Kurdish Writer Argues Necessity of Iraq-US Long-Term Security Agreement
Posted on: Friday, 6 June 2008, 18:00 CDT
Text of article by Muhammad Husain Peerot entitled: "Baghdad- Washington agreement and the future of the federal Iraq"; published by Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) newspaper Khabat on 6 June
For some time now a hot debate has been going on inside and outside Iraq about a [proposed] formal [long-term strategic] agreement between Iraq and the USA, which will allow the US army to stay in Iraq. This step has created a lot of problems internally and externally. The question we need to ask here is whether the religious trends and some political parties can impede the finalization of this [proposed] agreement. Why are they hostile to the agreement? Where do Iran and Syria stand in relation to this issue? Will the articles of the accord affect Iraq's sovereignty? What is the significance of having such an accord?
Of course, achieving such a big pact needs rational thinking and all its articles and clauses need to be carefully studied. Only then should the Iraqi government approve such an accord. The significance of the agreement is that the USA will, in security terms, defend Iraq against any foreign attack, will support Iraq to eliminate terror groups, will support the Iraqi army in all aspects, providing it with new weapons, new technology and training in new methods of fighting and will help Iraq to establish a democratic, federal system. In political terms, Iraq will be a genuine ally of the US in the region and it will be the responsibility of the Iraqi government to ensure a democratic system and public liberties. In economic terms, the USA will fully cooperate with Iraq to achieve economic development and new systems of investment and will try to [persuade foreign] countries to forfeit Iraq's debts, saving Iraq from [economic] crisis.
About the process of finalizing such an agreement, two trends of thought have emerged in Iraq: some religious and political groups oppose such an agreement in every way because they are ideologically opposed to the US system. For this group it is not important whether they are aware of the content of the agreement or not. What is important for them is to oppose it and defeat it. For example, the Al-Badr Trend [of pro-Iranian cleric Muqtada al-Sadr] and the [Sunni] Iraqi Accord Front, who have differences and conflicts with the Iraqi government on several issues, and who describe this [proposed] accord as being against the interests of Iraq and its people, saying that such an agreement would make Iraq lose its sovereignty and become an American province! They see it as a form of America's hegemony over Iraq. Some political observer note that, according to the proposed treaty, the USA would oversee Iraqi security forces for an indefinite period.
I believe that in such a big and important pact it would not be possible to identify a time limit. A long-term plan needs to be devised, because Iraq in the current circumstances does not have enough forces and capacity to impose control over all of Iraq. This agreement is important to ensure a happier and brighter future for Iraq.
Iran and Syria are wary about such an agreement and see it as interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq. They think that such a step would not serve Iraq's interests.
Last year, [Iraqi PM] Nuri al-Maliki and [President] George Bush agreed upon some basic principles for the protection of Iraq's security. This was a step towards signing a formal treaty between Iraq and the USA. This is also a step for organizing the presence of US troops in Iraq, who number over 155,000.
On the other hand, some political parties who have a considerable role within the government are making a serious effort to reach a formal accord that will satisfy the government and would be in the interests of the Iraqi people. But the regional countries have a great fear about this treaty. They think it would be the beginning of their downfall. But it is worth mentioning that the Iraqi constitution has stated that Iraqi soil must not be used for attacking the interests of any regional country. This in itself is a security guarantee for the regional states. This means that such a formal agreement with the USA would be concerned with the internal security situation of Iraq, would be conducted within the framework of Iraq, and no article in the agreement would infringe upon regional states.
Having a positive relationship with a superpower such as the USA is a contemporary necessity and it is the duty of the Iraqi government not to consider party political interests in signing such an agreement but to consider the interests of the Iraqi people. This should be above all other interests.
Originally published by Khabat, Arbil, in Sorani Kurdish 6 Jun 08 p13.
(c) 2008 BBC Monitoring Middle East. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Source: BBC Monitoring Middle East
User Comments (1)
| 1. |
Posted by Bruno on 06/10/2008, 08:41 Mr Peerot's article is nonsense. Why does Iraq need American troops on its soil? Wasn't one of the reasons America advanced for needing to invade Iraq that Iraq was aggressive and out of control? Now, all of a sudden, the opposite case is advanced: that Iraq is weak, and needs protection. It makes no sense. No sense, that is, unless one takes into account the writer's Kurdish point of view. The Iraqi Kurds, as more-or-less loyal supporters of the US occupation, see themselves as benefitting from a US troop deployment, because they believe (and have grounds to do so) that the US will protect them from the reaction of Arabs who dispute their right to cities like Mosul and Kir***. So naturally the writer will be for the agreement, whatever it contains. Continued US occupation will be the guarantee of continued Kurdish state-within-a-stateship, where they can pretend to be Iraqis while de facto living in Kurdistan. The other, Arab Iraqis, who will have to bear the brunt of the Occupation forever, well, they will have to like it or lump it. |
RSS Feeds