Iraqi CP: Iran nuclear deal is a step in the right direction

Political Editor of “Tareeq Al-Shaab”: 

Iran nuclear deal is a step in the right direction

The following is an article by the Political Editor of “Tareeq Al-Shaab” (People’s Path), the daily newspaper issued by the Iraqi Communist Party, in its edition on 28 November 2013. 

Finally, the two sides, Iran and the so-called P5+1 group of nations, have reached a deal over Iran's nuclear program. As a result, a serious danger that was threatening the region at any moment has been removed. Some parties in the region, in the forefront of which is Israel , did all they can to prevent achieving this result which has came in the final analysis in the interest of all the peoples of the region and serve their stability and security. It has also spared them the dangers of an international military conflict, especially since the region has still not recovered from the wars that broke out on its territories. In addition, the Palestinian issue remains inflamed as a result of Israel's intransigence, arrogance and aggressiveness, continuing to deny the Palestinian people the right to establish their state on the their own homeland.

What has been achieved in this deal is not unrelated to the changes in Iran's presidency and the new approach of opening up to the world, showing flexibility and giving precedence to the interests of the of Iranian people, and the retreat of hardliners. But it is also linked to a host of other developments and their repercussions on the regional and international levels. It is important in this respect to point to what is happening in Syria, and what is changing on the ground daily, despite the undesirable widespread external intervention. The interests of the Syrian people and their hopes for security, stability, free dignified life and democracy remain meanwhile undecided.

It is obvious however that America is unwilling to engage in new military conflicts in the region, especially after its bitter experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq and the consequences and tragedies they left behind. These wars have affected the American people themselves, with a negative impact on their lives and standard of living through massive military spending, high rates of poverty and unemployment, the bitter struggle waged by Obama in order to keep his health care program, and the disruption of the American state because of a failure to approve the federal budget, while still suffering from inability to overcome the consequences of its economic and financial crisis that has extended to cover the capitalist world as a whole.

There is no doubt that the deal that has been achieved is a step in the right direction. It is a welcome step that demonstrates the importance of constructive dialogue, making reciprocal concessions, showing flexibility and the adoption of peaceful and diplomatic solutions to existing problems whether between countries or on the regional or international level. It is an approach that responds to the interests of the peoples and spares them the evils of wars and their tragedies.

All the parties concerned must ensure the proper implementation of what has been agreed and adherence to the prescribed timetable. The efforts by war hawks and advocates to inflame differences, agitate and get things back to square one should be curbed.

All the countries in the region must seize this moment and develop it for the benefit of the peoples of the region, ensuring their development and right to choose their own political, economic and social systems, in order to achieve security, peace and progress. In this respect, the Iraqi government and its officials should make an effort in this direction, seeking to establish balanced and equitable relations with neighboring countries and the world, and to spare our country the dangers of foreign interference in its affairs. Proper consideration should be given to the possibilities and changes that may take place in the coming days regionally and internationally. This is essential in order to preserve the unity of Iraq and its social fabric, achieve security, stability and lasting peace, so as to ensure the country’s reconstruction, progress and proper democratic development.

Iraqi CP condemns the threats of aggression against Syria

Iraqi Communist Party condemns the threats

 of aggression against Syria

It seems that launching a "limited" military strike on Syria in the coming days is a foregone conclusion after US President Obama announced his decision in this regard and referred it to Congress to obtain its consent, which is not binding on him.

Thus, the war is imminent, and will result in more tragedies for the brotherly Syrian people and aggravate their pain and suffering. It would also threaten to fan the flames of bloody ethnic and sectarian conflicts to Syria's neighbours and the whole region. It is clear that our country will be among the most vulnerable to this threat, due to the existing conditions, environment and potential that would enable the terrorist forces to act across the common border.

While condemning aggression, armed attacks and war as means of resolving conflicts, we point out that the threat by the United States and its close allies to direct a military strike on Syria, under the pretext that it used chemical weapons, constitutes a violation of international legitimacy and the laws and norms of human rights. Any action to punish those who use this barbaric weapon, which really is a crime against humanity, must be based on international legitimacy and UN Resolutions, and should come after confirming the use of this weapon and identifying the perpetrator.

The forces of peace and democracy in the world are, in our opinion, still capable of curbing the aggression by intensifying their anti-war campaigns and escalating popular pressure.

While reaffirming our solidarity with the Syrian people, and our support for their struggle to achieve the right to choose the system that they desire, to seize and exercise their democratic rights and live in safety and freedom, and to stop all forms of repression and attacks on lives and property, we stress the fact that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria, and no substitute for securing an equitable dialogue between the different conflict parties through expediting the convening of the Geneva 2 Conference.

Political Bureau of the Central Committee

Iraqi Communist Party

1^st September 2013

Media reports about Iraqi Communist Party meeting in Baghdad on the Iraq - U.S. Agreement

Media reports about Iraqi Communist Party
meeting in Baghdad

on the Iraq - U.S. Agreement

• U.S. using deceitful methods to pass the Security Agreement

• Iraqi Communist Party calls for amendments to the Agreement

• Draft agreement does not fulfil the aspirations of the Iraqi people

• Fundamental objective is evacuation of foreign troops and regaining sovereignty and independence

31/10/2008

The Iraqi Communist Party organised a big meeting in Baghdad on Friday 30-10-2008 to present its position on the proposed Iraq - U.S. Agreement. The meeting, attended by about 1000 people, was addressed by Hamid Majeed Mousa, the Secretary of the Central Committee of the party. The following are excerpts from media coverage of the event as reported by news agencies:

The leader of the Iraqi Communist Party, Hamid Majeed Mousa, announced the party's position, rejecting the security agreement in its present form, and calling for amendments to it, in addition to scheduling the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Mousa said the party will not agree to pass the Agreement with the U.S. unless the recent amendments demanded by the Iraqi government are made. He added that the American side is using illegitimate and deceitful means to pass the agreement as currently drafted.

Mousa, who is also a member of the Iraqi parliament, said that the present draft agreement with its articles "does not fulfil the aspirations of the Iraqi people, and contains a lot of vagueness and uncertainty."

"We must always demonstrate a high sense of responsibility with regard to the consequences of the agreement and its applications, in order to achieve the fundamental objective sought from it: the withdrawal or evacuation of foreign troops, and the Iraqi people regaining their sovereignty and independence. The armed forces must be qualified and provide the alternative to foreign troops. We are therefore facing an urgent and grave task that requires providing the prerequisites for an agreement that enables the Iraqis to secure their rights."

The Iraqi CP leader stressed the need to have open and transparent negotiations as well as relying on the mobilization of the masses when demanding to amend the terms of the draft agreement, pointing to the lack of parity between the Iraqi and American negotiators.

He criticized what he described as the media campaign, by American and Arab media that dealt with agreement. "There has been a huge publicity campaign by U.S. media claiming that Iraq will return to the state of chaos that prevailed after the fall of the former regime in 2003, and that it would lose the aid and support given to it in the area of arming and training Iraqi security forces, and other matters, in an attempt to undermine the Iraqi side in the negotiations."

Mousa described these threats as "nothing but hollow drums designed to force the Iraqi side to sign the security agreement with Washington against its will."

He said: "If you have followed the U.S. media, you would be amazed by what has been said. Unfortunately, many of the Arab and regional media have also behaved in a similar manner, despite having different intentions. But they have exerted pressure, in various ways, on the Iraqi side and employed psychological warfare against the Iraqi negotiators."

He drew attention to the need "to amend the terms concerning control over the American mail entering Iraq so that the Iraqi side has the authority to control and inspect it." In addition, "the powers of U.S. troops on Iraqi territory need to be specified." The agreement need to include "protection for Iraqi funds in all countries of the world, and not to be confined to Iraqi funds in U.S. banks.”

The Iraqi Communist Party leader pointed to the ratification by the Council of Ministers in the past few days of a memo that contained the demands of Iraqi political forces to amend the terms of the draft agreement, so as to form the basis for its conclusion. He called at the same time on the Iraqi parties to take a unified position through which a fair agreement can be secured without coercion or pressure directed on the Iraqi side.

IRAQ SEEKS PACT LIMITS

IRAQ SEEKS PACT LIMITS

October 30, 2008
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq wants a security agreement with the United States to include a clear ban on American troops using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq's neighbors, a government spokesman said yesterday, three days after a dramatic US raid on Syria.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the proposed amendment was among several forwarded to Washington, where President Bush said negotiators were analyzing them. "We obviously want to be helpful and constructive without undermining basic principles," Bush said.
Al-Dabbagh said the Iraqis want the right to declare the agreement null and void if the United States unilaterally attacks one of Iraq's neighbors.
US troops launched a daring daylight attack Sunday a few miles into Syrian territory, killing senior al Qaeda figure Abu Ghadiyah.
Al-Dabbagh said other amendments sought by the Iraqis include a clear definition of "duty" when cases arise involving crimes committed by American troops off base.
These GIs would be tried under Iraqi jurisdiction. The Iraqis also want to inspect all US military shipments entering or leaving Iraq. The agreement must be approved by the end of the year, or the US military would have to suspend all operations in Iraq.

Iraq gov't wants all US troops gone by end of 2011

Iraq gov't wants all US troops gone by end of 2011

30-10-2008
BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq wants to eliminate any chance U.S. forces will stay here after 2011 under a proposed security pact and to expand Iraqi legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops until then, a close ally of the prime minister said Thursday.
Those demands, which were presented to U.S. officials this week, could derail the deal — delivering a diplomatic blow to Washington in the final weeks of the Bush administration.
Failure to reach an agreement before year's end could force a suspension of American military operations, and U.S. commanders have been warning Iraqi officials that could endanger security improvements.
The current draft, hammered out in months of tortuous negotiations, would have U.S. soldiers leave Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011, unless the two governments agreed to an extension for training and supporting Iraqi security forces.
But Ali al-Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's inner circle, said the government wants that possibility excluded by language adding finality to the end of 2011 date.
"The Iraqi side wants to remove any mention of a possible extension of U.S. troops, fearing that the existing clause might be subject to misinterpretation or could bear different interpretation," he told The Associated Press.
Otherwise, he said the U.S. might demand an extension "depending on their evaluation" of the security situation and the state of readiness within Iraq's army and police. U.S. officials have privately suggested 2012 is too early for Iraqi forces to be truly ready to maintain order.
The draft also gives Iraqi courts limited jurisdiction over U.S. troops, allowing them to be prosecuted by Iraqis only if they are accused of major crimes committed off post and off duty.
Al-Adeeb said the Iraqis want to add a provision for a joint U.S.-Iraqi committee to decide whether U.S. soldiers accused of such crimes were really on authorized missions.
Planning Minister Ali Baban, a Sunni, added that the Iraqis want jurisdiction over all U.S. soldiers and contractors unless they are carrying out joint military operations approved by Iraqis — a subtle but significant change to the draft that U.S. authorities may find unacceptable.
Iraqi officials have said the changes must be made in the draft agreement before it can be approved by parliament in time for the Dec. 31 expiration of a U.N. Security Council mandate under which coalition troops operate in Iraq.
Without an agreement or a new U.N. mandate, the U.S. military would have to suspend all operations in Iraq after that.
"We are waiting for a response from the U.S. negotiators on how much they can accommodate," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told CNN. "I think both sides here have reached the moment of truth. The time window is closing, and a decision has to be made as soon as possible."
But the Bush administration's hope to secure the deal while in office was fading with the new Iraqi demands, despite White House assurances that an agreement was still possible.
Al-Maliki, meanwhile, met with a leading Shiite politician late Thursday to discuss the deal. Government television quoted the prime minister as describing the agreement as a framework for the pullout of U.S. forces and the regulation of "their activities within the rest of the time they're here."
"We don't call it a security pact but an agreement to withdraw the troops and organize their activities during the period of their presence in Iraq," al-Maliki was quoted as saying.
U.S. officials in Washington refused to discuss possible alternatives to securing a deal, saying they were still reviewing Iraq's proposed amendments that were received Wednesday.
But officials bristled at suggestions the negotiations could be reopened and said the U.S. was not yet considering asking the Security Council to extend the U.N. mandate.
"Once we have something to say on it, we will," State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters in Washington. "But for the moment, we're just taking our time in reviewing it to make sure that we've got a good sense of what it is the Iraqis have put forward."
Privately, however, U.S. officials were growing pessimistic about chances for a deal. Failure to seal a deal with Iraqi politicians who owe their position to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion would be a huge embarrassment to President Bush, whose administration was largely defined by the war.
In Baghdad, U.S. military officials have urged the Iraqis to consider what could happen here if the U.S. suspended military operations, warning that the security gains won by the blood of American and Iraqi soldiers would be at risk.
Violence is down sharply after the Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and the routing of Shiite militias in Baghdad and southern Iraq last spring.
But U.S. and other coalition forces also provide considerable help to Iraqi ministries in infrastructure and quality of life projects that would have to stop — along with control of the airspace and protection of Iraq's oil export facilities in the Persian Gulf.
"There's really no area that we as a coalition ... operate in that is not governed by legal authority," the U.S. military spokesman, Brig. Gen. David Perkins, told reporters.
He said the American military presence enables other international organizations, including the United Nations, and private groups to do their jobs.
"These things are all interrelated," Perkins said. "You pull one pillar out, you seriously degrade the efforts of others."

Iraqis hit back at US commander

Iraqis hit back at US commander

28-10-2008

IRAQ. The Iraqi government has criticised US military chief Admiral Mike Mullen for warning of "major security losses" if Iraq does not pass a key security deal.
Ignoring the warning, Iraq's cabinet called for changes to the draft pact, which allows US forces to stay in Iraq after their mandate ends in December.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the admiral's remarks were an unwelcome source of "deep concern."
Reacting to Tuesday's warning from the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dabbagh said in a strongly worded statement that the "Iraqi government is deeply concerned by the statement of Admiral Michael Mullen".
"Such a statement is not welcomed by Iraq. All Iraqis and their political entities are aware of their responsibilities and are assessing whether to sign the deal or not in a way that it is suitable to them.
"It is not correct to force Iraqis into making a choice and it is not appropriate to talk with the Iraqis in this way."
Adm Mullen warned that Iraq risked security losses of "significant consequence" unless it approved the deal to keep American forces in Iraq beyond the end of the year.
He told AFP that Iraqi forces would "not be ready to provide for their security" before the expiration of the current UN mandate on 31 December.
"It's time for the Iraqis to make a decision," Admiral Mullen said.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates also warned of "dramatic consequences," saying the US would have to "basically stop doing anything" if there were no Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
Also addressing Admiral Mullen's remarks, Iraq's military spokesman Brigadier General Qassim Atta said Iraqi forces were ready to handle security across the country, noting that they already control 11 of Iraq's provinces.
Iraqi political leaders are demanding changes to a draft deal already agreed with Washington that would allow US forces to stay in Iraq until 2011. The current UN mandate for US-led coalition forces expires at the end of the year.

Source: BI-ME , Author: BI-ME staff

Iraqi CP leader .. about global financial crisis

Iraqi CP leader: Ongoing "Financial Quake" stems from nature of capitalist system

In an extensive interview with "Tareeq Al-Shaab", the central organ of the Iraqi Communist Party, published on 12 October 2008, the party leader Mr Hamid Majeed Mousa dealt with a number of pressing internal issues as well as major recent developments in the international arena. The following is an excerpt regarding the current world financial crisis:

Q: The heart of capitalism is now witnessing a financial crisis whose consequences are not yet fully borne out, both inside the US and outside. Can you give the readers of our newspaper your evaluation of what is going on?

A: What has happened, and is still going on, stems from the nature of the capitalist system that is characterized by the emergence of periodic crises, which the market system cannot avert before it disposes the working people and toilers of their dearest assets. These are crises that result in maximizing the wealth of the rich who have fixed assets and reduce to a minimum the purchasing power of consumers and wage earners. What has happened reflects, in concrete terms, the dominance of financial capital over the capitalist economy, as demonstrated by the inflation of the role of financial institutions and inflated financial circulation at the expense of the real productive economy.

According to the available facts, the financial circulation, which includes the assets of banks and financing institutions, insurance and stock markets, is three times what the real finance economy represents in the world. This means that two-thirds of the global economy is a shadow economy whose owners grab its profits from the productive economy, but through very complex and interrelated means, that ordinary citizens cannot grasp their mechanisms, secrets, complexity and repercussions.

The problem developed when the U.S. economy, the leader of the world capitalist economy, faced stagnation and crisis, and millions of people who got loans to build or purchase houses and real estate were unable to pay mortgage instalments due to the lack of adequate resources because of the stagnation of economy and the rise in interest rates. As a result, mortgage companies repossessed more than 10 million housing units. This led to a huge crisis in liquidity, with these institutions being unable to fulfil their financial obligations and pay back credits. Their failure to pay back debts led to many banks declaring bankruptcy.

This cascade of repercussions has led to a major crisis in the U.S. economy. And the consequences and results are continuing, and more will follow in the future.

Given globalisation and the role of the U.S. economy in the system of globalisation, the effects of the collapse of mortgage and insurance institutions and banks will not remain confined to the U.S. market, especially that it controls the global currency (the dollar). By virtue of dependency, and as a result of overlapping investments and economic ties, the waves of this quake, that has its centre in Washington, will cover other capitals. No state or economy will be spared.

Let me warn against what some Iraqi economic experts, or Central Bank staff, have been saying, that the Iraqi economy is immune to the economic shocks taking place in the world. How can this be the case when the cover for the Iraqi Dinar is mainly the U.S. dollar? How can this be true while the American market is one of the major importers of oil? How is it so when we rely on oil prices that have been affected by the hurricanes for the past two or three months?… and while we are mainly importing from American markets and other world markets? Yes, we shall certainly be affected. But we are still reaping the first waves, and we'll see what happens... We must work to reduce this loss. Those who attempt to belittle the danger of what is going on risk should think instead about reducing the negative effects of global shocks on the Iraqi economy, the Iraqi market and the Iraqi Dinar… instead of claiming that the American quake has no effect on the Iraqi economy.

Iraqi CP: About the Iraq-US Agreement

Iraqi Communist Party
Editorial - "Tareeq Al-Shaab" (People's Path), the central organ of Iraqi CP
9 October 2008

About the Iraq-US Agreement

Towards an integrated patriotic position to safeguard
the higher interests of the people and the homeland

The public opinion and political parties have paid, and continue to pay, special attention to the Iraq-US negotiations that are considering the fate of foreign troops, that are present in our country since the occupation in April 2003, and the relationship between Iraq and the United States. It will be recalled in this regard that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had signed with the U.S. President George W. Bush on November 25, 2008 "a declaration of principles on the long-term relationship of friendship and cooperation between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America," which was considered at the time as a general framework that paves the way for negotiations aimed to reach a bilateral agreement governing the relationship between the two countries on security, political, diplomatic, economic and cultural levels, to be completed before July 31, 2008.
It is known that Iraq had been placed, because of the dictatorial regime's policies and its external wars of aggression, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter according to Security Council Resolution 661 in August 1990, after considering the situation in Iraq at the time to be a threat to international peace and security.
After the fall of the dictatorial regime in April 9, 2003, the UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (May 2003) was adopted, which conferred international legitimacy on the occupation and its Authority. A subsequent resolution, UNSCR 1511(October 2003), stipulated the formation of the Multinational Force under a unified command, and the mandate of the latter was subsequently renewed in Resolutions 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006). All these resolutions were issued under Chapter VII, on the basis that the situation in Iraq continued to be "a threat to international peace and security", thus requiring that Iraq remains under a kind of international trusteeship and with its sovereignty violated.
In addition to this, the mandate of the Multinational Force was automatically renewed, without coupling this renewal with a serious review of the role of these forces and regulating their presence and powers in accordance with a mechanism that is agreed upon between the Iraqi government and the United States. The latter was assigned by Resolution 1511 the task of being in charge of these forces and presenting periodical reports on their operation to the UN Security Council. This is despite the fact that Resolution 1546 (June 8, 2004) had stipulated the ending "officially" of the occupation and its Authority, and that the interim Iraqi government would take over its functions.
The UN Security Council issued, later on, Resolution 1790 on December 18, 2007, which extended the mandate of the Multinational Forces until December 31, 2008. The Security Council explained in that resolution that the Iraqi Government's request for an extension would be the last, with the hope of ending Iraq's subjugation to the provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and enabling Iraq to restore its full normal status as a state enjoying full sovereignty and powers, and to regain its international legal status, i.e. its position before adopting UNSCR 661 in 1990.
According to various sources, the negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq began last February, and the pre-set date for their conclusion, 31st July 2008, has passed; yet no signs of a quick deal looms on the horizon. Statements from the two sides have continued, with contradictions and sometimes an optimism that does not match what has been reported about difficulties facing the negotiators.
Why have the negotiations been prolonged? What are the contentious issues? What does the Iraqi side want, and what does the American side want? What pressures are the Americans exerting? Are the frequent visits, and most recently Negroponte's visit, aimed at putting pressure? Why was the American response, to a number of issues raised by the Iraqi side, delayed? There remain many questions that need specific, accurate and official answers. However, the negotiations continue, until now, behind closed doors and under a blackout, with a lack of transparency generally prevailing. Here we are talking about the necessity of taking a public official position, instead of statements or leaks that fail to inform the citizens who are anxious to know the truth about what is going on and what is actually taking place.
The negotiations that are taking place are of a high degree of importance and sensitivity, now and in the future, and they ought to be characterised with full transparency, clarity and openness, informing the people firsthand about their details, and keeping the Parliament aware of how they are proceeding.
While negotiations are still continuing, despite some optimistic statements about an agreement being close between the two sides, we believe, along with other democratic and patriotic parties and forces, that the criterion for the legitimacy and acceptability of any agreement with any state is linked to the extent of its commitment to the higher interests of the people and the homeland, and to the rules of international law, and the guarantees under the UN Charter for the right of every people to freely choose their political, economic and social system. This is embodied in the need to respect the will of the people and their right to ensure full their sovereignty and independence, and non-interference in their internal affairs.
In the concrete case of Iraq, as we approach the end of the mandate of the Multinational Forces under Security Council Resolution 1790, the agreement to be held between Iraqi and American governments, so as to replace the status quo, must take into account and respect, in a clear and unambiguous manner, the unequivocal desire of the Iraqi people to regain their full sovereignty over their land, waters, airspace, wealth and resources, and to abolish the UN resolutions that violate and curtail this. Based on the above, we believe that the agreement must ensure:

• Avoiding the setting of open or hidden (or secret) conditions or restrictions that infringe the sovereignty of Iraq.

• Ending the presence of foreign and American troops, and defining a time scope for achieving this in accordance with a specific, progressive, schedule, that is linked to the rehabilitation of Iraqi forces and developing their efficiency, to enable them to take over fully the handling of security.

• A declared commitment not to establish permanent military presence or bases on Iraqi territory.

• A commitment not to make Iraqi territory a springboard for attack or interference in the affairs of neighbouring countries.

• Respect for the Iraqi law and will in the specified period during which the presence of American troops would continue. And rejecting the immunity demanded by the American side for its forces, or for security companies, or for other parties, and all associated movement or transfer of materials, whether on land or in the skies of Iraq. The emphasis here is on putting all this under the control and supervision of the Iraqi side and through coordination with it.

• A commitment to rid Iraq of Chapter VII and to ensure its normal return as an active member, enjoying full rights, of the international community.

• Helping Iraq to tackle the consequences of the occupation and military operations, and supporting it to rebuild its economy and institutions, and improve the services.

We are aware that the negotiations are taking place between two unequal sides, particularly in terms of the U.S. military presence on Iraqi territory. We are also aware that America will exert various pressures and will seek to exploit differences and conflicts between the political forces and blocs, and between the central government and the Kurdistan region, as well as resorting to wide use of the media and issuing repeated statements casting doubt about the policy of the Iraqi government and its ability to manage things and govern, and to talk about the security and military situation and its fragility. We also recognize that it will seek to employ all this to weaken the Iraqi negotiating delegation and undermine Iraq's position, in order to extract gains and pass an unfair and unbalanced agreement.
However, in connection with the above-mentioned, the Iraqi government has many factors that can contribute to strengthening its position if properly used. In the forefront of these factors is the will of the people who aspire to see their country free, fully independent and sovereign, and unfettered.
We realize that the national interests that can be achieved in the ongoing negotiations with the American side are subject, to a large extent, to the strength of the negotiating position of the Iraqi side and to the extent of the Iraqi government's success in creating the prerequisites to achieve a national consensus to rely upon in these negotiations. In this regard, we can only emphasize:

• The importance and the need for transparency, clarity, openness and informing the people about the negotiations and their progress, so as to strengthen the popular and political support for the positions to which the government declares it is committed and insists on. The media have to be properly used in this context.

• The government should strive to deepen national unity and consolidate the true meaning of national reconciliation.

• Acting to involve the various political parties, blocs, and representatives of the people, and to inform them of the stages and complexities of the negotiations.

• Seeking to create an appropriate political and security atmosphere, and to work to overcome the accumulated disagreements on various issues, including the need to tackle the state of estrangement between the federal government and the Kurdistan regional government.

• Proper use of the Arab, regional and international positions that seek peace and peaceful solutions that work against the foreign military presence, and to employ this in the interest of the position and demands of the Iraqi government. In this context, too, comes the possibility of making use of the struggle and competition in the US elections, and the positions of the American public opinion.

We look forward, along with our people, to ensuring that our country enjoys full sovereignty and independence, and to ending any foreign military presence on our territory, in whatever form and under whatever name.

Iraq and the next president

Iraq and the next president

People's Weekly World

October 9, 2008

With the widening economic crisis grabbing so much of our attention, ending our occupation of Iraq may be taking a back seat in some minds, but it will be a major, pressing issue for the next president.

Here's an under-reported development that fits very well with Barack Obama's pledge to start pulling troops out in a systematic way, with a view to ending our military role there, and with Obama's emphasis on a new foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy rather than military force:

The Boston Globe reports today that:

Members of a team that worked to produce a framework for political reconciliation in Iraq told a congressional subcommittee yesterday that the United States must involve the international community in further peace negotiations and allow Iraqis to take the central role in the process.

Representatives of South Africa's African National Congress, veterans of both sides of the bloody Northern Ireland conflict and others with experience in difficult national reconciliation told a committee chaired by Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) how they are working with Iraqi political leaders spanning the spectrum from Islamists and former Baathists to Communists, to move forward national reconciliation in Iraq. As with South Africa and Northern Ireland, such a process will be essential to bringing peace to Iraq. It will also be key to enabling Iraq to stand up to interference from the U.S., transnational corporations, etc.

A series of meetings involving all the Iraqi groups and the reconciliation experts over the past several months resulted in what's known as the Helsinki Agreement, signed by 37 Iraqi parties in Baghdad in July.

A useful commentary by Max Bergman of the liberal National Security Network calls attention to the significance of this process for Obama's vow that "we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." Bergman draws the following conclusions:

1. Political reconciliation is not something that will happen over night.
2. The one thing Iraqis are united on is opposition to U.S. occupation.
3. In Iraq, political reconciliation will have to be largely self-reinforcing, as it is in Northern Ireland.

He says:

Iraqis are united in wanting us out. Maliki is driving such a hard bargain with us, because it is politically popular to oppose the U.S. presence. This matters because it potentially makes the U.S. not only a focus for potential violence from a nationalist backlash, but because reconciliation for Iraqis must be seen as a means by which to regain their sovereignty.

and

There is no military solution to building trust. Less violence helps, but even if people feel more secure or safe in their neighborhoods that does not mean that they will have any more trust in the intentions of their Sunni or Shia neighbors or politicians. Addressing this takes a long long long time and lots and lots of talks between political leaders and the process set up with Helsinki is an important first step. This process has to ramp up as troops begin to withdraw. Additionally, part of a withdrawal strategy has to attempt to get the countries in the region to play a constructive role in supporting political reconciliation.

The upshot, in his view?

A timetable for withdrawal is not just about moving troops out. It is also a negotiating timetable for Iraqis, as well as for Iraq's neighbors. While our military efforts decline, our diplomatic efforts will have to ramp up.

Iraq pullout ploy

Iraq pullout ploy
Bush plan geared to helping GOP in November

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 09/12/08

Withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is a political struggle both here and in Iraq.

President Bush has announced plans to pull some 8,000 troops out of Iraq by early 2009. This leaves 138,000 U.S. troops there, higher than pre-surge levels.

Despite the Bush administration’s vehement opposition to setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, the latest draft of a U.S.-Iraqi agreement says all U.S. combat troops must be out of Iraq’s cities and villages by June 30 next year, and withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq must be completed no later than the end of 2011, according to the Iraqi newspaper Al-Mada.

In Oman’s al-Watan newspaper, a commentary headlined “Why the talk of troop reduction in Iraq?” suggests Bush is trying to drum up support for GOP presidential candidate John McCain. The author notes that while Bush is eager to finalize a U.S.-Iraqi agreement as soon as possible, Maliki’s government may be interested in lengthening the negotiations. Iraqis are undoubtedly aware that if Democrat Barack Obama wins in November it could open up better possibilities for both stabilizing Iraq and ending the occupation. (Of course some Iraqis may have bet on the Bush/McCain horse.)

The commentator is not alone in his speculation on Bush administration motives. But a political debate is also unfolding in Iraq.

Iraqi Communist Party spokesperson Salam Ali said the latest draft agreement clearly contains “wording open to interpretation” and loopholes, and will need “close examination.”

The draft makes no reference to the role of military forces that are not classified as “combat” troops, and appears to contain a number of contradictory formulations regarding who has the authority to shorten or extend these deadlines, or make other changes.

Iraq’s Political Council for National Security, composed of all major political blocs, will review any final draft, Ali said in a phone interview last week.

He disputed speculation by some U.S. commentators that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will try to get an agreement signed before the end of this year without consent of Iraq’s Parliament.

“There is no way that Maliki or anyone else can push this through without, at least, the agreement of Parliament,” Ali said.

Underscoring that sentiment, a Sept. 7 conference of the Southern Arab Tribal Council, comprising 130 tribal sheiks and 700 prominent figures from three southern Iraq provinces including oil-rich Basra, said any U.S.-Iraq agreement must be closely scrutinized by Iraq’s Parliament before it is signed, the Voices of Iraq news service reported.

U.S.-Iraqi talks on a “status of forces” agreement governing the U.S. military role in Iraq had stalled over Iraq’s insistence on a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, and on its resistance to Bush administration demands for immunity for U.S. personnel accused of crimes in Iraq.

The Bush administration first pressed for open-ended U.S. military presence, then, faced with strong counter-pressure from Iraq, started talking of “time horizons” and “aspirational goals.”

The Iraqis first demanded withdrawal by the end of 2010. While the 2011 end date in the latest draft for pulling out the bulk of U.S. troops is a long way away for Americans who overwhelmingly want troops brought home promptly, it is evidently something of a tactical retreat for the Bush administration.

From the Iraqi side, the draft reflects the overwhelming desire to be rid of foreign occupation and at the same time fears of being left in a security vacuum, vulnerable to terrorist and sectarian violence, if Iraq’s security forces are not ready yet.

Reflecting this outlook, Amr Moussa, the Arab League’s secretary-general, said last week, “The question is, is Iraq today ready with a national army, a national police force, a national judiciary, a national educational system?”

“If they are ready, the troops have to leave,” he told The Associated Press. But the U.S. already committed the mistake of invading Iraq, he said, and “it would be another mistake to create chaos in the country and then leave it in chaos.”

Although war-related violence in Iraq has decreased, it is still high — in August at least 360 civilians were killed in Baghdad alone and more than 470 wounded, AP reported. Crises continue in health care, electricity and water services and other basics of day-to-day security.

Iraq’s Parliament is unlikely to act quickly on the U.S. agreement. It just returned from recess and has other pressing business, including attempting to resolve differences over procedures for provincial elections that were originally supposed to take place in early October. Those elections are considered as significant for Iraqi politics as the 2006 mid-term congressional elections were for U.S. politics.

With Iraqi public opinion turning away from sectarian religious parties, many political figures are adopting a more nationalist tone with their eyes on the provincial elections, Ali said. This includes Maliki, who appears to be trying to build on his recent successes in combating sectarian militias by taking a stronger nationalist stance, including in his dealings with the United States.

In any case, action by Iraq’s Parliament could come after the Nov. 4 U.S. presidential elections, when an Obama victory could introduce a new dynamic. In addition, the U.S. Congress and public will want to weigh in.

Author: Susan Web

Iraqi newspaper:

Negotiations on Iraqi-US security agreement halted
after objections to "final" US draft

Iraqi newspaper "Al-Mada" has reported today (Thursday 4 -9-2008) that negotiations with the US about the security agreement halted about a week ago because the American side had presented a draft which it considered to be final, but it contained points that were rejected by the Iraqi negotiators.

Al-Mada's report is based on information revealed by Ali al-Adeeb, a member of parliament from the United Iraqi Alliance. He described the contentious points as "fundamental knots", pointing out that the agreement cannot be passed in the parliament if they continue to exist. He declined to reveal further details about these points.

Al-Adeeb said that the US Secretary of State, Condoliza Rice, responded to some of the objections that had been made by the Iraqi side, but the issue of immunity for American soldiers and contractors outside military operations has remained unresolved. He added that the Iraqi negotiator is still waiting for the response of the American side after consultations to be conducted by the US Secretary of State with American officials.

Al-Adeeb said that the American side had asked for a period of 10 days (that will end in two days) in order to respond to the Iraqi objections, which he described as "Iraqi questions", to key parts of the American draft.


Source: http://www.almadapaper.com/