Posted on 07/08/2008 2:05:44 PM PDT by forkinsocket
AMMAN -- It was an usually quiet day in Iraq on Friday in terms of violence, but the debate over a long-term security and military pact that the Iraqi government is secretly negotiating with the United States continued to raise a political storm among leaders eager to regain sovereignty over their country.
Iraqi lawmakers said they were increasingly concerned that an Iraqi-U.S. pact, which would determine the role of U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate's term expires at the end of the year, would pass without their endorsement amid indications that the two sides were rushing to forge some kind of agreement that does not meet Iraqi demands.
Many influential politicians – Sunnis and Shiites alike – have been uneasy about the secrecy of the negotiations and the little details that officials are willing to divulge, fearing the government was on the verge of signing an agreement that would consolidate the U.S. occupation.
Shiite protesters gathered across the country after Friday noon prayers and denounced the security pact, chanting "No, no to colonization! Out, out you occupier!"
Iraqi government officials have said the government was considering the possibility of a temporary agreement to meet a deadline at the end of the year. They said it would either be renewed or until a more permanent accord is reached, indicating to parliament that a pact would be passed without its endorsement, and thus entail conditions unacceptable to the representative of the Iraqi people.
Iraqi politicians say the majority of the 275-member National Assembly has not been comforted by Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zibari's vague briefing this week about the "progress" made in these negotiations, nor by his statements to the press.
Zibari sought to assure Iraqis that the Americans had "made concessions" to drop their initial demand for providing private security firms immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and that Washington indicated it was ready to give up other conditions that threaten Iraqi sovereignty.
Lawmakers were vocal in their disapproval of Zibari's attempted explanation, but the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front (IAF) bloc, which has 44 MPs, was the most critical.
The IAF, made up of three influential Arab Sunni parties, said the minister failed to persuade the lawmakers, because he was calling for accepting the pact regardless of its articles and tried to sell it as an Iraqi interest.
"He appeared to be more of an American negotiator than an Iraqi foreign minister," the bloc said in a statement.
Zibari had stressed that there would not be "another colonization of Iraq," and indicated only an interim agreement might be reached this year due to an impasse reached on a number of issues regarding the authority of the U.S. forces in the country and their operations.
Iraqi political leaders have insisted on "red lines" that the government should not accept in such a pact, namely giving the U.S. forces a free hand in military operations and capture of Iraqis, as well as any indication that would not set a time frame for an end to the U.S. presence in their country.
Parliamentary bloc leaders say the Americans were rushing Baghdad to reach an accord for their own domestic political considerations, which they fear would trap the Iraqis into legalized and permanent occupation.
Talk about a temporary deal began to emerge as election time nears in Iraq and the United States in the fall, where the Democrats in Congress are not eager to approve an accord before the presidential election, the Republicans are divided, and Iraqi officials are apparently avoiding unpopularity before the Iraqi polls.
Zibari said Wednesday the government was negotiating an arrangement that would only last "one or two years," but some Iraqis have been skeptical that even if a short-term agreement was reached, it could last for at least 10 years.
Iraqi politicians complained the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the U.S. administration of George W. Bush seemed to be working toward a secret interim accord, or "memorandum of understanding," until opposition in both countries quiets down; after which they can arrive at a longer-term pact that would give the United States the upper hand.
Iraqi analysts say if such a crucial agreement is signed off without parliamentary approval, not only will its implementation fail, but it would threaten to exacerbate violence in the country torn by war since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
The elusiveness surrounding the details of the accord has also drawn serious concern from Iraq's neighbors and Arab countries, who fear that negotiations between occupiers and occupied could only lead to an arrangement that would give the United States a carte blanche to launch attacks in the region to impose its policies and expand its domination.
Fools. What will they chant after they fall into the Mullahs' sphere of influence, and become subjugated to Iran as Finland was to the U.S.S.R.?
The Iraqi Government has an election in October and will be doing a lot of this talk until then. I don’t anticipate anything getting signed or offered up till after their elections and before ours.
The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq’s provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country.
After that, the country’s security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.