WORLD> Middle East
|
WORLD> Middle East
|
|
Battle shapes up over future of US role in Iraq
(Agencies)
Updated: 2008-06-22 11:35 But that could prove politically embarrassing -- and difficult -- in the waning days of the Bush administration or the early days of the new US presidency. The current standoff has its roots in events last August when leaders of Iraq's rival factions -- facing enormous US pressure to resolve their differences -- signed a declaration of unity. It included a statement that Iraq's government wanted a long-term security relationship with the United States apart from UN mandates, which Iraq has long wanted to end. A few months later, Bush and al-Maliki signed a statement of principles to negotiate two agreements -- a broad security framework and a second deal spelling out the rules for the US military presence. Talks began in March but Iraqi officials were outraged over the initial US demands -- especially immunity for US soldiers and security contractors. The American draft also included no firm commitment to defend Iraq from foreign invasion -- which would require US Senate approval -- nor a timetable for the departure of American troops, according to Iraqi officials. US officials have released few details. After Iraqi negotiators briefed lawmakers last month, politicians from all walks paraded in front of microphones to denounce the US proposals. Some commentators likened the US position to the Iraqi-British treaty of 1930, which gave Britain virtual control of the country and is widely seen here as a humiliation. Shiite lawmaker Haidar al-Abadi, speaking for al-Maliki's party, said June 4 that "negotiations are at a standstill, and the Iraqi side is studying its options." A week later al-Maliki himself said talks had reached a "dead-end." Aides scrambled to clarify that al-Maliki did not mean negotiations were over. But his comments reflected Iraq's resolve not to accept an agreement short of major Iraqi demands. "We could not give amnesty to a soldier carrying arms on our soil," al-Maliki said then. Such comments reflect each Iraqi faction's need to publicly defend Iraq's rights, amid the country's intense political rivalry. Some Sunni groups, for example, privately favor a continued American presence as a counterweight to Iran's influence among Shiites. Yet several leading Sunni politicians signed a letter to Congress insisting on a timetable for a US withdrawal -- in part to needle al-Maliki on an nationalistic issue. Shiite parties, in turn, believe the agreement would shore up American support for al-Maliki ahead of parliamentary elections next year -- a goal they seek. But Shiite leaders are also anxious to take over full control of their country. Meanwhile, recent Iraqi military successes against al-Qaida in Mosul and Shiite extremists in the south have convinced some Shiite politicians they don't really need America. "Iraq has another option that it may use," al-Maliki said recently. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the UN terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil." |
