.Iraq Decides It Still Needs U.S.-Led Military Presence
WASHINGTON, June 10 — The new government of Iraq has decided to postpone any demand for negotiations to establish a more formal legal basis for the presence of American and other foreign troops on its soil, Iraqi and American officials said this week.
Instead, these officials said, Iraq will allow the current United Nations mandate to remain in effect beyond a deadline next Thursday for a review of Security Council Resolution 1637, which provides legal authority for the American-led military coalition to continue its combat operations.
"I've just finished speaking with my foreign minister, who intends to be in New York for the review, and it will not be a point at which we terminate," Samir al-Sumaidaie, Iraq's new ambassador to the United States, said Friday. The new government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is the first full-term government to take power in Iraq since the American invasion more than three years ago.
Iraq has the right to unilaterally end the United Nations troops mandate at any time, as spelled out in the resolution approved unanimously by the Security Council last Nov. 8.
But Mr. Sumaidaie said the new government's "policy at the moment is that Iraq still needs the presence of the multinational force."
The United Nations mandate for Iraq differs from the agreements on which the United States usually relies as the legal basis for the presence of its troops in allied countries. In most cases, these arrangements are detailed in formal, bilateral treaties — called Status of Forces Agreements — with nations where it bases troops and conducts exercises.
Much of the language in those agreements details mundane rights and responsibilities — how to share construction costs or the required compensation for smashing through an orchard, for example.
But the agreements also include specific legal protections for American troops, often extending beyond those offered by a local government to its population. Such agreements have in the past become a source of anger among residents in instances where civilians were killed during military exercises or when American military personnel were accused of violent crimes.
American commanders in Iraq have said they hope to retain control over their military operations for as long as possible under the new sovereign government. At the same time, Iraqi officials have expressed mounting concerns over the deaths of civilians during coalition counterinsurgency operations, most recently after reports that marines in western Iraq killed two dozen civilian noncombatants in Haditha last fall.
"We are fighting a war, and it is difficult to fight a war under a Status of Forces Agreement," a senior Bush administration official said on Friday. "The main issue that we put into the SOFA protections is for military personnel carrying out their duties, which in Iraq would occur 100 percent of the time."
The administration official said the new Iraqi government, which only Thursday was able to fill top positions in its national security ministries, had expressed eagerness for the coalition military to remain under the current mandate.
"There is a great deal of support, obviously, and enhanced by what happened yesterday, for our continued presence," the official said, referring to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader, which was announced Thursday. The American official agreed to discuss the high-level negotiations with the Iraqi government only after being promised anonymity.
A number of resolutions and other agreements provide legal authority for coalition forces to operate in Iraq. Under the most recent one, 1637, Iraq acknowledged that multinational forces were in the country at its request.
The resolution required that the mandate for those forces be reviewed by next Thursday, but also provided that Iraq could terminate the mandate at any time.
NYT
Collaborators and Zionist, all of them!!
Death to the infidels.
Death to America.
Death to the Iraqi collaborators.
As my friends would say..
Instead, these officials said, Iraq will allow the current United Nations mandate to remain in effect beyond a deadline next Thursday for a review of Security Council Resolution 1637, which provides legal authority for the American-led military coalition to continue its combat operations.
"I've just finished speaking with my foreign minister, who intends to be in New York for the review, and it will not be a point at which we terminate," Samir al-Sumaidaie, Iraq's new ambassador to the United States, said Friday. The new government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is the first full-term government to take power in Iraq since the American invasion more than three years ago.
Iraq has the right to unilaterally end the United Nations troops mandate at any time, as spelled out in the resolution approved unanimously by the Security Council last Nov. 8.
But Mr. Sumaidaie said the new government's "policy at the moment is that Iraq still needs the presence of the multinational force."
The United Nations mandate for Iraq differs from the agreements on which the United States usually relies as the legal basis for the presence of its troops in allied countries. In most cases, these arrangements are detailed in formal, bilateral treaties — called Status of Forces Agreements — with nations where it bases troops and conducts exercises.
Much of the language in those agreements details mundane rights and responsibilities — how to share construction costs or the required compensation for smashing through an orchard, for example.
But the agreements also include specific legal protections for American troops, often extending beyond those offered by a local government to its population. Such agreements have in the past become a source of anger among residents in instances where civilians were killed during military exercises or when American military personnel were accused of violent crimes.
American commanders in Iraq have said they hope to retain control over their military operations for as long as possible under the new sovereign government. At the same time, Iraqi officials have expressed mounting concerns over the deaths of civilians during coalition counterinsurgency operations, most recently after reports that marines in western Iraq killed two dozen civilian noncombatants in Haditha last fall.
"We are fighting a war, and it is difficult to fight a war under a Status of Forces Agreement," a senior Bush administration official said on Friday. "The main issue that we put into the SOFA protections is for military personnel carrying out their duties, which in Iraq would occur 100 percent of the time."
The administration official said the new Iraqi government, which only Thursday was able to fill top positions in its national security ministries, had expressed eagerness for the coalition military to remain under the current mandate.
"There is a great deal of support, obviously, and enhanced by what happened yesterday, for our continued presence," the official said, referring to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader, which was announced Thursday. The American official agreed to discuss the high-level negotiations with the Iraqi government only after being promised anonymity.
A number of resolutions and other agreements provide legal authority for coalition forces to operate in Iraq. Under the most recent one, 1637, Iraq acknowledged that multinational forces were in the country at its request.
The resolution required that the mandate for those forces be reviewed by next Thursday, but also provided that Iraq could terminate the mandate at any time.
NYT
Collaborators and Zionist, all of them!!
Death to the infidels.
Death to America.
Death to the Iraqi collaborators.
As my friends would say..
posted by madtom at 2:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home