Maliki wants U.S. pullout timetable.

This is from the Nation.
The U.S. media seems to be neglecting this developing story of the crisis in the US-Iraq treaty or Status of Forces agreement. For the Bush administration it is not a treaty. In fact as the article points out it is nowhere near being anything and may end up not being signed. That this should be regarded as a stunner is significant for what it shows about the U.S. frame of mind. There is never a thought that the Iraqis might determine when and at what speed the U.S. withdraws from Iran. Discussion in the U.S. is always between presidential contenders as to how the U.S. should withdraw as if Iraq had nothing to do with the matter except perhaps in terms of the readiness of their forces to take over security! The arrogance is stunning but completely below the radar of commentators.
Of course Maliki probably comes out with this pronouncement to bolster his political capital before the fall elections.

Maliki Stunner: He Wants US Pullout Timetable
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 07/07/2008 @ 12:21pm
The long-running showdown over the proposed US-Iraq treaty, aimed at legitimizing the American occupation of Iraq, is coming to a head, and it doesn't look good for the United States.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tossed a bombshell today. In a news conference about the still-secret US-Iraqi talks, which began in March, Maliki for the first time said that the chances of securing the pact are just about nil, and instead he said Iraq will seek a limited, ad hoc renewal of the US authority to remain in Iraq, rather than a broad-based accord.
More important, Maliki and his top security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie added that Iraq intends to link even a limited accord to a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces. Reports the Sydney Morning Herald:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.
It was the first time the US-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would benefit militant groups.
Here's the quote from Maliki:
"The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal."
Don't think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki's Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran's goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran's leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States. Interestingly, Maliki reportedly told President Bush personally, in a video teleconference on Friday, that the United States cannot use Iraqi territory to attack Iran, and he added that "fomenting tension in the region and pushing for military action against Tehran could wreak havoc on the entire region, including Iraq."
Maliki is also under pressure from a broad coalition of Iraqi nationalists, from angry, disenfranchised Sunnis to Muqtada al-Sadr's movement.
But Maliki's statement is a big deal. At a minimum, it presents an enormous problem for Bush and John McCain, who are arguing for an indefinite US stay in Iraq til "victory," and who oppose a timetable. True, Maliki seems to be linking his timetable to Iraqi military success, which is not too different from the Bush-McCain formula. But inside Iraq, the pressure is building day by day for a US withdrawal, and Maliki is by no means in control of the process. The fact that both Iran and Sunni nationalists, who are on a collision course, agree that US forces need to leave Iraq, only means that pro- and anti-Iranian factions will settle their differences (either by peaceful diplomacy or by violence) once the United States is gone.

Iraqi Shiites Denounce security pact with U.S.

This is from AFP.
There does not seem to be much attention paid to this by the U.S. press for the most part. The issue of whether this agreement should go before American legislators also seems to be on the back burner as well. This is one of the most important issues with respect to the Iraq war one would think. It is taken very seriously in Iraq but is off the radar in the U.S.

Iraqi Shiites denounce security pact with US
Fri Jul 4, 9:14 AM ET
Large crowds of Shiites on Friday denounced the security pact Baghdad is negotiating with Washington for a long-term US military presence in violence-wracked Iraq.
In Baghdad's Sadr City, the bastion of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, Shiite men, women and children shouted anti-American slogans as they demonstrated against the security deal after the weekly Friday prayers.
"No, no to colonisation! Out, out you occupier!" the crowd shouted in the centre of Sadr City where fierce battles raged in March and April between Shiite militants and US forces in which hundreds of people were killed.
The fighting ended with a truce on May 10.
Washington and Baghdad are currently negotiating a security pact on the long-term foreign troop levels in Iraq.
Last November US President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki agreed to sign the pact by July 31 this year.
However the country's political factions have strongly opposed the agreement, saying it would put Iraq on the path of "slavery."
On Thursday Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari tried to dispel such fears by saying that the agreement would not compromise Iraqi sovereignty.
He said if the two countries failed to sign the deal then Iraq may have to ask for the renewal of the UN mandate which expires in December 2008 or sign a separate bilateral deal with Washington.
The UN mandate is the legal basis for the presence of US-led foreign forces in the country.
Friday's protests against the security agreement reverberated across all Shiite regions of Iraq.
In the central town of Kufa, protesters chanted anti-US and anti-Israel slogans.
"No to America! No to Israel! We reject signing the agreement with the occupation," shouted devotees.
In the city of Karbala, an aide of revered Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani urged Baghdadto refrain from signing a deal that would compromise national interests.
"If the government signs the deal it has to preserve the interests of the people, not compromise sovereignty and not permit Iraq to be used as a base for attacks on neighbouring countries," said Sheikh Abdul al-Mahdi al-Karbalae.
Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.

Iraqi foreign minister urges security deal with U.S.

As the minister himself notes there are other alternatives but one alternative he does not mention is asking the U.S. to leave. This is not an alternative because the existing Iraqi government would probably not survive a U.S. exit. The present Iraqi government is dependent upon the U.S. and not really sovereign.
However the U.S. apparently has finally decided to lift the demand for immunity from Iraqi law of contractors (NY Times.) Of course troops will continue to be immune. There is no sign yet that there is agreement on a new "status of forces" document.


Iraqi foreign minister urges security deal with US
Iraqi foreign minister: Country has little choice but to sign security agreement with US
QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRAAP News
Jul 01, 2008 09:13 EST
Iraq's foreign minister says the country has little choice but to sign a new security agreement with the U.S. that would let American troops stay in the country after a U.N. mandate expires

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari recently returned to Iraq after meeting with President Bush in Washington to discuss the agreement, which has been criticized by many Iraqi officials worried it would leave too much power in U.S. hands.
But Zebari told parliament Tuesday that the only other options were to extend the U.N. mandate that expires at the end of the year or continue without a formal agreement, neither of which holds much appeal to Iraqis.
He said an agreement would last one or two years and urged Iraqi officials to finalize it by the end of July.
Source: AP News

The timing of the Status of Forces Agreement

This is from an Baghdad journalist's blog.
I was not aware of the signing of the oil contracts as described in this article. However, it is certainly true that the negotiation of the status of forces agreement is going on in secret. However, some Iraqi journalists and politicians are certainly discussing the issue. The U.S. however is more self-absorbed as mentioned. The U.S. economy however is probably more of an issue than the elections. There has been some discussion of whether the status forces agreement is a treaty and should go before the legislature but even this issue seems to have died.


June 21, 2008
Status of Forces Agreement at American Elections' Time
What ingenuity! The timing is brilliant!
The American people are almost completely taken up with the presidential elections and the race to the White House.
The Iraqi people are so overwrought a lot of them don't even know what's going on – some just don't care any more, they are too taken up with the basic affair of staying alive, providing minimal sustenance for their families and too much grief.
And yet, at this "delicate" time everything is boiling down to the core of the objectives for which this war was waged – American long term interests in Iraq.
At this "delicate" time no-bid contracts are to be signed between the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and the self same companies that constituted the old Iraqi petroleum company that had a monopoly over Iraqi oil before nationalization in the early seventies, 1971 - 1972 -What a come back!
Now all is crystal clear – the two objectives that brought hundreds of thousands of troops half across the globe have become crystal clear. Oil - and the power to control it.
And while our "sovereign democracy" shamelessly seeks to hide these facts from the people to present them with a fait accompli, it seems that the American "democracy" is also shamelessly seeking to sneak the agreement through the least visible route so as to willfully disregard the will of the American people and cement its interests here – no matter the cost to human lives – no matter the cost in funds – no matter the loss of face because non of these matter to them as much. The contracts are to be signed soon, before the Iraqi parliament even passes an Oil Law - and that will be that.
What remains to be seen is whether America is willing to sacrifice its men, women and money for these companies' interests to be "properly" looked after.
The Status of Forces Agreement.
And it remains to be seen whether Iraq has any say in this at all.

Treaty tensions mount as Iraq tells U.S. it wants troops back in barracks.

The puppets are being bad again. One of these days they may be bad enough to send the U.S. packing although that is not likely in the short term since the Maliki government could hardly protect itself from a concerted armed push by its opponents without U.S. aid. However if the Iraqi government is able to develop its own armed forces and negotiate with rebels it could possibly ask the U.S. to leave. The U.S. is not likely to agree to the terms that Iraq is demanding. Somehow not anything about this seems to be playing out in U.S. domestic politics as far as I have read--which is not all that much!
I would expect some troop withdrawal soon to show that the situation in Iraq is improving and perhaps quite a few more if Obama becomes president.

Treaty tensions mount as Iraq tells the US it wants all troops back in barracks
American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces.
According to a senior Iraqi official, the negotiations between the two allies became so fraught recently that President Bush intervened personally to defuse the situation. On Thursday he telephoned Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, to assure him that Washington was not seeking to undermine Iraq’s sovereignty and that America would reconsider any contentious part of the agreement.
The current United Nations mandate for US troops expires at the end of this year and Washington wants to conclude a bilateral agreement with Baghdad for the future deployment of US forces. There are just over 150,000 US troops in Iraq living on scores of bases across the country, from little 30-men outposts to sprawling camps often built around old Iraqi army barracks.
Construction work over the past five years has turned these bases into small towns of trailers, hangars and blast walls, equipped with a Pizza Hut, Starbucks-style coffee shops, cinemas and swimming pools.
Among a litany of sticking-points surrounding the status of forces agreement (SOFA) between the two countries are Iraqi concerns over how many US bases will remain in the country and who will be in control of Iraqi air space.
Other flashpoints include whether private security companies working for US forces will continue to enjoy immunity from Iraqi law and whether US soldiers will maintain the freedom to travel where they want, arrest people and conduct raids without first gaining approval from the Iraqi Government.
Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said that under the new deal US soldiers should be confined to the larger bases. “We do need the Americans to leave the cities and the streets,” he said. “They have to be there in the back and . . . in their camps. Whenever we ask them they will be ready to support and help.”
As for private security companies, “they should be subject to Iraqi law”, Mr al-Dabbagh said. The immunity of such firms that work for the military or the British or American embassies triggered outrage last year after security guards employed by Blackwater, the largest private security company in Iraq, were involved in a confrontation that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.
A status of forces agreement takes on average more than a year to conclude, but Washington hopes to seal the deal with Iraq by the end of July – a time-frame that the Iraqi side views with less importance than the content of the accord.
Sanctioning the continuing presence of US troops is hugely sensitive, with many Iraqis opposed to such a move. Iran has also voiced concern that the deal will enable Washington to use Iraq as a launch pad to conduct attacks in the region. Mr al-Maliki used a weekend trip to Tehran to try to calm the tensions. “We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and [other] neighbours,” he said.
The Iraqi Prime Minister will need to tread carefully to win the backing of his parliament for the pact and also ensure that the US side is satisfied.
Britain, which will have to sign its own bilateral accord with Iraq to legalise the presence of British troops in the country post2008, is watching the discussions with interest. London will use the US-Iraq arrangements for its own agreement.
The senior Iraqi official, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the chief concern is that Iraq’s sovereignty is protected.
“President [Bush] has been in touch with the Prime Minister of Iraq and has said that the issues which are rejected or not approved by the Government of Iraq will be reconsidered and the future American presence will be for assisting and coordinating with the Iraqi Government,” he told The Times about the conversation, which took place last Thursday.
A senior US official in Baghdad said that such conferences between the two leaders were fairly frequent. “[Mr Bush] has assured Prime Minister al-Maliki consistently we respect Iraq’s sovereignty. The content, the positions we take in the negotiations, will reflect that,” the official said.
US diplomats have been meeting their Iraqi counterparts for the past two months to draw up the status of forces document as well as a strategic framework, which sketches out every aspect of the two countries’ relationship from security, politics and the economy to culture, science and education.
As part of the process, several Iraqi delegates are due to return this week from a fact-finding trip to some of more than 80 countries, including Japan, Turkey and Singapore, with which the United States already has a status of forces accord.
The Iraq-US pact, while based on the same principles of two sovereign nations, will differ slightly because of the need for US forces to be able to fight.
“The general premise though is that they operate in a manner which reflects respect for, acknowledgement of Iraqi sovereignty and ultimately an Iraqi decision,” the US official said.

U.S. Iraq far apart on security pacts

Note that Iraq will present the agreement to parliament given them a say in the agreement. It is clear that the Bush regime is hell bent on seeing that this does not happen in the U.S.
The U.S. is still insistent that soldiers and contractors have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law and the U.S. will wants freedom to decide when and where to launch attacks without the consent of the Iraqi government.

US, Iraq far apart on security pacts

Wide Differences Slow Negotiations on US-Iraqi Security Pacts, Iraqis Say

QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
AP News

Apr 14, 2008 12:21 EST

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators are far apart over key issues in talks to replace the U.N. mandate that governs American military operations in this country, Iraqi officials said Monday.

Talks began last month on a strategic framework agreement providing for long-term bilateral ties and a separate status of forces pact that spells out the regulations governing U.S. military operations in Iraq.

U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said the two sides have exchanged "a number of drafts and proposals." She refused to give details because negotiations continue.

However, Iraqi officials familiar with the discussions said significant differences exist on the major issues of immunity for U.S. personnel and contractors, authority to order raids and attacks and detention of people believed a threat to security.

The officials refused to discuss the differences in detail and spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to talk about the negotiations.

Those three issues have caused friction in the past between the U.S. military and the Iraqi government.

The Iraqis have from time to time demanded an end to the immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law enjoyed by U.S. soldiers and U.S. government contractors and have criticized U.S. military operations in some populated areas such as the Sadr City district of northeastern Baghdad.

U.S. officials claim authority under the U.N. mandate to detain indefinitely anyone suspected of being a threat to coalition forces. The mandate expires at the end of this year.

Last December, President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a statement of principles regarding future U.S.-Iraqi relations and said they planned to finalize a new security agreement by July 31.

Nantongo said the Iraqi government intends to submit the agreement to Iraq's parliament for ratification, a move which could spell trouble for the document if it is perceived as being too generous to the Americans.

Source: AP News