Reactions in the Iraqi Press to the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Agreement (must read)

[bigtree]

August 18, 2008

Reactions in the Iraqi Press to the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Agreement
By: D. Hazan *

Introduction

A long-term strategic agreement was scheduled to be signed in late July 2008 between the U.S. and Iraq, which was to grant judicial legitimization to a continued U.S. presence in Iraq, after the December 31, 2008 expiration of the U.N. mandate for stationing foreign troops there. Leaked information regarding the agreement sparked wide-scale protest in Iraq, mainly on the grounds that it would severely harm Iraqi sovereignty and perpetuate "occupation."

In light of such strong opposition, the Iraqi government rejected a number of amended versions of the agreement prepared by the U.S, the signing of a long term agreement was removed from the agenda, and its place was taken by the prospect of a "memorandum of understanding" for the short term.

In the political arena, the agreement was intensely opposed by most elements in Iraqi politics, who were concerned that it would "deprive Iraq of its sovereignty" and demanded a definite timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal. Senior Iraqi government officials called for significantly curtailing the role of U.S. forces in Iraq by the end of 2008. Encouraged by the success of recent operations by the Iraqi security apparatuses, they requested that unless Iraq asked for help, the U.S. would commit to restricting its forces to its military bases, saying that otherwise the agreement would not be signed, and Iraq would find alternative solutions. Thus, MP Sami Al-'Askari, who is affiliated with Al-Maliki, stated: "The Americans are raising demands that will transform Iraq into a colony. If we fail to come to a satisfactory agreement, many people will have to say to the American forces, 'Bye-bye! From now on, we don't need you here'... If negotiations fail, Iraq will have to extend the presence of U.N.-sponsored foreign forces by yet another year."

Shi'ite religious scholar Grand Ayatollah 'Ali Al-Sistani voiced opposition to the agreement, arguing that "any agreement that harmed Iraq's sovereignty in any way was considered a violation of shari'a," and that "it would be inconceivable for foreign forces to stay in Iraq forever; they must leave Iraq, in light of the significantly improved security situation there." Another three Shi'ite scholars in Najaf also condemned the agreement, warning that the signing of it would constitute a violation of Islam and bring about a popular intifada. 'Abd Al-'Aziz Al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (the largest Shi'ite group in the Al-Maliki government), also criticized the agreement, since it stipulated a continued presence of U.S. forces.

Al-Sadr's faction, which had been championing the war against the occupation, called to draft a timetable for a withdrawal of the international corps from Iraq and to consult religious scholars before making a final decision regarding it. Later, the faction called on Shi'ite religious scholars to issue fatwas prohibiting the signing of any agreement between the Iraqi government and the occupiers.

On the other hand, an MP from the Kurdish coalition warned against a premature withdrawal from Iraq by the international corps from Iraq, contending that Iraqi security forces were not yet able to take full responsibility for the country's security . . .

As for Iran, when information about the U.S.-Iraq security cooperation agreement was first released, it expressed discontent. Senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi claimed that by signing this agreement with the U.S., Iran would render itself "its eternal prisoner," and called on the Iraqi people to learn from the Lebanese, who had expelled the Americans from their land.

On June 7, 2008, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki paid a three-day visit to Tehran, to assure the Iranians that the agreement with the U.S. would not be detrimental to Iran. During the visit, he stated that all influential political elements in Iraq supported rapprochement with Iran in all areas, and that Iraq would not allow its territory to be used as a base for attacks against Iran. Iranian Supreme Leader 'Ali Khamenei demanded that Al-Maliki refrain from signing the agreement with the U.S., and contended that Iraq's main problem today was the U.S. presence . . . (more)

Whether or not they are influenced by Iran's position, Iraqi Shi'ite politicians seem categorically opposed to the agreement, while the Sunni and the Kurds reject it to a lesser degree, despite reservations regarding some of its clauses. Both positions were clearly manifested during Al-Maliki's visit to Jordan. Thus, Al-Maliki, who is a Shi'ite, stated that the negotiations on the agreement had reached a dead end, but Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zibari, a Kurd, hastened to interpose that he believed that "it was premature to assert that the agreement was dead or had reached a dead end."

Haroun Muhammad, an Iraqi writer and journalist who resides in London, wrote in an article titled "Is It Time to Replace Nuri Al-Maliki?" which was published in Al-Quds Al-Arabi: "Since the beginning of negotiations on the strategic agreement with the U.S. at the end of April 2008, Al-Maliki has been trying to play a double game . . . (more)

Columnists in the Iraqi and Arab press have voiced opinions both for and against the agreement. Its opponents claim that it would damage Iraq's sovereignty and warn of a permanent American presence in Iraq, and of a U.S. takeover of Iraqi resources. Its advocates warn that the Iraqi forces are not yet ready to replace the U.S. forces, and that the agreement could trigger civil war and precipitate an Iranian takeover of Iraq; they also contend that the agreement could benefit Iraq economically and enhance its deterrence capabilities vis-à-vis neighboring countries . . .


Report and excerpts from articles on the Bush/Maliki 'agreement' from Iraq, Syria, Jordan, UAE, : http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA46108

[bigtree]

1. kick

:kick:

[bigtree]

2. .

[Supersedeas]

3. nothing to see here -- did you hear that McCain was at the VFW -- acting tough

[malaise]

4. Very interesting

Thanks