By Cernig
The Bush administration's gap between public announcements and behind-the-scenes statements over Iran continues apace. Via Fiaz at Think Progress comes a McClatchy report on Bush administration demands for new agreements with the Iraqi government to replace the UN mandate due to expire December 31st.
Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.
"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.
"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help."
Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but also wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces' conduct in Iraq.
The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, didn't deny the two lawmakers' claims, instead saying that the agreements were still being negotiated.
But that the Bush administration should even start from such a hardline "all for me, none for you" position when discussing Iraqi sovereignty is revelatory about its true feelings about Iraq - not "you broke it, you pay for it" but "you broke it, you own it".
Faiz notes that, since the US Congress isn't likely to allow the Cheney camp to launch a war of choice on Iran, they appear to be trying to leave a backdoor open to claim that Iraq has given them authority to do so. If they stick to that hardline stance, it's going to be a deal breaker - as evidenced by the fact that the two lawmakers are from the hitherto pro-American ISCI and Dawa parties of Maliki's governing coalition. Both parties, of course, have even stronger ties to Iran than their Sadrist anti-American rivals.
So, what are the US presidential candidates - one of whom, as president, will have to live with whatever the Bush administration strongarms Iraq into accepting for at least two years - saying about it?
Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn't respond for requests for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
Oops. I think they both just dropped the ball.
No comments:
Post a Comment