Iraq PM: Security deal talks at 'dead end'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Socrtease

Verified User
By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago



BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Friday that talks with the U.S. on proposals for a long-term security pact have reached an impasse over objections that Iraq's sovereignty is at stake, but held out hope that negotiators could still reach a compromise plan.

In his strongest comments yet on the debate, Nouri al-Maliki echoed concern by Iraqi lawmakers that the U.S. proposals would give Washington too much political and military leverage on Iraqi affairs.

"The first drafts presented left us at a dead end and deadlock," he told reporters in Amman, Jordan. "So, we left these first drafts and the negotiations will continue with new ideas until the sides reach a formula that preserves Iraq's sovereignty."

The security agreement would provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. Failure to strike a deal would leave the future of the American military presence here to the next administration

U.S. negotiators offered new proposals this week after Iraqi lawmakers expressed outrage over the direction of the negotiations, claiming that accepting the U.S. position would cement American military, political and economic domination of this country.

"Any agreement that infringes on Iraq's sovereignty and its components will be dismissed and will not be acceptable," he added, promising any deal would be presented to Iraq's parliament for final approval.

"It is a negotiation process that will continue until we reach a common ground that is acceptable by the Iraqi and the other sides," al-Maliki said. "So, I see no reason to be worried about the possibility that Iraq will be chained by agreements. The Iraqi politicians are aware of the importance of sovereignty."

Al-Maliki's remarks reflected deep misgivings about the deal, which also has been denounced by Tehran. The Iraqi premier, a Shiite, is close to the predominantly Shiite Iran.

But a senior government adviser, Yassin Majid, sought to temper the comments, saying a preliminary draft had been rejected but there were "some alternative ideas still on the negotiating table" that would be presented at an upcoming meeting.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad stressed the pact was important for Iraq's security.

"U.S. discussions with the government of Iraq on arrangements for a long-term strategic partnership and security relationship continue," embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said. "Those discussions are based on the fundamental principal of U.S recognition of and respect for Iraq's sovereignty."

"We remain hopeful, as do our Iraqi government partners, regarding a successful conclusion to these negotiations," she added in an e-mailed statement.

The mounting criticism has raised doubt that a deal could be reached before the U.S. presidential election in November. The issue also has taken on importance among Iraq's fractured political parties as they prepare for provincial elections expected in the fall.

An aide to Iraq's pre-eminent Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani urged negotiators to protect the national interest during a Friday sermon in the holy city of Karbala.

"Iraq's sovereignty and economy must be protected," Ahmed al-Safi told worshippers. "The Iraqi negotiators must be up to the responsibility and should have a unified point of view."

Hundreds of followers of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr also rallied against the agreement in Karbala.

And Sadrist cleric Sheik Dhia al-Shawki accused the United States of trying to cement its foothold in the Middle East, calling the agreement a dangerous project for Muslims.

"This agreement is a project of domination and control," he said during his sermon in Baghdad's Shiite stronghold of Sadr City. "The Americans are calling for it to protect their interests in the Middle East and keep security of Israel and make it the biggest power in the region."

The outrage has fueled tensions that already were high amid clashes between U.S.-Iraqi forces and Shiite militia fighters.

Al-Sadr issued a new statement Friday calling for restraint in an apparent bid to exert control over his Mahdi Army militia fighters.

The cleric, who is believed to be in Iran, said the militia will continue to resist U.S.-led forces in Iraq but fighting should be limited to a select group.

"Weapons will be in the hands of this group exclusively and will only be directed at the occupier," he said, using standard rhetoric for the American forces in Iraq in a statement read after Friday prayers in the southern city of Kufa.

He warned those who disobey will be "disowned by me."

Continued fighting despite several cease-fires called by al-Sadr has raised questions about how much control he maintains over various militia factions.

U.S. troops killed five suspected Shiite gunmen and detained two others Friday during a raid near Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad, the military said.

Iraqi police spokesman Capt. Muthanna Khalid said two civilians, including a woman, also were killed and three others wounded after they were caught in the crossfire.

The U.S. military said it had no reports of civilian casualties.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
 
But we are NOT occupiers. We just want an agreement that gives us free reign to do what we want, impose our system on their country and have complete immunity for all our actions. Wonder what they don't like about it.
 
But we are NOT occupiers. We just want an agreement that gives us free reign to do what we want, impose our system on their country and have complete immunity for all our actions. Wonder what they don't like about it.

And in the interim take 70% of the profits from Iraq's Oil resources.

What a deal .. wonder why they didn't take it?
 
Sorry Soc I had not spotted this thread before I posted the ohter one.
It is fine Desh, I don't get bent about things like this, I just post on whichever one is most active. My point was to get people to talk about the fact that the Iraqi's don't want us there on the terms we keep insisting on.
 
It is fine Desh, I don't get bent about things like this, I just post on whichever one is most active. My point was to get people to talk about the fact that the Iraqi's don't want us there on the terms we keep insisting on.

The Iraqis have never wanted us there .. didn't invite or ask us to come be their "liberators", didn't have flowers and candy for us when we got there.

Sixty-one percent of Iraqis think killing as US soldier is the honorable thing to do .. and from thier perspective, I can't blame them .. even though I have a loved one there who I just found out last night HAS LESS THAN 60 DAYS LEFT in IRAQ.

:party::cheer::clink::lock::hand::hand::hand:

She's so short they won't even be able to see her.
 
Being in Iraq is just a distraction from the real war on terror anyway, isn't it?

If we retreat from Iraq, US troops can help OJ find the real killers!
No the REAL problem here is that WAR as the US thinks of it is NOT particularly adept at fighting terrorists. Terror should be fought more in the way we combated spying on us in the 50's and 60's. Investigate the leads, find the cells and remove them. Fighting in Iraq has just pissed people off at us that were not pissed off at us in the first place. The real successes have actually been in the area of reshaping our intel services. That is the ONLY thing that is going to work in thwarting another major strike against the US. Had the war on terror be going on right up till 9-11, the WTC STILL would have been hit because we had not reformed our intelligence gathering services. The "war" was started to make people feel like something was really being done to strike back at the people responsible for 9-11. Terrorist organizations are not a snake that can have it's head cut off, it is a hydra that grows new heads when the old ones are severed.
 
Why is it that you see Iran as a "threat"?

Do you really think they are a danger to our national security right now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top