October Surprise?
Security Agreement said Near Signing;
3000 Christians Flee Mosul
Is this part of a Bush attempt at an October surprise? Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that its sources in Baghdad say that the al-Maliki government will sign off on a security agreement with the Bush administration "within days." The report says that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has assured the government that he will accept the agreement if it can pass parliament. Pundits are debating how likely the measure is to get through the Iraqi legislature, with some denying it has a chance and others saying it will sail through. Since Bush caved on the timeline for American troop withdrawal, saying we will be out in 2011 assuming the situation allows, I'm not sure the agreement will be so controversial. The Kurds will back it with their 58 seats, and al-Maliki just needs 80 Shiites to back it in order to pass it.
One wild card for al-Maliki is whether the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, headed by Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, will back the agreement or attampt to derail it. Shiite MP Qasim Daud alleged that Iran is working through ISCI to derail the agreement.
The alternative to concluding such an agreement is for Iraq to remain under the provisions of Chatper 7 of the UN Charter, which deny it full sovereignty (a step that would be very unpopular in Iraq now). No one wants that.
Obviously, McCain will trumpet a successfully concluded security agreement as yet another benefit of the troop escalation plan or 'surge' of 2007-2008. Ironically, the advantages the Republicans have on foreign policy (e.g., Bush gave in on several measures in order to get the agreement initialled before Nov. are now outweighbed by the financial crisis.
Attacks on and assassinations of Christians in Iraq's northern metropolis of Mosul led to the exodus of several hundred families, perhaps as many as 3,000 individuals, in the past two days. This according to the governor of Ninevah Province, Duraid Kashmula (Mosul is the capital of Ninevah).
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/12/2008 01:23:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
Many Iraqi MPs are opposed to any agreement with the USA, regardless of contents. They argue that any deal will legitimize the invasion and occupation. So the chance of it sailing through is zero.
The new line being peddled by the Kurds and Maliki is that the current UN Chapter VII basis allows "the confiscation of Iraq's oil wealth [not just the cash] at any moment". See, in Arabic:
http://www.sotaliraq.com/iraqnews.php?id=27630
This may have worked on Sistani, a turbaned recluse, but won't wash on Parliament.
In addition, the "concessions" the US has made are just lingual acrobatics. In any case, the nation which goes around the world invading and bombing unimpeded by international laws is hardly going to respect an agreement with a bunch of Hajjis. "It is a war situation, and we had to defend ourselves". Right?
the al-Maliki government will sign off on a security agreement with the Bush administration "within days."
There were stories like that already in July, even in the Arabic press like al-Hayat. The problem is: which sources in the Iraqi government are leaking this story? Perhaps friends of Negroponte, who has just been in Baghdad? Perhaps indeed it is Iraqi government sources mediated through the US embassy in the Green Zone.
I haven't heard of much movement in the US position, so why would a signature take place now, when it didn't after Rice's visit in July?
Agreed that an extension of the UN mandate would not be desirable, but I doubt that it is worse than signing what used to be called the SOFA on US conditions. At least a UN mandate can be blamed on others, and would likely be for one year only renewable. In any case Iraq has to write a letter to the UN asking for an extension of the mandate, and I don't see Maliki doing that.
Since Bush caved on the timeline for American troop withdrawal, saying we will be out in 2011 assuming the situation allows, I'm not sure the agreement will be so controversial.
Any Iraqi, or any human being on the face of the earth, who takes "assuming the situation allows" as anything other than the cynical negation of the alleged withdrawal is brain-dead or complicit with Neocons.
The alternative to concluding such an agreement is for Iraq to remain under the provisions of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which deny it full sovereignty (a step that would be very unpopular in Iraq now). No one wants that.
Why is not the alternative to concluding such an agreement the lapsing of the UN Chapter 7 provisions and the end of the US Occupation of Iraq?
Or the forceful continuation of the US Occupation against the expressed wishes of the Iraqi people?
Those seem like the alternatives I would push for if I were an Iraqi politician. Test BHO's mettle right off the bat.
I wish prof. Cole stop to pretend at least here that so called "Iraq state" is something much more than a puppet of USA imperialism (with or without UN stamping the results of USA criminal war). Maliki would be out of his job in 5 minutes without USA occupators. Really, it does not funny to pretend othewise, esp for someone INFORMED
And, if one wants to play silly legal games, Iraqi "parlament" CANNOT sign this deal, because there is NO law yet regulating such matters. (for more see blog of Raed)
the al-Maliki government will sign off on a security agreement with the Bush administration
The government that the US has sired will agree to a treaty with the US president, and not the US government. We have exported our democracy and don't have any left!
Re Christians driven from Mosul;
I guess a minority Christian community that survived Romans, Persians, Mohamud's jihad, Mongols, Crusaders, Tamerlane, and Turks, is just not ready to admit that the surge worked, and that Maliki's forces are taking the lead from the pesh in a sucessful pacification.
God love them all, because my country can't seem to put out the fire we lit.
Post a Comment
<< Home