The U.S and Iraq are negotiating a long-term security agreement with the aim to ensure long-standing cooperation between the two countries. However, it seems that all parties concerned will not buy the idea. The American side expressed doubt about the planned pact. In Iraq, the deal has triggered street protests, as many suspect that the proposed U.S.-Iraq pact could lead to the establishment of permanent American bases: a long-term presence of U.S troops and a weakening of Iraqi government control over those troops. The deal under negotiation also stirred Iranian fears that it could soon be faced with a security threat.
Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on June 8 tried to allay his neighbor's fears during his three-day visit to Iran, saying his government would not allow Iraq to become a launch pad for an attack on its neighbor. "Baghdad would not allow its soil to be used as a base to damage the security of neighboring countries, including Iran," he was quoted as saying. Al-Maliki, after meeting with Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the agreement would help maintain and enhance Iraq's still-fragile security situation. Nevertheless, the deal is not expected to be clinched by July since the security agreement is shaping up to be a major political battle between the U.S. and Iran.
U.S President George W. Bush and Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki launched last November the talks over a bilateral security agreement which would establish a legal framework for the continued presence of U.S troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of 2008. In the long run, it is in the interest of the U.S to have a secure Iraq; and for Baghdad, U.S influence cannot be weeded out for the time being in a bid to restore security and stability to Iraq.
In light of the negotiations between Bush and al-Maliki, the pact's guiding principles will cover such spheres as politics, economy, culture and security, presented in two separate documents. One will define the garrison of U.S. troops, and the other describes a framework for strategic cooperation between the two countries. This, immediately after its release, will invoke a barrage of criticism and hot debates.
The White House alleged that this is a mere administrative agreement between governments – not a treaty – and therefore it does not require congressional approval, which has already been called into question by the Democrat-dominated U.S Congress. However, some deem it a treaty, in essence clad in the guise of an "agreement."
Additionally, the talks, as well as the negotiating process, have been taking place in a complete atmosphere of secrecy. The total lack of transparency could cast a cloud of doubt over people. In particular, articles related to security cooperation are considered the most sensitive and secret part. Questions linger in people's minds: Does the U.S plan to establish permanent military bases in Iraq? If so, how many troops will be sent, and what is the mission of the permanent garrison? Bush stated, when releasing the guiding principles with al-Maliki, that the U.S would support Iraq to defend its democracy and combat security threats from both within and outside Iraq. People can not help but wonder whether the so-called threats from outside refer to Iran, which may allude to a possible attack on Iran; or whether U.S forces would get involved in the war against sectarian and ethnic militias within Iraq's territory.
Meanwhile, the planned pact has also raised some concerns over Iraq's sovereignty, which would bog down the ongoing negotiations. The U.S side suggested it would keep a minimum of 50 military bases in Iraq and hold control over Iraq's borders and territorial airspace. More significantly, the U.S. required that it maintain the rights to launch military actions without seeking permission from the Iraqi government and to arrest or detain Iraqi citizens if necessary. The U.S troops and officers would enjoy full immunities in Iraq. Considering that the so –called security agreement could pose a threat to Iraq's sovereignty, thousands of Iraqis took to the streets in May protesting the signing of the deal. Even Al-Maliki's ruling coalition, dominated by Shiite religious parties long backed by Iran, is divided over the controversial pact.
It was released recently that the U.S has presented a new draft to Iraq, taking into account the demands from the Iraq side more extensively than ever. But when exactly the sensitive bilateral agreement will be hammered out is still to be determined.
By People's Daily Online
|
Comment
Tell A Friend
Print Format
Save Article