Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
June 14, 2008
Pg. 5
By Alissa J. Rubin
BAGHDAD — Negotiations on a long-term security agreement with the United States are at a stalemate because of American demands that compromise Iraq’s sovereignty, the Iraqi prime minister said Friday.
“The Iraqi demands are unacceptable to the Americans, and the American demands are unacceptable to the Iraqis, and the result is that we have reached an impasse,” the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, said during a meeting with journalists in Jordan. “The Iraqis will not consent to an agreement that infringes their sovereignty.”
It was the first time that Mr. Maliki had spoken publicly at any length about the agreement, which has been the subject recently of acrimonious and increasingly public debate.
Already, intense criticism from Iraqi politicians has forced the Americans to retreat on several important issues, including immunity from prosecution for American contractors. Under the latest version of the pact, they could be subject to Iraqi law.
Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said that in his latest discussions, “The Americans did agree to remove the special contractors, the security contractors, from the immunity or the protection.”
A member of the Iraqi Parliament’s legal committee, Iman al-Saadi, who has seen the latest draft, confirmed that contractors were no longer granted immunity.
The change is sure to prove controversial, because security contractors will be reluctant to continue to work in Iraq’s dangerous environment if they can be prosecuted in Iraqi courts.
The negotiations are likely to continue despite Mr. Maliki’s talk of an impasse, however, said Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to the United Nations.
“In negotiations about difficult issues there are phases when people get frustrated,” he said. “I wouldn’t read too much into any particular statement at any one time. The two countries are committed to reaching an agreement.”
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, also played down the prime minister’s comments.
“He is a politician,” he told reporters on Friday after a town hall-style meeting in Pemberton, N.J. “Active discussions are taking place, and it’s between two sovereign countries, and I’m confident that, over time, we will reach an agreement that is in the best interests of the United States and of Iraq.”
Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, did not address the issue on Friday, and his campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
The agreement is designed to provide a legal basis for American security operations in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year. The Americans have been seeking to assure that their troops have the power to conduct operations and detain suspects without the approval of the Iraqi government and to act without fear of prosecution in the Iraqi justice system. They are also seeking the authority to establish more than 50 long-term bases.
However, Mrs. Saadi, the Parliament member who has seen the latest draft, said the Americans had also watered down the demand for bases.
Mr. Maliki is under pressure to show his independence from Washington and is enjoying a spike in popularity after successful military operations in Basra and the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad. Iraqi politicians said his comments on Friday appeared to represent an effort to stake out a bargaining position by signaling that Iraq was serious about its assertion of sovereignty.
Many of the concerns Mr. Maliki mentioned on Friday have also been voiced publicly in the past several weeks by prominent Shiite politicians, some from his own Dawa Party. But this is the first time that the prime minister has raised those points and described some of his major differences with the White House.
Although President Bush said this week that he expected negotiations to continue, he, like Mr. Maliki, faces opposition at home over his effort to sign an agreement with significant long-term implications.
Both leaders’ parties face substantial challenges in elections this fall, so they have to proceed carefully, mindful of the political dangers of negotiating sensitive measures in an election year.
In both countries, moreover, major factions oppose the agreement altogether. In the United States, a number of Democratic members of Congress have argued that the agreement will limit the latitude of the next president, and that it is unfair to move forward without Congressional approval.
In Iraq, the bloc aligned with the rebel Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who has a significant following among the poor, opposes the agreement.
There was some confusion on Friday about exactly what Mr. Maliki said. Iraqi and American officials said his comments seemed to refer to a draft of the agreement that had already been superseded by a version delivered Thursday by the Americans. In several of his critical comments, Mr. Maliki referred to “a first draft,” suggesting that his comments might not apply to the latest one.
It was not clear that Mr. Maliki had reviewed the new draft, because he had been traveling. He is scheduled to meet Saturday with Iraqi political and military leaders to discuss it.
In addition to rejecting immunity for contractors, Mr. Maliki said that Iraq would resist “Washington’s demand to have a free hand in undertaking military operations without cooperation with the Iraqi government,” according to a report of his comments on BBC Arabic TV and Al Arabiya, a television network.
He added: “We cannot give permission to the American forces’ independent right to arrest Iraqis or execute operations against terrorism. We cannot allow them to use the Iraqi skies and waters at all times.”
The question of immunity for American contractors is a particularly sensitive one, following a widely publicized episode in which Blackwater guards gunned down 17 Iraqis in the streets of Baghdad in September, apparently without provocation.
Although the Americans have apparently agreed to end immunity for contractors, American soldiers would still be exempt from prosecution in Iraq.
Within Iraq, political factions hold varying views. Sunnis and Kurds tend to be more open to an agreement, while some of the Shiite factions, which are closer to Iran, are more critical of it.
But all the parties emphasize the importance of Iraq’s sovereignty rights. In a public meeting this week, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned Mr. Maliki not to ratify an agreement.
During a sermon on Friday in the holy city of Karbala, an aide to Iraq’s most senior Shiite religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, urged Iraqi negotiators to protect the national interest.
“Iraq’s sovereignty and economy must be protected,” the aide, Ahmed al-Safi, told worshipers.
Meanwhile, hundreds of followers of Mr. Sadr — long an opponent of American involvement in Iraq — also rallied in Karbala to protest the agreement.
Reporting was contributed by Neil MacFarquhar from the United Nations, Steven Lee Myers from Paris, Thom Shanker from Brussels, Suadad al-Salhy and Tareq Maher from Baghdad, and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Karbala.
June 14, 2008
Pg. 5
By Alissa J. Rubin
BAGHDAD — Negotiations on a long-term security agreement with the United States are at a stalemate because of American demands that compromise Iraq’s sovereignty, the Iraqi prime minister said Friday.
“The Iraqi demands are unacceptable to the Americans, and the American demands are unacceptable to the Iraqis, and the result is that we have reached an impasse,” the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, said during a meeting with journalists in Jordan. “The Iraqis will not consent to an agreement that infringes their sovereignty.”
It was the first time that Mr. Maliki had spoken publicly at any length about the agreement, which has been the subject recently of acrimonious and increasingly public debate.
Already, intense criticism from Iraqi politicians has forced the Americans to retreat on several important issues, including immunity from prosecution for American contractors. Under the latest version of the pact, they could be subject to Iraqi law.
Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said that in his latest discussions, “The Americans did agree to remove the special contractors, the security contractors, from the immunity or the protection.”
A member of the Iraqi Parliament’s legal committee, Iman al-Saadi, who has seen the latest draft, confirmed that contractors were no longer granted immunity.
The change is sure to prove controversial, because security contractors will be reluctant to continue to work in Iraq’s dangerous environment if they can be prosecuted in Iraqi courts.
The negotiations are likely to continue despite Mr. Maliki’s talk of an impasse, however, said Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to the United Nations.
“In negotiations about difficult issues there are phases when people get frustrated,” he said. “I wouldn’t read too much into any particular statement at any one time. The two countries are committed to reaching an agreement.”
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, also played down the prime minister’s comments.
“He is a politician,” he told reporters on Friday after a town hall-style meeting in Pemberton, N.J. “Active discussions are taking place, and it’s between two sovereign countries, and I’m confident that, over time, we will reach an agreement that is in the best interests of the United States and of Iraq.”
Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, did not address the issue on Friday, and his campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
The agreement is designed to provide a legal basis for American security operations in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year. The Americans have been seeking to assure that their troops have the power to conduct operations and detain suspects without the approval of the Iraqi government and to act without fear of prosecution in the Iraqi justice system. They are also seeking the authority to establish more than 50 long-term bases.
However, Mrs. Saadi, the Parliament member who has seen the latest draft, said the Americans had also watered down the demand for bases.
Mr. Maliki is under pressure to show his independence from Washington and is enjoying a spike in popularity after successful military operations in Basra and the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad. Iraqi politicians said his comments on Friday appeared to represent an effort to stake out a bargaining position by signaling that Iraq was serious about its assertion of sovereignty.
Many of the concerns Mr. Maliki mentioned on Friday have also been voiced publicly in the past several weeks by prominent Shiite politicians, some from his own Dawa Party. But this is the first time that the prime minister has raised those points and described some of his major differences with the White House.
Although President Bush said this week that he expected negotiations to continue, he, like Mr. Maliki, faces opposition at home over his effort to sign an agreement with significant long-term implications.
Both leaders’ parties face substantial challenges in elections this fall, so they have to proceed carefully, mindful of the political dangers of negotiating sensitive measures in an election year.
In both countries, moreover, major factions oppose the agreement altogether. In the United States, a number of Democratic members of Congress have argued that the agreement will limit the latitude of the next president, and that it is unfair to move forward without Congressional approval.
In Iraq, the bloc aligned with the rebel Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who has a significant following among the poor, opposes the agreement.
There was some confusion on Friday about exactly what Mr. Maliki said. Iraqi and American officials said his comments seemed to refer to a draft of the agreement that had already been superseded by a version delivered Thursday by the Americans. In several of his critical comments, Mr. Maliki referred to “a first draft,” suggesting that his comments might not apply to the latest one.
It was not clear that Mr. Maliki had reviewed the new draft, because he had been traveling. He is scheduled to meet Saturday with Iraqi political and military leaders to discuss it.
In addition to rejecting immunity for contractors, Mr. Maliki said that Iraq would resist “Washington’s demand to have a free hand in undertaking military operations without cooperation with the Iraqi government,” according to a report of his comments on BBC Arabic TV and Al Arabiya, a television network.
He added: “We cannot give permission to the American forces’ independent right to arrest Iraqis or execute operations against terrorism. We cannot allow them to use the Iraqi skies and waters at all times.”
The question of immunity for American contractors is a particularly sensitive one, following a widely publicized episode in which Blackwater guards gunned down 17 Iraqis in the streets of Baghdad in September, apparently without provocation.
Although the Americans have apparently agreed to end immunity for contractors, American soldiers would still be exempt from prosecution in Iraq.
Within Iraq, political factions hold varying views. Sunnis and Kurds tend to be more open to an agreement, while some of the Shiite factions, which are closer to Iran, are more critical of it.
But all the parties emphasize the importance of Iraq’s sovereignty rights. In a public meeting this week, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned Mr. Maliki not to ratify an agreement.
During a sermon on Friday in the holy city of Karbala, an aide to Iraq’s most senior Shiite religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, urged Iraqi negotiators to protect the national interest.
“Iraq’s sovereignty and economy must be protected,” the aide, Ahmed al-Safi, told worshipers.
Meanwhile, hundreds of followers of Mr. Sadr — long an opponent of American involvement in Iraq — also rallied in Karbala to protest the agreement.
Reporting was contributed by Neil MacFarquhar from the United Nations, Steven Lee Myers from Paris, Thom Shanker from Brussels, Suadad al-Salhy and Tareq Maher from Baghdad, and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Karbala.