The Bush administration is currently negotiating a new "status of forces" agreement with the Maliki government in Iraq in order to have legal cover for a long term occupation after Bush leaves office.
The current agreement that provides that cover was a UN resolution in '04 (after the fall of Saddam and the establishment of an interim government in Iraq). It expires at the end of this year.
If a new agreement between the US and Iraq is not signed by Jan 1,09, a continued US occupation would be illegal under Iraqi and international law.
Bush is reportedly insisting on several key provisions that have outraged the Iraqi of all parties:
* 58 permanent US bases - currently there are only about 30 bases
* Immunity from prosecution for US civilian contract employees for any crimes they may commit in Iraq
* US control over Iraqi airspace
* US determination of what is considered an "act of aggression" against Iraq
* US determination of what is an "anti-democratic" movement or organization in Iraq
Iraqis Condemn American Demands
To "encourage" (
I would call it extortion) the Iraqis to accept these provisions, the US is reportedly holding hostage
$50 billion of Iraq's funds currently held in the US.
The Iraqi parliament must approve any final "status of forces" agreement yet Bush has unilaterally determined it is unnecessary for the US Congress to also approve the agreement.....democracy abroad, just not at home.
The only think Bush may succeed in accomplishing with this "diplomatic" initiative is uniting the Iraqi parliament in a shared outraged over the US attempting to impose itself as "puppet master" of the Iraqi people for an undetermined period of time into the future.
Quote:
"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."
...
"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al-Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party. "The Americans insist so far that it is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq ... if we come under aggression we should define it, and we ask for help," al-Adeeb said.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/40372.html
|
The best possible scenario, IMO, is for the Iraqis to say "fuck you....we aint signing this bullshit....now get out..NOW"
WTF?
Is this how we "promote" democracy abroad and demonstrate respect for the sovereignty of another nation?