Maliki: US Iraq security pact facing dangerous obstacles

So much for the U.S. desire to see Iraq develop into a democracy. They do not want to give Iraq power over the occupiers. The U.S. does not want its soldiers to be subject to Iraqi law! There is no way either that the U.S. will allow Iraq command of military operations on their own soil! The Iraqis wanted US soldiers out by the end of 2010 but agreed to extend this to 2011. This matter is not even discussed in the US. In the US the discussion of withdrawal of U.S. troops usually never mentions Iraqi demands! It is what the Americans think is best!
Americans seem to be totally unconscious about their imperialism. But let the Russians try to control a couple of enclaves at their doorstep and wow there is that huge imperialistic Russian bear. Of course Georgia itself is in effect a US client state. Georgia to repay the U.S. for its aid and support sent troops to help out the US in Iraq!

US-Iraq security pact facing 'dangerous' obstacles: PM
by Ammar Karim Wed Sep 17, 2:17 PM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Wednesday warned that the contentious security pact with the United States was facing "serious and dangerous obstacles."

"There is very serious and dangerous obstacles to the deal," Maliki told a group of Iraqi television journalists.
"They (US negotiators) requested 10 to 14 days to respond to our demands and the time is over now. American negotiators have not responded to our proposals.
"If they implement our demand quickly, the deal will be signed soon, but if they refuse our demands, it will face obstacles and could lead to new negotiations."
Washington and Baghdad are currently negotiating a security pact that would decide the future of US forces in Iraq after the present UN mandate expires at the end of this year.
The UN mandate currently acts as the legal framework for the presence of foreign forces in the violence-wracked country.
Iraqi negotiators have demanded that American soldiers should be subjected to Iraqi laws if they commit "grave and intentional mistakes," a demand which the American negotiators have to respond to.
US soldiers currently are immune from Iraqi laws.
"There is still a dispute over the issue of immunity to American soldiers," Maliki said.
"The present demands of Iraq are related to the country's sovereignty. Iraqis have shown flexibility and we hope that the American side shows more flexibility."
Maliki told journalists that both sides have agreed "that by December 2011 all American troops will leave Iraqi soil."
"The Americans have agreed on this. At the beginning, we demanded that they leave by 2010, but they (Americans) asked to leave by 2011."
The other sticking points that are yet to be resolved between Washington and Baghdad are the command of military operations in Iraq from next year and the right of US forces to detain Iraqi citizens.
US embassy officials in Baghdad were not immediately available for comment.
But last week embassy spokeswoman Susan Ziadeh told AFP that the negotiations were ongoing and the "deal is not done until it is done."
Maliki, however, said the two sides had agreed that foreign private security contractors working in Iraq would be subjected to Iraqi laws from January 1, 2009.
The presence of foreign private security contractors has been extremely controversial after some of them were accused of killing civilians.
Last September 16, guards belonging to Blackwater security company shot dead 17 Iraqi civilians while escorting an American diplomatic convoy through Baghdad. The firm says its guards were acting in self-defence.
Despite strong opposition from Iraqis, the US Department of State earlier this year renewed a contract with Blackwater to protect American officials in Iraq.
Foreign security companies are currently not subject to Iraq law, but they are not governed by US military tribunals either, effectively allowing them to operate with impunity.

Iraq deal may allow Maliki to Bypass Parliament.

Maliki is learning from Bush who has done the same thing with respect to the U.S. Congress. However, the Iraqis may not be as tolerant of government manipulation as the Americans. In fact this may just be a rumour and as the rest of the article points out it may be that there is no agreement near yet at all. What is happening with the oil law that was supposed to be passed aeons ago? This is from antiwar.com

Leaked Iraq Deal May Allow Maliki to Bypass Parliament
Posted September 5, 2008
Amid calls by Iraq’s opposition MPs to present the draft agreement with the United States as it presently stands to parliament, a leaked version of the Status of Forces Agreement has appeared. From last month, this version appears to set no deadline for the withdrawal of “noncombat” troops from Iraq, and would grant blanket immunity to US military personnel throughout Iraq.
Perhaps most stunningly, however, is that it reportedly states “This agreement goes into effect on the day that diplomatic memos confirming all constitutional procedures have been met in both countries are exchanged”. Though the move might not be without political consequences, it would seem to allow Prime Minister Maliki to bypass Parliament entirely simply by claiming, as the Bush Administration has, that the deal is a simple bilateral executive agreement and not subject to parliamentary oversight.
But even if Prime Minister Maliki has found a way to avoid subjecting the agreement to a likely hostile reception from Iraq’s Parliament, recent reports suggest that negotiations on a finalized version of the agreement are faltering. As American officials express concerns about Maliki asserting an increasing level of independence, the revelation that the United States has been spying heavily on Maliki and other members of his government seems destined to complicate matters even further. Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is quoted as saying his government “doesn’t need the agreement” and would insist on several conditions, including a guarantee of sovereignty. He also said that discussions on the agreement have “been stopped” for some time, citing “disputes” over critical issues.
compiled by Jason Ditz [email the author]

Opposition mounts to US-Security deal.

The opposition is spreading beyond the Sadr supporters obviously. I have never heard a U.S. commentator consider the possibility that Iraq and not the U.S. might decide when U.S. troops will be withdrawn! It is always discussed as if it was only a question for Americans to decide!

Opposition mounts to US-Iraq security deal
Thousands protest in Iraq against proposed security agreement with US
ROBERT H. REIDAP News
May 30, 2008 14:43 EST
Tens of thousands rallied in several cities Friday against a proposed U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, raising doubts that negotiators can meet a July target to finalize a pact to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after the current U.N. mandate expires.




Although U.S. officials insist they are not seeking permanent bases, suspicion runs deep among many Iraqis that the Americans want to keep at least some troops in the country for many years.
"We denounce the government's intentions to sign a long-term agreement with the occupying forces," Asaad al-Nassiri, a sheik loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said during a sermon in Kufa. "Our army will be under their control in this agreement, and this will lead to them having permanent bases in Iraq."
President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a statement last December on the future of U.S.-Iraqi relations, saying they planned to finalize a new security agreement by July 31 — in time for Iraq's parliament to approve the deal before a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.
U.S. and Iraqi officials began negotiations in March on a blueprint for the long-term security agreement and a second deal, to establish the legal basis for U.S. troops to remain in the country after the U.N. mandate runs out.
Rallies in Baghdad and several other Iraqi cities followed Friday prayer services and were the first in wake of a call by al-Sadr for weekly protests against the deal, even though few details of the talks have been released.
Most of the protesters appeared to be followers of al-Sadr, the hardline Shiite cleric and militia leader whose Mahdi Army battled American and Iraqi troops in Baghdad's Sadr City district until a truce this month ended nearly seven weeks of fighting.
But opposition to the agreement appears to be growing beyond the Sadrist movement.
A militant Sunni clerical group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, denounced the "ring of secrecy" surrounding the talks and said the proposed deal would pave the way for "military, economic and cultural domination" by the Americans.
On Thursday, the head of the country's biggest mainstream Shiite party, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, said some unspecified points under negotiation "violate Iraq's national sovereignty," adding that a "national consensus" was emerging against the proposed agreement.
Al-Hakim is al-Sadr's main rival in the majority Shiite community and maintains close ties to the country's main Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Aides to the powerful ayatollah say he also has reservations about the deal.
Some congressional Democrats are also insisting that Congress should authorize any agreement that would obligate the United States to defend Iraq.
Before the Friday protests, al-Sadr's office in Baghdad issued a statement branding the negotiations as "a project of humiliation" aimed at turning Iraq "into a small stooge of the United States."
U.S. officials have declined to comment on the talks until the draft is completed.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said two weeks ago that "we are making progress" although other Iraqi officials acknowledged there were many unresolved issues, including how many Americans would remain and what they would do. American soldiers now enjoy full immunity from the Iraqi legal system.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to talk about the negotiations.
Rallies against the security deal occurred as the U.S. military was seeking to contain the public relations damage caused by reports that an American Marine handed out coins promoting Christianity to Sunni Muslims in the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.
Sunni officials and residents said a Marine distributed about 10 coins at a checkpoint controlling access to the city, the scene of one of the fiercest battles of the war.
One side asked: "Where will you spend eternity?"
The other contained a verse from the New Testament: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16."
Mohammed Hassan Abdullah said he witnessed the coins being handed out on Tuesday as he was waiting at the Halabsa checkpoint, although he didn't receive one himself.
The U.S. military responded quickly to the incident, first reported by McClatchy Newspapers, removing a Marine from duty pending an investigation. Military regulations forbid proselytizing any religion.
"Indications are this was an isolated incident — an individual Marine acting on his own accord passing out coins," Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, a spokesman for U.S. forces in western Iraq, said in an e-mailed statement.
Distribution of the coins was the second perceived insult to Islam by American service members this month. A U.S. Army sniper was sent out of the country after using a Quran, Islam's holy book, for target practice in a predominantly Sunni area west of Baghdad.
"This event did not happen by chance, but it was planned and done intentionally," Sheik Abdul-Rahman al-Zubaie, an influential tribal leader in Fallujah, said of the coins. "The Sunni population cannot accept and endure such a thing. I might not be able to control people's reactions if such incidents keep happening."
__
Associated Press writer Sameer N. Yacoub and AP staff in Fallujah