  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Iraq Negotiations Hinge on SovereigntyPosted on Jun 18, 2008
President Bush is trying to wrap up a new status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqi government before the U.N. resolution under which the U.S. operates its occupation runs out. Team Bush has made some concessions to the Maliki government, but there’s one sticking point that threatens an agreement: veto power over military operations. By the way, the current U.N. resolution expires just before Bush leaves office, which means the deal he’s negotiating—which he doesn’t want to bring before Congress—essentially lays out terms for the next president to inherit.
SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
|
Confronting the Terrorist Within
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By ray, June 30 at 3:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
At last, after 7 years, the neo con strategy of criminal minipulation of the interests of Big Oil, is coming to fruition.
Report thisBy Michael Lane, June 27 at 10:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Does anyone know the amount/sources of the oil used by Americans to operate the various military and civilian missions? I’m assuming that no domestic Iraqi oil is used. My point: what effect would the hypothetical immediate withdrawal of all American missions currently deployed in Iraq have on the current price of oil? Would the withdrawal free up otherwise deployed oil and bring down the current price of oil? I know of no “green energy” projects----much less, no desalinization plants----set up by Americans nor other members of the Coalition for Iraqi develpment.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 19 at 7:02 pm #
U.S./British petroleum interests want to dominate the Middle East. They figured that all that stood between them and complete domination was non-compliant regimes in Iraq and Iran. When Bush II got in, they went all out. My view is that they started by engineering 9-11. But maybe, who knows, it really was just an Allah-sent pretext fortuitously provided by Muslim militants. In any case, the question now is, will they be able to accomplish their ends or not? I say no. They are idiots with a huge case of imperial hubris. The empire is overextended and the people are getting restless. Are the rulers desperate enough to start a war with Iran? We the people will not put up with this! Too many of us will not believe the government’s lies this time! It’s up to Barack Obama to take our government out of their hands and lead us back to peace and democracy. Then, who knows, we could lead the rest of the world in that respect.
Report thisBy Arabian Thoroughbred, June 19 at 1:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“A U.N. report Tuesday estimated the number of the worlds displaced refugees in 2007 at 11.4 million, a majority of which the U.N. says come from the U.S.-led conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Analysts also say the number of refugees threatens to grow even more due to new concerns such as climate change, environmental degradation and increasingly scarce resources.”
=====================
Every time I read something positive to elevate my spirits, something happens that pulls me back to my state of pessimism and despair. I say this because the above the above text at Truthdig introduced a new thread under the heading “Refugees on the Increase.” Though it’s been posted two days ago, I was the only one who visited the thread and commented on it. This issue is very critical to to the US and world security, and concerned Americans should pay more attention to it, since it’s entwined with the war in Iraq and with America’s future security. For the sake of those who might care, the following was my comment on it.
===========================
A keen observer and a concerned universal humanist does not need to wait for the yearly U.N. official report to tell him or her that this humanistic disaster is getting worse with every passing day.
Just as a result of the criminal U.S. war in Iraq, and Afghanistan over 3 million people were made miserable refugees. If we add this number to the almost one million Palestinian refugees created by Israels wars, then that tiny part of the world, called the Middle East, has born the heaviest percentage of refugees resulting from criminal colonialist wars.
Forget about the thousands of deaths and the untold level of destruction to infrastructures, Israel and the U.S. are responsible for the misery of those, at least four million refugees, many of whom in their misery would envy the dead!
Sad as it might be to be reminded about this explosive humanistic and world security problem, I am a little relieved that there were no media gimmicks used to obscure one of the major causes of these man- made disasters by stating that the majority of which the U.N. says come from the U.S.-led conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sadly, however, what the U.N. report does not touch upon is that this huge and increasing number of refugees constitutes the most serious threat to world security. So, the next time the U.S. is hit by another terrorist attack, it would be only a case of chickens coming home to roost!
Report thisAnd though we would always keep saying that two wrongs dont make a right, nevertheless, because its part of the helpless human nature, many would continue to believe and say that revenge is the sweetest thing to do in the absence of universal justice.
By cyrena, June 19 at 10:34 am #
cyrena, the six month loop-hole you mention, is simply a carrot and a stick. Six months is a long time from which to launch nefarious subterfuge into surrounding areas, turning the six months into endless years.
Zeitgeist,
Youre absolutely correct of course, about the 6-month loop-hole, because its not even a real treaty. In a real treaty, it would mean something. For instance, any nation state committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can exit the treaty with a 90-day notice. But, that is a genuine treaty, and part of International Law as administered by the world body. This is just another criminal enterprise by the criminal cabal that has taken over.
So yes, Barack DOES have to find a way to prevent this. More urgently, Ive just read a few highlights from the news reader that claim the House is considering a resolution to force a naval blockade on Iran, and that Elbaradi (IAEA Chief) is threatening to quit if the US attacks Iran. Ive not even had time to read the articles yet. Ill check back in with you all if theres anything to add, but its all overwhelmingly alarming.
(and also not a surprise).
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 19 at 10:04 am #
The link didn’t come out right, darn it. Maybe this will:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19i raq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 19 at 9:53 am #
By Tony Wicher, June 19 at 9:41 am #
It is and always has been all about oil. It is very simple. Any country with oil which allows U.S/British oil companies such as Exxon, etc. to operate there is our ally. Any country which does not is our enemy. Iran nationalized their oil in 1953 and the government was overthrown. The Shah made deals with U.S./British petroleum and he was our ally. The Ayatollahs would not deal with them and they are our enemies. Saddam nationalized Iraqs oil so he was our enemy. Ditto Venezuela, Bolivia. It has nothing to do with anything else. The nature of imperialism is to use military force primarily for the purpose of opening up countries to be exploited by U.S. corporations. That’s the reality, the rest is propaganda.
Look at what is happening now in Iraq:
From the NY Times June 19:
Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back
BAGHDAD Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraqs Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraqs largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraqs Oil Ministry.
Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.
For an industry being frozen out of new ventures in the worlds dominant oil-producing countries, from Russia to Venezuela, Iraq offers a rare and prized opportunity.
While enriched by $140 per barrel oil, the oil majors are also struggling to replace their reserves as ever more of the worlds oil patch becomes off limits. Governments in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela are nationalizing their oil industries or seeking a larger share of the record profits for their national budgets. Russia and Kazakhstan have forced the major companies to renegotiate contracts.
Read the rest of the article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19i raq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Report thisBy amunaor, June 19 at 9:51 am #
cyrena, the six month loop-hole you mention, is simply a carrot and a stick. Six months is a long time from which to launch nefarious subterfuge into surrounding areas, turning the six months into endless years. How many times have we seen six month deadlines come and go, taking one step forward and two steps back? By this the hands of the future president will be tied. Obama needs to vehemently oppose the Bush regime and publically call his hand on this smoke and mirror deceptive move!
The executive accord, under the former benign proclamation of a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America,”, now the Status of Forces Agreement, is no different a tool than Bushs egregious circumvention of checks and balances by the flaunting of his Signing Statements, which is why, supreme sovereign, Bush refuses to submit it to Congress, as law and tradition dictate, because he knows full well that it would never be ratified as such.
How ever, David Satterfield, the US State Department’s top adviser on Iraq, is too overly confident in maintaining that this can still be achieved by the end of July, screw congress.
If the Baghdad government does go cave to such a rotten deal, it will probably be
because the U.S. is blackmailing it to the tune of $50 billion.
That is the amount in U.S. dollars being held hostage in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the form of Iraqi foreign exchange reserves as a result of U.N. sanctions dating back to the first Gulf War.
From an Iraqi perspective it is deeply humiliating. In one fell swoop, it neuters Iraq’s national sovereignty, something of no less pride and importance to Iraqis than it is to Americans.
Watch RealNews videos concerning this issue:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1656
AIJAZ AHMAD, SENIOR ANALYST, THE REAL NEWS:
Two weeks after the occupation of Baghdad, General Tommy Franks went on record saying that there are going to be US forces in Iraq on the model of Korea, where there have been US forces now for almost 60 years. A permanent military base in Iraq has been an objective of this invasion from the beginning. The kind of bases that they have built, these are the largest bases the US has ever built outside its own territory. What the US wants is bases, vast bases in Iraq in perpetuity, with limited sovereignty for any Iraqi government, present or future, which will have no control, juridic or operational, on these troops.
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
Report thisBy Purple Girl, June 19 at 3:49 am #
Could ‘Land Grab for Oil’ Be any more Obvious?
Report thisWhat does this Oil Regime think, we or They would fall for such blatant Imperialist Terms?
I do NOT want Our military to be stationed in the Middle East under any Circumstances, It only incites more ‘Resistance’ attacks on US!
Get Our Troops out Now, end your lucrative Contracts with OPEC,Stop letting their ‘royals’ use US as Scapegoats for their Oppressive regimes.
SOB- we could have been done with that region a few Decades back! the electric car was developed in the ‘80’s- by now we would ahve had it fine Tuned. Honda is coming out with a HydroCar. Granted it will have ‘bugs’- but so have a number of Standard cars put out by the Big 3- The Exploding Pinto, the Topsy Turvy SUV’s.Enough Excuses to save the Oil Industries Ass Big 3 - Your BS is Weak and Frankly ciminal.Your complicty with the Criminals in Oil has gone on for Too long- You have Blood all Over Your hands- Not to mention the despair of the Now called Rust Belt . As a Michigander I have watched as the Big 3 REFUSED to change their ways- not just moving our jobs overseas for higher profits, but also intentionally ‘Reintroducing’ Gas Guzzling lead Sleds when they knew OPEC had this country by the Balls and their people atttributed their Woes to Our Oil consumption.You should have gotten your hands out of the Profit jars and Your heads out of Your Asses in the’70s- after the first Oil and gas Shortage, after the Hostage Crisis, after the numerous Highjacking by M.E. terrorist, After We TOLD you to get Out!
the ‘Big 3’ will have to work their asses off before I ever buy one of their vehicles again in MY Life!They are Traitors to this country and those who built them from the ground Up, War Criminals for perpetuating the ‘Oil Addiction’ (Pushers) and Crimes against humanity for continuing to produce vehicles which harm the Environment (remember when we were only discussing air, water, land Pollution- Now it is Global Warming which puts mankind and the entire planet at risk of extinction!)
How Do You Sleep At Night past & present Big 3 execs?
Get the F*ck Out of the M.E. your Profiteering has Cost far too many lives already!
By gadees, June 19 at 1:42 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
How can you negotiate an agreement when over 95% of the Iraqis are against it and against the American presence in Iraq?.Aside from its sarcastic narrative,there must be a name describing this state of mind, given all the sufferings the Iraqis had to endure.Even when democracy is ambiguously defined, nothing in the current Iraqi government legitmize’s its delegatory power as true representative of the Iraqi people.Most of this quazi-govenment is tucked under the US potection within the green zone limits and is scared to go out to meet the Iraqi people.What would happen should this agreement is put to public referendum??, would the US,in case of disapproval,respect the people’s choice and exit from Iraq, or just ignore the outcome and cling to the democracy of the green zone.?.Those dealing recklessly with the will of the people, are more likly to end up repeating their dramatic roles, for history ignored, yields history repeated.
Report thisBy Arabian Thoroughbred, June 18 at 7:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Agreement between evil occupiers and helpless occupied!
Is this even a subject worthy of reporting, let alone worthy of spending time and energy so-called negotiating about?!
Occupation in my dictionary is the epitome of terrorism and lawlessness. How can any one expect to make lawful lasting agreement on a situation that is the negation of law?! Unless human language has become as evil and crooked as the people who use it, the whole thing does not make the slightest sense!
Report thisBy cyrena, June 18 at 5:05 pm #
This isn’t a valid SoF agreement if it isn’t reviewed and authorized by the US Congress.
The complaint’s about it tying the next president’s hands may seem valid on the surface, but that depends on whether one it given to considering it a valid pact/treaty/agreement. Even if it WAS, (and it isn’t if Congress doesn’t authorize it) they still have an option to withdraw from it with 6 months notice.
STILL, this is just more of Dick Bushes law breaking and blatant violation of the Constitution and all international law. It’s a meaningless arrangement if the Congress doesn’t authorize it.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, June 18 at 1:58 pm #
Well, don’t bet on Iraq succeeding in retaining sovereignty where all others have failed. The complete freedom of the US armed forces is a standard part of SoF agreements. I’m surprised that we aren’t trying to structure the SoF to look like the Korean Sof, wherein the United States holds command and control over all ROK forces.
Report this