temporary renewal of their mandate, but the legal status of many of their actions will become uncertain.
Additional reporting: Ali Rifat in Amman
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article5014584.ece
samedi 25 octobre 2008
Maliki won't sign U.S. troop deal
Iraq's prime minister won't sign U.S. troop deal
By Roy Gutman McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — Fearing political division in the parliament and in his country, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki won't sign the just-completed agreement on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq, a leading lawmaker said Friday.
The new accord's demise would be a major setback for the Bush administration, which has been seeking to establish a legal basis for the extended presence of the 151,000 U.S. troops in this country, and for Iraq, which won notable concessions in the draft accord reached a week ago.
"No, he will not" submit the agreement to the parliament, Sheikh Jalal al Din al Sagheer, the deputy head of the Shiite Muslim Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, told McClatchy. "For this matter, we need national consensus."
Instead, Sagheer said, Iraq's political leaders are considering seeking an extension of the United Nations mandate for the presence of U.S. troops, which will expire on Dec. 31. Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has assured Iraq that it wouldn't veto an extension, he said, adding that one was likely to last between six months and a year.
Ali al Adeeb, the chief of staff of Maliki's Dawa party, said Wednesday that the Iraqi parliament "cannot approve this pact in its current form."
Top U.S. military officials have warned of serious consequences if the agreement isn't signed. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this week that Iraq's forces "will not be ready to provide for their security" after the current U.N. mandate runs out. "And in that regard there is great potential for losses of significant consequence," Mullen said.
Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told USA Today: "Without (a security agreement), we would potentially have to cease all operations."
Iraqis, however, are adamant that the accord must be open to further amendments if they're to approve it.
"The problem is that when we were given the latest draft, we were told the American negotiators will accept no amendments to it, and the Iraqi government has more requirements," said Sagheer, an Islamic cleric who later led the Friday prayers broadcast on national television.
He said that Maliki had come to the Political Council for National Security, a top decision-making body, and said the new accord was the best he could obtain, but it didn't include everything that Iraq wanted.
If Maliki signed the accord and turned it over to the parliament, "I'm sure that the agreement will not be approved for 10 years," Sagheer said.
The cleric said the draft accord was "good, in general," but its timing was bad. If an Iraqi negotiator accepted the agreement, "he will be taken as an agent for the Americans," and if he were to reject it, "he will be taken for an agent for Iran."
A second factor is that the accord comes just before the U.S. elections, and an Iraqi negotiator had to ask whether it was best to negotiate with the lame-duck Bush administration or wait for its successor. More important, Sagheer said, are the approaching provincial elections in Iraq, which could be held early next year.
"Iraqi politicians don't want to give their competitors the chance to use this agreement to destroy them," he said.
The accord contains a number of American concessions, calling for U.S. troops to withdraw to their bases by June 2009 and to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 — both dates subject to extension, but only if the Iraqi government requests it.
The accord also would allow Iraq to prosecute U.S. troops except when they're on U.S. bases or on military operations, strips private military contractors of U.S. legal protection and reclaims control over Baghdad's "Green" zone, the location of the U.S. Embassy and military headquarters and much of the Iraqi government's headquarters.
Sagheer said that setting a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal was a "historic" accomplishment.
He also acknowledged that an extension of the current U.N. mandate might not reflect the gains made in the status of forces draft.
"For everything there is a price," he said. "And although (the accord) has many advantages, it also has many disadvantages, as it does for the coalition forces."
The problem for Iraqis, he said, was "the feeling with some of the parties that America has no intention of withdrawing within the timetable." Iraqis, he said, had so many negative experiences while a British mandate under the League of Nations from 1920 to 1932 that they fear a written agreement. "We have the feeling that if the Iraqi government accepts the demands, it will give a legal right to be occupied, so we don't have any kind of sovereignty."
Other politicians said that if Washington agrees to extend the negotiations, the talks will never end.
"This is all a game to win time. When the current issues are settled, they will just find new ones. . . . They are delaying to appease Iran," said Mithal al Alusi, a secular Sunni legislator whos' critical of the current Shiite-led government.
(Corinne Reilly of the Merced, Calif., Sun-Star, and McClatchy special correspondents Hussein Kadhim and Mohamed al Dulaimy contributed to this article.)
By Roy Gutman McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — Fearing political division in the parliament and in his country, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki won't sign the just-completed agreement on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq, a leading lawmaker said Friday.
The new accord's demise would be a major setback for the Bush administration, which has been seeking to establish a legal basis for the extended presence of the 151,000 U.S. troops in this country, and for Iraq, which won notable concessions in the draft accord reached a week ago.
"No, he will not" submit the agreement to the parliament, Sheikh Jalal al Din al Sagheer, the deputy head of the Shiite Muslim Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, told McClatchy. "For this matter, we need national consensus."
Instead, Sagheer said, Iraq's political leaders are considering seeking an extension of the United Nations mandate for the presence of U.S. troops, which will expire on Dec. 31. Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has assured Iraq that it wouldn't veto an extension, he said, adding that one was likely to last between six months and a year.
Ali al Adeeb, the chief of staff of Maliki's Dawa party, said Wednesday that the Iraqi parliament "cannot approve this pact in its current form."
Top U.S. military officials have warned of serious consequences if the agreement isn't signed. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this week that Iraq's forces "will not be ready to provide for their security" after the current U.N. mandate runs out. "And in that regard there is great potential for losses of significant consequence," Mullen said.
Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told USA Today: "Without (a security agreement), we would potentially have to cease all operations."
Iraqis, however, are adamant that the accord must be open to further amendments if they're to approve it.
"The problem is that when we were given the latest draft, we were told the American negotiators will accept no amendments to it, and the Iraqi government has more requirements," said Sagheer, an Islamic cleric who later led the Friday prayers broadcast on national television.
He said that Maliki had come to the Political Council for National Security, a top decision-making body, and said the new accord was the best he could obtain, but it didn't include everything that Iraq wanted.
If Maliki signed the accord and turned it over to the parliament, "I'm sure that the agreement will not be approved for 10 years," Sagheer said.
The cleric said the draft accord was "good, in general," but its timing was bad. If an Iraqi negotiator accepted the agreement, "he will be taken as an agent for the Americans," and if he were to reject it, "he will be taken for an agent for Iran."
A second factor is that the accord comes just before the U.S. elections, and an Iraqi negotiator had to ask whether it was best to negotiate with the lame-duck Bush administration or wait for its successor. More important, Sagheer said, are the approaching provincial elections in Iraq, which could be held early next year.
"Iraqi politicians don't want to give their competitors the chance to use this agreement to destroy them," he said.
The accord contains a number of American concessions, calling for U.S. troops to withdraw to their bases by June 2009 and to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 — both dates subject to extension, but only if the Iraqi government requests it.
The accord also would allow Iraq to prosecute U.S. troops except when they're on U.S. bases or on military operations, strips private military contractors of U.S. legal protection and reclaims control over Baghdad's "Green" zone, the location of the U.S. Embassy and military headquarters and much of the Iraqi government's headquarters.
Sagheer said that setting a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal was a "historic" accomplishment.
He also acknowledged that an extension of the current U.N. mandate might not reflect the gains made in the status of forces draft.
"For everything there is a price," he said. "And although (the accord) has many advantages, it also has many disadvantages, as it does for the coalition forces."
The problem for Iraqis, he said, was "the feeling with some of the parties that America has no intention of withdrawing within the timetable." Iraqis, he said, had so many negative experiences while a British mandate under the League of Nations from 1920 to 1932 that they fear a written agreement. "We have the feeling that if the Iraqi government accepts the demands, it will give a legal right to be occupied, so we don't have any kind of sovereignty."
Other politicians said that if Washington agrees to extend the negotiations, the talks will never end.
"This is all a game to win time. When the current issues are settled, they will just find new ones. . . . They are delaying to appease Iran," said Mithal al Alusi, a secular Sunni legislator whos' critical of the current Shiite-led government.
(Corinne Reilly of the Merced, Calif., Sun-Star, and McClatchy special correspondents Hussein Kadhim and Mohamed al Dulaimy contributed to this article.)
samedi 18 octobre 2008
Iraqi Clerics speak out against SOFA
October 17, 2008
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/10/17/iraqi-clerics-speak-out-against-sofa/
There aren’t many things that a confidant of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a council of Iraqi Sunni religious leaders and the followers of firebrand Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr can all agree on, but they seem to have found common ground on one thing: they all oppose the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States.
Imam al-Qabanji told a crowd of hundreds in the Shi’ite holy city of Najaf today that the Shi’ite clergy is “very worried” about the SOFA. A Sunni council issued an anti-SOFA fatwa, and followers of al-Sadr are planning a massive demonstration tomorrow to call for the withdrawal of US forces.
Earlier in the week the SOFA was reportedly finalized, though White House Press Secretary Dana Perino insisted today that this was not the case. She anticipated a final agreement “soon.” It is unclear what if any terms remain to be hashed out, and details of the finished or nearly-finished deal have yet to be made public. The question of US troop immunity was among the last contentious issues.
Even once the terms are finalized, the agreement will face several stages of review in the Iraqi government, culminating with what is expected to be a very difficult vote in the Iraqi parliament. Given the ever-widening array of forces united against the pact, it is unclear whether the Maliki government will even submit it for a vote. In the past Maliki has said he would only submit the draft to parliament if he was confident of two-thirds support.
compiled by Jason Ditz
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/10/17/iraqi-clerics-speak-out-against-sofa/
There aren’t many things that a confidant of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a council of Iraqi Sunni religious leaders and the followers of firebrand Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr can all agree on, but they seem to have found common ground on one thing: they all oppose the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States.
Imam al-Qabanji told a crowd of hundreds in the Shi’ite holy city of Najaf today that the Shi’ite clergy is “very worried” about the SOFA. A Sunni council issued an anti-SOFA fatwa, and followers of al-Sadr are planning a massive demonstration tomorrow to call for the withdrawal of US forces.
Earlier in the week the SOFA was reportedly finalized, though White House Press Secretary Dana Perino insisted today that this was not the case. She anticipated a final agreement “soon.” It is unclear what if any terms remain to be hashed out, and details of the finished or nearly-finished deal have yet to be made public. The question of US troop immunity was among the last contentious issues.
Even once the terms are finalized, the agreement will face several stages of review in the Iraqi government, culminating with what is expected to be a very difficult vote in the Iraqi parliament. Given the ever-widening array of forces united against the pact, it is unclear whether the Maliki government will even submit it for a vote. In the past Maliki has said he would only submit the draft to parliament if he was confident of two-thirds support.
compiled by Jason Ditz
dimanche 12 octobre 2008
US using debts to blackmail Iraq
Thu, 09 Oct 2008
Iraqi MPs say the US is using the country's debts as leverage to force Baghdad into signing the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). "Baghdad is under pressure by Washington to accept the security deal in exchange for clearing all of Iraq's debts," Iraqi lawmaker Mohammed Kamid al-Humedawi told Press TV on Wednesday.
The US will be allowed to set up permanent military bases, if Iraq signs the agreement. Under the deal the US forces will also be granted immunity from legal prosecution inside their bases in Iraq.
Iraqi parliamentarians, including MPs from the Sadr movement, however, reiterated that they will not approve the deal that is going “to turn the country into a US colony”. "We do not accept any agreement that disregards Iraq's sovereignty" said MP Nassin al-Essawi, adding that "As an Iraqi lawmaker I believe this agreement is not in the interest of the Iraqi people.”
This is while a group of US officials arrived in Baghdad to discuss the controversial deal. But Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has warned that any interference by US officials would only complicate the situation and even could have negative results. The Premier had earlier declared that any agreement with the United States should consider the country's sovereignty and national interests.
SB/RE
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=71676§ionid=351020201
Iraqi MPs say the US is using the country's debts as leverage to force Baghdad into signing the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). "Baghdad is under pressure by Washington to accept the security deal in exchange for clearing all of Iraq's debts," Iraqi lawmaker Mohammed Kamid al-Humedawi told Press TV on Wednesday.
The US will be allowed to set up permanent military bases, if Iraq signs the agreement. Under the deal the US forces will also be granted immunity from legal prosecution inside their bases in Iraq.
Iraqi parliamentarians, including MPs from the Sadr movement, however, reiterated that they will not approve the deal that is going “to turn the country into a US colony”. "We do not accept any agreement that disregards Iraq's sovereignty" said MP Nassin al-Essawi, adding that "As an Iraqi lawmaker I believe this agreement is not in the interest of the Iraqi people.”
This is while a group of US officials arrived in Baghdad to discuss the controversial deal. But Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has warned that any interference by US officials would only complicate the situation and even could have negative results. The Premier had earlier declared that any agreement with the United States should consider the country's sovereignty and national interests.
SB/RE
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=71676§ionid=351020201
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
