IRAQ
U.S. demands permanent bases in Iraq
Plans for 58 U.S. bases to be permanent in Iraq, along with control of some air space, were called unacceptable.
Posted on Tue, Jun. 10, 2008
BY LEILA FADEL
McClatchy News Service
BAGHDAD -- Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed ''status of forces'' agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews that the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would effectively hand over the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.
''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.''
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation upon two years' notice from either side.
''It would impair Iraqi sovereignty,'' Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party, said of the proposed accord. ``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.''
TERMS REJECTED
Both Saghir and al Adeeb said the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces' conduct in Iraq. At present, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities like combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.
''Is there sovereignty for Iraq or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs,'' Saghir said. ``We have given Bush our views -- some new ideas and I find that there is a certain harmony between his thoughts and ours. And he promised to tell the negotiators to change their methods.''
Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have 'no doubt that the Americans' dreams will not come true.''
Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for ''poisoning the Iraqi streets'' before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks and ``frank and honest since the beginning.''
Zebari, who said a negotiating session was held with U.S. officials on the new accord Monday, added that any agreement will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval.
Leaders in the U.S. Congress have also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord, not subject to Senate ratification. Likely Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn't respond to a request for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make ''absolutely clear'' that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said he had not heard of a plan to seek 50 or more bases in Iraq, and that if it is the case, Congress is likely to challenge the idea.
`A LOT OF QUESTIONS'
''Congress would have a lot of questions, and the president should be very careful in negotiating,'' Hamilton, who now directs the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, told McClatchy newspapers.
The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism.
''Look, there is going to be no occupation,'' said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli. ``Now it's perfectly understandable that there are those that are following this closely in Iraq that have concerns about what this means for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. We understand that and we appreciate that, and that's why nothing is going to be rammed down anybody's throat.
''It's kind of like a forced marriage. It just doesn't work. They either want you or they don't want you. You can't use coercion to get them to like you,'' he added.
U.S. officials in Baghdad say they are determined to complete the accord by July 31 so that parliamentary deliberations can be completed before the Dec. 31 expiration of the U.N. mandate.
miamiherald.com |
