Iran Alleges US Bribing Iraq MPs on SOFA
The USG Open Source Center translates an Iranian radio broadcast that alleges the US is trying to bribe members of the Iraqi parliament to pass the proposed security agreement with the US, with the alleged bribes totaling $3 bn. No source is given for the allegation, and the price tag seems high. At 275 MPs, that would be nearly $11 million apiece. Nor is it clear out of which funds such an amount would come. File under: "Well, that is what they said."
'Iran Radio Says US Pledged To 'Bribe' Iraqi MPs For Signing Security Pact
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio 1
Saturday, June 7, 2008
OSC Translated Text
(Presenter) While Iraqi people are increasingly opposing the signing of the security pact between America and Iraq, Al-Maliki's government officials are attempting to assure people and the countries in the region that they would sign no agreement that would violate Iraqis' governance. They are thus attempting to pave the way for the signing of the security pact.
The greatest linchpin for those who are against the signing of the agreement is the view of Ayatollah Sistani, the Iraqi Shiites' source of emulation, who has set transparency, defending national governance, national consensus and approving the agreement by the Iraqi parliament as his four conditions for the signing of the pact.
This is while America is attempting to use carrot and stick policy to impose the security pact on Iraq by pledging to pay $3 billion of bribe to Iraqi parliament members - in case they agree with the security pact - and by threatening Baghdad that it will block the country's assets in American banks - in case Iraq opposes to sign the pact.
The political gap that has widened over the security pact in Iraq today is because the pact will limit Iraq's national governance and will legitimize the continuation of the occupation of this country. This gap may adversely affect the efforts by Al-Maliki's government in creating political and security stability, and may affect the result of the local council elections in Mehr (September-October).
On the other hand, it seems that due to the influence of the American intelligence bodies in Iraq's terrorist groups and Washington's control over security institutions in Iraq, the opposition of Baghdad with the signing of the security pact may lead to a new round of insecurity in Iraq with the objective of reminding the Iraqi government about the cost of such an opposition.
Under such circumstances, the national consensus in Iraq and the political and security cooperation of regional countries with Al-Maliki's government may help Baghdad's government to observe the national interests of Iraq when considering the signing of the security pact with America.
(Description of Source: Tehran Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio 1 in Persian -- state-run radio)'
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/08/2008 12:02:00 AM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
Dear Professor Cole
The Iranian story is not as far fetched as it might seem. One does learn that history repeats itself.
So stemming from the Madness of King George:
I have highlighted the relevant section.
From Wikpedia:
In 1801 the Parliament of Ireland was abolished entirely, when the Act of Union created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and merged the British and Irish legislatures into a single Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The union arose from a number of strains in Anglo-Irish relationships. In 1798 British rule in Ireland was shaken by the failed United Irishmen rebellion. The crisis over the 'madness' of King George III produced tension, as both of the King's parliaments in each of his two kingdoms possessed the theoretical right to nominate a regent, without the requirement that they choose the same person. Nonetheless the situation was resolved when both chose the Prince of Wales.
The result of these tensions was a British government decision that the entire relationship between Britain and Ireland should be fundamentally changed. Constitutionally it was necessary for the Act of Union to be passed by both the British and Irish parliaments before it could become law. The Irish parliament was therefore effectively asked to vote for its own abolition.
After one failed attempt, the passage of the act in the Irish parliament was finally achieved, albeit with the mass bribery of members of both houses, who were awarded British and United Kingdom peerages and other 'encouragements'. After convening for the final time on 15 January 1800, on 1 January 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland and its parliament ceased to exist. It was the last legislature in Irish history to have power to legislate for the whole island.
Part of the deal involved the concession of Catholic emancipation, which meant the removal of all remaining discriminatory laws against Catholics and faiths other than the established Church of Ireland. This had long been resisted by the Irish Parliament. However, following the Union, King George III blocked emancipation, arguing that it conflicted with his coronation oath to uphold the Protestant faith. Emancipation was finally granted in 1829.
In the 1830s and 1840s nationalist leader Daniel O'Connell led an unsuccessful campaign for the repeal of the Act of Union and the restoration of 'Grattan's parliament'. Those advocating repeal insisted that Catholics be granted the right to sit in any restored parliament.
The Treaty of Limerick of December 1691 was delivered to the English Houses of Parliament but they failed to implement it even theogh the Orange Prince wished it to be. Since the purpose of this Treaty was to bring the Kingdom of Ireland to a peaceful state under the Orange Prince subject to conditions of religious freedom of worship and land owning, this non implementation of the Treaty prevented the Transfer of the Kingdom of Ireland to William and Mary.
Regardless of the facts, everybody takes for granted that the militant GOP are being insulted when somebody claims that they are "trying to buy Iraq."
Are M. von Fukuyama (if he's still around) and I the only ones who find this attitude a little puzzling?
Is it not a great credit to our Epoch of Mammon to be able to acquire by negotiated purchase what formerly had to be seized at sword-point? Even if sometimes the negotiations are not quite altogether "fair and balanced"?
Happy days.
I remain puzzled how two free countries can negotiate an agreement where the citizens of both democracies have not a clue as the commitments.
I didn't realize the U.S. and Iraq had evolved into monarchies. I want my open and transparent democracy back!
Is it not a great credit to our Epoch of Mammon to be able to acquire by negotiated purchase what formerly had to be seized at sword-point? Even if sometimes the negotiations are not quite altogether "fair and balanced"?
Come on JHM !! Are you really pretending that the US is trying to buy Iraq with money instead of weapons ???? It's really easy to ignore one's faults.. What about the 150'000 troops you have there ? what about the 100'000 deaths and plus you have caused ? what about the destruction of all the Iraqi infrastructures ?
In front of the rest of the world, the US needs a figleave this is why they are trying to constrain the Iraqi to sign the SOFA, aka to sign for their own subjugation.
The US uses all shamelessly uses all means in order to get what it wants, money if they think it is usefull, but also depleted uranium weapons, lies, tortures, wild destructions, walls etc. it will be boring to number them all. The only war crime the US hasn't yet committed is systematic extermination like the nazis didd to the Jews.
US Oil Companies Offered Five Million Dollar Bribes To Iraqi MP's?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19246.htm
Someone tell me there's a substantive difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home