.Iraqi Cabinet campaigns for security pact with US
BAGHDAD (AP) - Pirates, foreign attacks, a plummeting economy. Iraqi government ministers are cataloguing warnings about the future if lawmakers reject the proposed security pact with the U.S.
It's all part of a campaign by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to rally support for the agreement going into parliament's crucial vote Wednesday on the deal that would keep American troops in Iraq through 2011.
Al-Maliki intensified his efforts Sunday, seeking to pressure lawmakers by raising the highly unlikely possibility his government could request the hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces if parliament rejects the pact. The U.S. presence is now permitted by a U.N. resolution, but it expires Dec. 31 and the proposed security deal is meant to replace it.
"Definitely, if a renewal (of the U.N. mandate) is not requested, the alternative will be the immediate withdrawal from Iraqi territory and that might not be in the interest of Iraq at present," al-Maliki said after meeting with senior members of the government's Shiite alliance.
That outcome, he said, would leave Iraq's nascent security forces with full responsibility for security at a time when their capabilities are not yet up to the task.
The comment appeared designed to unsettle lawmakers who oppose the pact and get them to change their minds. However, it is improbable al-Maliki would abandon the idea of a renewal of the U.N. mandate and push out the Americans, given his worries about security.
There are some 150,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. Their withdrawal, according to some estimates, could take a year or longer to complete.
Earlier Sunday, Finance Minister Bayan Jabr sought to reassure lawmakers who argued the pact would remove U.N. protection for Iraq's assets, opening the way for claimants armed with court rulings to demand billions of dollars in compensation for Iraqi actions during Saddam Hussein's 23-year rule.
He said Iraq would seek Washington's help to secure a new, "limited" U.N. resolution to protect the $60 billion-plus that Iraq has in two separate, U.S.-based funds. The assets are now shielded by the Security Council resolution that expires Dec. 31 and by a President George W. Bush executive order that expires in May.
Revenues from Iraq's oil and natural gas exports, which account for at least 90 percent of the country's income, are held in one of the two accounts, the Development Fund for Iraq set up in 2003. It has about $20 billion, from which the Iraqi government withdraws as required. The Iraqi central bank's foreign reserves, more than $40 billion, are in the other fund.
Joining in al-Maliki's offensive, Planning Minister Ali Baban warned Sunday that security will deteriorate if the agreement does not pass, keeping investors away and setting back reconstruction efforts. "That will have a negative impact on economic growth rates," he said.
On Saturday, Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi warned that Iraq could risk internal unrest and foreign attacks as well as piracy targeting its oil exports in the Persian Gulf if U.S. forces abruptly pulled out from Iraq.
The prime minister took the lead last week in marketing the deal. He went on national television and addressed a news conference to campaign for the agreement and against the renewal of the U.N. mandate that currently governs the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.
The pact was less than ideal, he said, but it provides a clear and firm timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops - from cities by next June 30 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012 - and is a "solid prelude" to the restoration of Iraq's full sovereignty.
Al-Maliki had hoped parliament would pass the agreement by consensus, but a six-hour debate in the legislature Saturday suggested that goal might be beyond reach.
Many of the lawmakers who spoke berated the government for not keeping them informed during months of negotiations that produced the pact.
Others said the deal infringes on Iraq's sovereignty and lacks a firm U.S. commitment to come to Iraq's rescue in the case of a foreign threat. Some said it made no sense to adopt an agreement with a U.S. administration with less than two months left in office.
Many Iraqis see the pact as prolonging what they consider a U.S. occupation, even if some believe that is necessary to help Iraq's nascent security forces fight an insurgency that has suffered severe setbacks but still carries out regular attacks.
Besides a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, the agreement provides for Iraqi oversight of the operations and movements of American troops and gives Iraqis limited jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers and civilian Pentagon employees in cases of serious crimes committed while off-base and off duty. It also bars U.S. forces from using Iraqi territory to attack neighboring nations.
Al-Maliki could muster just over 140 votes if the pact gets the support of lawmakers from the main Shiite and Kurdish blocs, his main coalition partners. But for a wide margin of victory, he needs the votes of the 44 lawmakers from the largest Sunni Arab bloc that is also a coalition partner but whose support for the deal is uncertain.
A respectable number of Sunni votes in favor of the agreement would satisfy al-Maliki and, just as importantly, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most influential Shiite critic who has indicated the pact will be viable only if it is backed by a large number of lawmakers.
Al-Sistani enjoys such enormous support among Iraq's Shiite majority that he could sink the deal by speaking publicly against it or stating his dissatisfaction over the margin of passage. It's the latter that has al-Maliki's Cabinet ministers talking up the agreement.
MyWay
It's all part of a campaign by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to rally support for the agreement going into parliament's crucial vote Wednesday on the deal that would keep American troops in Iraq through 2011.
Al-Maliki intensified his efforts Sunday, seeking to pressure lawmakers by raising the highly unlikely possibility his government could request the hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces if parliament rejects the pact. The U.S. presence is now permitted by a U.N. resolution, but it expires Dec. 31 and the proposed security deal is meant to replace it.
"Definitely, if a renewal (of the U.N. mandate) is not requested, the alternative will be the immediate withdrawal from Iraqi territory and that might not be in the interest of Iraq at present," al-Maliki said after meeting with senior members of the government's Shiite alliance.
That outcome, he said, would leave Iraq's nascent security forces with full responsibility for security at a time when their capabilities are not yet up to the task.
The comment appeared designed to unsettle lawmakers who oppose the pact and get them to change their minds. However, it is improbable al-Maliki would abandon the idea of a renewal of the U.N. mandate and push out the Americans, given his worries about security.
There are some 150,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. Their withdrawal, according to some estimates, could take a year or longer to complete.
Earlier Sunday, Finance Minister Bayan Jabr sought to reassure lawmakers who argued the pact would remove U.N. protection for Iraq's assets, opening the way for claimants armed with court rulings to demand billions of dollars in compensation for Iraqi actions during Saddam Hussein's 23-year rule.
He said Iraq would seek Washington's help to secure a new, "limited" U.N. resolution to protect the $60 billion-plus that Iraq has in two separate, U.S.-based funds. The assets are now shielded by the Security Council resolution that expires Dec. 31 and by a President George W. Bush executive order that expires in May.
Revenues from Iraq's oil and natural gas exports, which account for at least 90 percent of the country's income, are held in one of the two accounts, the Development Fund for Iraq set up in 2003. It has about $20 billion, from which the Iraqi government withdraws as required. The Iraqi central bank's foreign reserves, more than $40 billion, are in the other fund.
Joining in al-Maliki's offensive, Planning Minister Ali Baban warned Sunday that security will deteriorate if the agreement does not pass, keeping investors away and setting back reconstruction efforts. "That will have a negative impact on economic growth rates," he said.
On Saturday, Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi warned that Iraq could risk internal unrest and foreign attacks as well as piracy targeting its oil exports in the Persian Gulf if U.S. forces abruptly pulled out from Iraq.
The prime minister took the lead last week in marketing the deal. He went on national television and addressed a news conference to campaign for the agreement and against the renewal of the U.N. mandate that currently governs the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.
The pact was less than ideal, he said, but it provides a clear and firm timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops - from cities by next June 30 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012 - and is a "solid prelude" to the restoration of Iraq's full sovereignty.
Al-Maliki had hoped parliament would pass the agreement by consensus, but a six-hour debate in the legislature Saturday suggested that goal might be beyond reach.
Many of the lawmakers who spoke berated the government for not keeping them informed during months of negotiations that produced the pact.
Others said the deal infringes on Iraq's sovereignty and lacks a firm U.S. commitment to come to Iraq's rescue in the case of a foreign threat. Some said it made no sense to adopt an agreement with a U.S. administration with less than two months left in office.
Many Iraqis see the pact as prolonging what they consider a U.S. occupation, even if some believe that is necessary to help Iraq's nascent security forces fight an insurgency that has suffered severe setbacks but still carries out regular attacks.
Besides a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, the agreement provides for Iraqi oversight of the operations and movements of American troops and gives Iraqis limited jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers and civilian Pentagon employees in cases of serious crimes committed while off-base and off duty. It also bars U.S. forces from using Iraqi territory to attack neighboring nations.
Al-Maliki could muster just over 140 votes if the pact gets the support of lawmakers from the main Shiite and Kurdish blocs, his main coalition partners. But for a wide margin of victory, he needs the votes of the 44 lawmakers from the largest Sunni Arab bloc that is also a coalition partner but whose support for the deal is uncertain.
A respectable number of Sunni votes in favor of the agreement would satisfy al-Maliki and, just as importantly, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most influential Shiite critic who has indicated the pact will be viable only if it is backed by a large number of lawmakers.
Al-Sistani enjoys such enormous support among Iraq's Shiite majority that he could sink the deal by speaking publicly against it or stating his dissatisfaction over the margin of passage. It's the latter that has al-Maliki's Cabinet ministers talking up the agreement.
MyWay
posted by madtom at 5:52 PM
2 Comments:
Mad Tom,
Iraq's premiere con man, Ahmad -- LOL, only the Bush administration took him seriously until it was too late -- Chalabi says: US out of Iraq:
Chalabi Op-Ed
Yeah, but it's the old end the occupation meme. Everyone I think it's agreed that it's time to end the occupation.
But that is a victory, not a defeat.
Unless of course the whole thing comes down crashing on our heads. I still give it a 50/50. No one could ask for more.
Post a Comment
<< Home