Bush Blackmailing al-Maliki with $50 Bn. in US Fed
The intrepid Patrick Cockburn reveals that the White House is more or less extorting the Iraqi government into signing a security pact with George W. Bush. At stake is $50 bn. of Iraqi money held in the US Federal Reserve, at least $20 bn. of which could be lost to Iraq if the government of Nuri al-Maliki declines to sign on the dotted line. Cockburn also reveals that the Iraqis wanted to diversify their receipts from oil sales away from dollar holdings into euros, and that the Americans vetoed the move. Bush wants 50 bases in Iraq and the prerogative of the US military to act unilaterally and with impunity inside the country.
Although the Bush administration is playing hardball to get this wideranging set of commitments from Iraq before July 31, and although Iraqis are eager to escape Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which limits their government's sovereignty, the negotiations may collapse in the face of widespread opposition to the baldly neocolonial terms sought by Washington. Even remaining under the UN Security Council, under Chapter 7, may be preferable to Baghdad. There were large demonstrations against the security agreement, barely covered by the US press, last Friday, and Iraqi religious and political leaders are coalescing against it. Postcolonial states of the Arab world, which only attained real independence from Britain and France with great difficulty and in living memory, are touchy about being seen as kowtowing to imperial demands. The Shah's government was overthrown in 1979 by huge crowds and a wide cross section of the public precisely on these grounds.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has issued a 170-page report accusing Bush and Cheney of exaggerating the intelligence on the threat posed by Iraq, in the build-up to the Iraq War. D'oh.
Meanwhile, Turkey's Chief of Staff has warned that the 'status quo' in Iraq will destabilize the Middle East if it goes on. That is, he is attacking the current constitution and political arrangements, whereby Kurdistan is semi-independent of Baghdad.
Turkey and Iran are coordinating their attacks on Kurdish guerrillas, based in American-held Iraq, that have been conducting strikes against the two countries.
Turkey itself has entered a constitutional crisis over, of all things, whether women in universities may veil on campus.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/05/2008 06:01:00 PM
|
Facebook
19 Comments:
Your insight and reporting on Iraq are unparalleled. But I have a few questions.
Do you think al-Sistani will play the crucial role in the fate of the agreement? You mentioned the wide demonstrations, but do you think the government will respond to these or to political pressure from the ISCI or Sadr?
My uninformed guess is that al-Sistani will use surrogates to combat the agreement, but not publicly denounce it.
Presumably, an Obama administration might opt out of this security agreement.
Bush's plan is to reduce Iraqi sovereignty to reservation status, pretty much like the US/Israeli plan for the so-called Palestinian state. This much has been apparent for some time. The interesting question is what President Obama's plan is. Not much different, I'm guessing. I'm afraid Obama's reference to change may be mostly rhetorical.
G.W.Bush should know that to the Muslim folks there is only one "Sovereign":God,for whom they are willing to die.Crazy or not, this is the way it is. In the mean time many non-Muslim would also die is the GWB's continues to ignore human nature.
Is Bush itching to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran?
Iraq as Caucus-Race
However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out The race is over! and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, But who has won? This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, EVERYBODY has won, and all must have prizes.
[JC] "... negotiations may collapse in the face of widespread opposition to the baldly neocolonial terms sought by Washington. (...) There were large demonstrations against the security agreement, barely covered by the US press, last Friday, and Iraqi religious and political leaders are coalescing against it. Postcolonial states of the Arab world ... are touchy about being seen as kowtowing to imperial demands. The Shah's government was overthrown in 1979 by huge crowds and a wide cross section of the public precisely on these grounds."
[Wall Street Jingo editorial] "[A] permanent U.S. military presence – albeit one reduced over time – would give Iraqis the confidence to continue their political maturation. Another Iraq national election is scheduled for next year, and it is an opportunity for democracy to put down even deeper roots. It's crucial for Americans to understand that, apart from the Sadrists, all factions of Iraqi politics now support some kind of U.S.-Iraq status of forces agreement to succeed the U.N. mandate that expires later this year. We are winning in Iraq. Indeed, we can now say with certainty that we will win, as long as we don't repeat our earlier mistakes and seek to draw down too soon. This is the improving Iraq that the next U.S. President will inherit, and it is the heart of the Iraq debate Americans should have in November."
___
But who is to give the prizes? quite a chorus of voices asked. Why, HE, of course, said the Dodo, pointing to [Ayatollah Sistani] with one finger; and the whole party at once crowded round ....
Happy days.
Meanwhile, in the oil sector, the Ministry of Oil under Shahristani, who seemed to be in months previous softening his stance towards acknowledgeing and working with trade unions, particularly in the South, has sacked or demoted about a dozen oil sector managers including leadership of the South Refineries Company and 8 union activists. They are being forced to relocate from their homes in Basra to the violent Al-Dora neighbourhood in Baghdad.
http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2008/05/30/Analysis_Iraq_government_shakes_oil_union/UPI-55171212181426/
The unifying characteristic of the sackings and demotions seems to be that they were publicly outspoken against the proposed oil law, which (and this is a simplification of sorts) would see the production and development of Iraq's known but as yet developed oil reserves by foreign multi nationals under Production Sharing Agreements, which are generally deeply unpopular within the still nationalized oil sector. This seems a particularly desperate measure on behalf of Shiristani, who must be under enormous pressure from the US and lobbyists to recant some previous statements made against the use of Production Sharing Agreements in Iraq.
http://www.basraoilunion.org/
For anyone in doubt over the pernicious function and consequences of PSAs, see how Russia has deeply regreted the Sakhalin II Production Sharing Agreement that was signed in the mid 90s.
http://www.carbonweb.org/showitem.asp?article=144&parent=6&link=Y&gp=6
Iraq should not sign SOFA and willfully place Iraq under one of the most atrocious and genocidal Colonial rule ever on earth, Americans done to Iraq worse than Ginkiz Khan. I know the secular in Iraq will not sign, what worry me most the turbaned Shia who handed Iraq to Western colonialists the second time this century and it appear that they are ready to hand out Persia for the New World Government. Even remaining under the UN Security Council, under UN Chapter 7, may be preferable to Baghdad than eternally under SOFA. At worst, Iraqis can wait till 2012-2017, when the Americans will be living eternally under USC Chapter 13. They will be forced by International Bankers to let go then not just from Iraq but Japan, Germany and maybe Washington D.C. and New York.
Juan you use arab sites and what has gone quietly unnoticed is Adnan Dulaimis comment that this security agreement is needed to stop Iran. As displayed by his viciously sectarian speech in Turkey last year, the man never was against the US in principle, but only because of the shia ascendency their invasion caused.
And now on your blog we see the former insurgent in the IAI is talking about the US staying to counter 'Iran'.
Normal service has been resumed. Sunni Arabs are back in the US camp, thanks in no small part to the lobbying of allied arab nations to bring the two sides together in Iraq and the shias (even including the ISCI) are in the Anti US camp.
I was confused there for a minute Juan!
Hate to quibble too much with language, but I'd call it "holding the money hostage" rather than Cockburn's choice, blackmail. Blackmail suggests we'll reveal damaging information. . . .
"Postcolonial states of the Arab world ... are touchy about being seen as kowtowing to imperial demands."
Er, not too sure about that one Juan. On the contrary the arab states have been quite happy collaborating with the West while she conquers and divides, conquers and divides and conquers and divides, all the while assuring those arab leaders "You'll be ok, we like you". I'm pretty sure thats what they told Saddam before they inticed him into Kuwait. And now the Neo-Con artists even have Saudi and Egypt in their sights, their 2 closest arab allies!
There is an arabic saying along the lines of "sometimes the Jester gives the best advice to the King's court". Gaddafi warned them all at the Damascus Summit a few months back and they all laughed at him. This jester may end up being the only sane one in the arab court, as he seeks to cut ties with the US. He claims not to have been given the political rewards for his unilateral disarmament (No surprises that the West reneged on her word) and is still being threatened with law suits in US courts.
The arab world is truly in deep deep trouble, and yet the look to the east and say Iran is the trouble maker. No my dear arab friends dont look to the east or even to the west for anyone to blame... look inwardly and realise no one is to blame but yourselves.
Evidently the Iraqis are not thrilled with the idea of having a permanent American occupation force stationed in their country.
Note that AFP made a point of identifying the protesters as "Shiites." I wonder if they interviewed the entire crowd to confirm that. That's further not-so-subtle Establishment media implication of Iran being involved in exporting anti-U.S. agitation.
- - - - - -
Shiites torch US flag in Baghdad
06 June 2008
BAGHDAD (AFP) - People torched a US flag in Baghdad's Shiite stronghold of Sadr City after weekly Friday prayers to denounce a proposed agreement to deploy American troops in the country beyond 2008.
The protesters also set on fire an effigy of US President George W. Bush and vowed alliegance to anti-US Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, as Iraqi troops watched from rooftops, an AFP correspondent said.
Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki agreed in principle in November to sign the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July, but negotiations appear to have [* ahem *] hit a snag.
Full piece Here.
.
Did you know that Iran has tunnels with weapons that lead into other countries, hint, hint, Afghanistan after 9-11? At least that's what the Jerusalem Post would have the world believe in their piece on a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report.
It turns out the report scolded a smattering of Pentagon neo-cons for meeting with Iranians known to be dubious. They then failed to report their "findings" to other government agencies with a need to know. What should be a huge stamp of incompetence on the Bush administration ended up pointing the finger at Iran's tampering with neighboring countries.
But guess who's back in charge of a State Department Committee on Weapons of Mass Destruction Intelligence? It would be the same Paul Wolfowitz that acted inappropriately in the Pentagon in 2001 and 2002. I bet he's carrying more secrets at the moment, including details about a future AIPAC inspired attack on Iran.
Guess who's in Israel sharing intelligence at this very moment? The JP reported, "Amidst reports that President George W. Bush is considering taking military action against Iran, the US Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell paid a rare visit to Israel Tuesday for talks with heads of the Israeli intelligence community." I hope he does better at sharing than Stephen Hadley did in 2001 and 2002. Of course, now things are different. Mike is meeting with America's greatest ally and not another branch of his own government.
Has anybody else noticed that Gates forced two generals out of the airforce? The timing is impeccable as this was simultaneously with the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. Additionally, it is hard on the heels of books by insiders that are critical of the administration and not long after tossing out another military leader who did not tow the party line.
This time they came up with "reasons" for the shakeup but those are rather thin. There probably have been many unreported (to the media) incidents of failed oversight and error involving nuclear weapons and shipments of military hardware and we would lose most of the Congress, the administration and military top brass if there was anything like close scrutiny of relationships between business and government. Think of BlackWater or Halliburton and the revolving door arrangements for all involved in these imperial adventures.
To me this sounds like a purge. We know they want to open another front with Iran. McCain will spend the next few months looking like a respectable, golf-playing white man, showing videos of other white folks doing good things, pointing to his military service, and trashing Obama in a polished, gentlemanly way. He was a jet jockey. He had no command. He is probably only alive today because his father was in command of the fleet off the coast so he was viewed as a bargaining chip.
Our tax dollars at work. It seems very likely that the tragedy will continue for quite some time. These folks are masters of using fear and racism to sway large segments of the electorate.
I hope that Obama picks someone like Jim Webb as a running mate. That would make it much, much more difficult for McCain to rest on his military laurels.
Regarding the Senate intelligence report, funny how it becomes Iran's fault that Bush/Cheney lied about WMDs and attacked Iraq, huh?
On a day when the two most prominent news headlines are: “Bush Administration found by the Senate to have "sold the urgent necessity for the USA to invade IRAQ" to the American people on false pretenses;” and, “Bush Administration seeking to bully and/or bribe a "Status Of Forces Agreement" that foresees NO EXIT of U.S. Occupation Forces from IRAQ,” I cannot help but to feel pity for both the peoples of Iraq as well as for the thousands of U.S. military personnel and their families: enduring freedom not.
That Senate Intelligence Report lambasted the Bush administration for talking with dubious Iranian sources. It named Paul Wolfowitz as one of the interlopers. Yes, that same Paul Wolfowitz who landed a State Department job back in January. Funny, he's over a WMD intelligence committee.
The Jerusalem Post spun the Senate report into Iran has secret tunnels loaded with weapons and they used such to tamper with their neighbors.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659669733&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
What should be a condemnation of the Bush administration got manipulated into a cause for war with Iran. Amazing.
i would also add that the Revolution in Iran was not just a reaction to governmental 'kowtowing to imperial forces'. just as the internal war and repression waged against the Iranian people by the Shah and the SAVAK was more than just an extension of US or British imperial power. it was mass murder against their countrymen...i would argue that the Revolution was a function of this repression combined with a powerful religio- political discourse distinctly different from simple nationalism. when will we in the west, especially when such profound thinkers as yourself Prof. Cole oversimplify as in this case, understand that the actions of a client government against its own people is not just an extension of imperialism, but has a moral and political calculus all its own?
Syrian nationalist party wrote:
"Iraq should not sign SOFA and willfully place Iraq under one of the most atrocious and genocidal Colonial rule ever on earth, Americans done to Iraq worse than Ginkiz Khan. I know the secular in Iraq will not sign, what worry me most the turbaned Shia who handed Iraq to Western colonialists the second time this century and it appear that they are ready to hand out Persia for the New World Government. Even remaining under the UN Security Council, under UN Chapter 7, may be preferable to Baghdad than eternally under SOFA. At worst, Iraqis can wait till 2012-2017, when the Americans will be living eternally under USC Chapter 13. They will be forced by International Bankers to let go then not just from Iraq but Japan, Germany and maybe Washington D.C. and New York."
Juan you need to really edit your blog comments more closely. This crack head has suggested that the shia sold out to the colonialists the first time, when in reality the Hawza (including members of the sadr family) led the fight. And what happened? This sunnite sect stabbed them in the back and made a deal that kept them in power for 80 years. When 2003 came around the shia were well aware of their history and didnt make the same mistake twice.
As for his claim that Persia is selling out... I guess they are just following in the footsteps of their sunni arab brothers, if indeed that is what they are doing.
Post a Comment
<< Home