Bush's Iraq wrangles alarm lawmakers
By Mohammed A Salih
WASHINGTON - Iraqi parliamentarians are increasingly concerned that they are
being left out of talks between Iraqi and United States officials over a
strategic deal to determine the future relationship between the two countries,
at a time when the US Congress failed to include a provision in a bill to fund
the Iraq and Afghan wars last week to restrict President George W Bush's
authority to sign such deals.
"We have not been informed about the content of the talks in detail so far,"
Abdulkhaliq Zangana, from the Kurdistan Alliance bloc in Iraq's Council of
Representatives that holds 53 out of 275
parliamentary seats, told Inter Press Service in a telephone interview from
Baghdad. "There is absolutely no way that the Iraqi government can make any
such agreements without the consent of Iraqi parliament."
He said, however, that there is a general consensus among Iraqi parliamentary
blocs for such an agreement to regulate "the future relations between the two
countries" but in a way that is "in the interests of both sides".
The Iraqi and US governments have been negotiating for months the formulation
of two agreements, as the United Nations mandate under which US troops
currently operate in Iraq will terminate in December.
One is known as a Status of Forces Agreement, which sets up the legal basis for
the presence of US troops in Iraq. The other one is called a Strategic
Framework Agreement, and would devise a blueprint for the wider bilateral
relationship between the two countries in political, economic and cultural
areas.
As a first step, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki signed an
agreement known as the Declaration of Principles last November. The agreement
commits the US to defend Iraq in the event of any "foreign aggression" and
"external and internal threats".
"Of course, there are a lot of fears inside and outside parliament regarding
the content of such agreements since they deal with strategic, critical and
long-term issues for Iraq," added Zangana, who demanded a vital role for the
parliament in the negotiating process.
The concerns by Iraqi lawmakers come as their counterparts in Washington are
pressing the administration hard not to sign any deals with the Iraqi
government on defense and security matters without congressional approval.
Despite that, the US Senate failed last Wednesday to include a provision in a
bill to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that would constrain
Bush's power to unilaterally sign any security agreements with Iraq.
The explicitly aggressive tone of the Bush-Maliki agreement on protecting Iraq
against foreign intervention has set off alarms in Washington that the
administration may seek to use it as a cover to attack Iran, which has been
repeatedly accused by US civilian and military officials of destabilizing Iraq.
In an unexpected move that could further increase tensions, the US military has
established a station near the Iranian border without the consent of Iraqi
authorities, and which sparked Iranian protests, Iran's English-language Press
TV reported in late April.
With a July deadline for the agreements approaching fast, Iraq's clerical class
has become more vocal against the possible deals as well. Iraq's most powerful
religious figure, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, joined other dissenting voices when he
recently said he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with "the US
occupiers" as long as he was alive, Press TV reported last Saturday.
Another senior Iraqi cleric, known as Sayyed Kazem Haeri, had earlier ruled
against the agreements and had said that those agreements would "legitimize"
the presence of US troops in Iraq.
Iraq's ambassador to Washington, Samir al-Sumaidaie, rejected the notion,
during a media roundtable at the Iraqi Embassy last February, that the
controversial agreements would turn Iraq "into a virtual colony of the United
States", or present a "formula for stationing permanent American bases" in the
war-torn nation.
While many lawmakers consider the deals to be treaties - which under the US
constitution would require senate approval - the administration rejects that
argument and says they are executive agreements that lie within the president's
powers.
The movement against the deals in Congress has been mainly led by Democrats who
fear Bush's attempts to set the future Iraq policy framework would tie the
hands of the next president - who Democrats strongly hope will come from their
ranks.
Describing the move by Democrats as "a continuation of the power game struggle"
between the Republican-held White House and Democrat-dominated Congress, Kate
Gould from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker lobby group,
said, "Congress would definitely not approve an agreement with such a
broad-scale military commitment from the US as outlined in the Declaration of
Principles."
"Bush is exceptionally determined to not consult with Congress in matters where
their input has historically been sought," said Gould.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
