Wednesday
Nov262008
Breaking News: Iraq Parliamentary Vote Delayed Again
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 14:22
Al Jazeera's English-language website is reporting, "Iraq's parliamentary vote on a wide-ranging accord that would allow US troops to stay in the country for another three years has been delayed" for another 24 hours. Al Jazeera is still holding to the line that the agreement will be ratified but adds the latest spin from Khaled al-Attiya, the deputy speaker of the Parliament, that "the government and the UIA [Shi'a United Iraqi Alliance] were making a last-minute push to assemble a broader coalition".
What Al Jazeera does not state is why that broader coalition is essential. There was a clear risk that Sunni parties would oppose the Agreement or abstain, leaving passage in the hands of Shi'a and Kurdish groups. Ayatollah Sistani, the most important cleric in Iraq, has already made clear that, in the absence of consensus, he could not support the outcome.
The spokesman for the main Sunni bloc, the National Concord Front, is indicating that the postponement of the vote has occurred because of a deal in which the Sunni would suppose the Agreement in exchange for concessions on other issues by the Government: ""The reason for the delay is that the presidential committee of parliament and the presidential council have reached an agreement that includes a set of political reforms." The Los Angeles Times indicates that those concessions include guarantees against Shi'a-Kurdish domination of decision-making and "amnesty for detainees in U.S. custody".
Meanwhile, the McClatchy News Service has obtained and published an English translation of the Agreement, which the Bush Administration has refused to release.
And why has the US Government not allowed publication and discussion of the Agreement, even as the Iraq Parliament votes on it? McClatchy's sources give pause to any who think this is a clear-cut settlement leading to US withdrawal:
The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation than the Iraqi government of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement, U.S. officials said Tuesday....These include a provision that bans the launch of attacks on other countries from Iraq, a requirement to notify the Iraqis in advance of U.S. military operations and the question of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over American troops and military contractors.
What Al Jazeera does not state is why that broader coalition is essential. There was a clear risk that Sunni parties would oppose the Agreement or abstain, leaving passage in the hands of Shi'a and Kurdish groups. Ayatollah Sistani, the most important cleric in Iraq, has already made clear that, in the absence of consensus, he could not support the outcome.
The spokesman for the main Sunni bloc, the National Concord Front, is indicating that the postponement of the vote has occurred because of a deal in which the Sunni would suppose the Agreement in exchange for concessions on other issues by the Government: ""The reason for the delay is that the presidential committee of parliament and the presidential council have reached an agreement that includes a set of political reforms." The Los Angeles Times indicates that those concessions include guarantees against Shi'a-Kurdish domination of decision-making and "amnesty for detainees in U.S. custody".
Meanwhile, the McClatchy News Service has obtained and published an English translation of the Agreement, which the Bush Administration has refused to release.
And why has the US Government not allowed publication and discussion of the Agreement, even as the Iraq Parliament votes on it? McClatchy's sources give pause to any who think this is a clear-cut settlement leading to US withdrawal:
The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation than the Iraqi government of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement, U.S. officials said Tuesday....These include a provision that bans the launch of attacks on other countries from Iraq, a requirement to notify the Iraqis in advance of U.S. military operations and the question of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over American troops and military contractors.
tagged Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq
Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq
Reader Comments