boutons_
11-27-2008, 10:43 AM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/adx/images/ADS/18/82/ad.188290/tw_88x31.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=cb5b2301/5d501e9f&camp=foxsearch2008_emailtools_810909e_nyt5&ad=wrestler_120x60_InTheatersDec17&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thewrestler/)
November 28, 2008
Iraqi Parliament Approves U.S. Security Pact
By ALISSA RUBIN, CAMPBELL ROBERTSON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/campbell_robertson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and STEPHEN FARRELL (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/stephen_farrell/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi Parliament ratified a long-delayed security agreement on Thursday that lays out a three-year timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).
For Iraq and the United States, the pact’s passage through Parliament by a large majority — more than 140 of some 200 lawmakers present voted in favor — marks a watershed moment, heralding an increase in Iraqi sovereignty :lol :lol over American and other foreign troops on its soil.
The pact, which took more than a year to negotiate, consists of two documents: a Status of Forces Agreement (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/status-of-forces-agreement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) defining the rules under which American forces will operate, and a wider Strategic Framework Agreement outlining a broad bilateral view looking toward the future.
Within minutes of the ratification, the American Embassy in Baghdad issued a joint statement of congratulation from Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/ryan_c_crocker/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Gen. Ray Odierno (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/ray_odierno/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the overall commander of American forces in Iraq.
“We look forward to the ratification of this vote by Iraq’s Presidency Council,” the statement said. “Taken together, these two agreements formalize a strong and equal partnership between the United States and Iraq. :lol :lol
They provide the means to secure the significant security gains we have achieved together and to deter future aggression. They establish a framework for cooperation in the fields of defense, political relations, economics, trade, culture, education, the rule of law, health, the environment and science and technology.”
The deal was backed by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/nuri_kamal_al-maliki/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and his Shiite-majority government, and was approved by the Iraqi cabinet on Nov. 16, but needed ratification by the 275-seat Iraqi Parliament.
That ratification on Thursday afternoon came after two weeks of intense and sometimes rowdy debate; the vote was delayed twice. The agreement was opposed to the end by legislators belonging to the political bloc of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/moktada_al_sadr/index.html?inline=nyt-per).
On the final day, they disrupted proceedings during the reading of the agreement by banging on their desks and shouting, “Yes, yes to Iraq; no, no to the occupier,” and “No, no to the agreement.”
The Sadrists held a news conference in the Parliament building immediately after the vote, many of them wearing black sashes used by Shiites to indicate mourning.
Akeel al-Khazali read out a dismissive statement comparing the pact to historic treaties signed with Western powers during the colonial mandate era after the First World War. That theme has featured frequently at Sadrist rallies and speeches.
“The agreement was passed in illegal way,” he said. “The way was rapid and the representatives were forced. We have started the era of mandates, not the era of withdrawals.”
The new agreement comes into force when the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’ mandate that currently governs the American troops expires on Dec 31. The new pact says all American combat forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 next year and all American troops should be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011. :lol
However, Mr. Maliki’s government, or its successor, can negotiate a later, separate, agreement with the Americans allowing them to stay longer if it believes Iraq is not yet stable enough.
The pact gives Iraq considerable say in what operations American troops can undertake in the country, and sets limits on the Americans’ ability to search homes and buildings, and hold suspects that they detain.
The agreement also allows some foreign contractors to be tried under Iraqi law if they commit a crime, a clause aimed particularly at curbing the behavior of Western security contractors such as Blackwater (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/blackwater_usa/index.html?inline=nyt-org). In a high profile incident last year, Blackwater shot into a crowd of traffic in Nisour Square in central Baghdad, killing 17 Iraqi civilians.
American troops will remain subject to American military law if they are on duty and on their bases, but could be prosecuted under Iraqi law if they commit heinous offences while off duty and outside their bases.
It was also initially opposed by many members of Parliament from Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority who were given leverage because the country’s most senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/ali_al_sistani/index.html?inline=nyt-per), had indicated that he believed any final deal should achieve broad consensus among Iraq’s main ethnic and sectarian groups.
One concession obtained by the Sunnis in return for their eventual support was a post-facto referendum to test public support for the pact, to be held by the end of July next year. Rejection would trigger a mechanism by which Iraq could withdraw from the deal in a year.
“We insist on having a referendum because it is very important to know if our people support this or not,” said Saleem al-Jubouri, a Sunni lawmaker.
The government also promised to study proposals put forward by Sunni members of Parliament to address their long-standing grievances. :lol
================
No US combat troops in Iraq by next June 30? GMAFB :lol
So now we'll see if the US actually respects the agreement co-equal "sovereign" Iraq, ie, combat troops, their support troops, and US "stuff" starts withdrawing in the next few weeks.
And what about the US-paid armed mercenaries that outnumber the US combat troops? They aren't official US "forces" so they don't fall under SOForcesA.
The word "Kurd" is not in that article.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/adx/images/ADS/18/82/ad.188290/tw_88x31.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=cb5b2301/5d501e9f&camp=foxsearch2008_emailtools_810909e_nyt5&ad=wrestler_120x60_InTheatersDec17&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thewrestler/)
November 28, 2008
Iraqi Parliament Approves U.S. Security Pact
By ALISSA RUBIN, CAMPBELL ROBERTSON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/campbell_robertson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and STEPHEN FARRELL (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/stephen_farrell/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi Parliament ratified a long-delayed security agreement on Thursday that lays out a three-year timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).
For Iraq and the United States, the pact’s passage through Parliament by a large majority — more than 140 of some 200 lawmakers present voted in favor — marks a watershed moment, heralding an increase in Iraqi sovereignty :lol :lol over American and other foreign troops on its soil.
The pact, which took more than a year to negotiate, consists of two documents: a Status of Forces Agreement (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/status-of-forces-agreement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) defining the rules under which American forces will operate, and a wider Strategic Framework Agreement outlining a broad bilateral view looking toward the future.
Within minutes of the ratification, the American Embassy in Baghdad issued a joint statement of congratulation from Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/ryan_c_crocker/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Gen. Ray Odierno (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/ray_odierno/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the overall commander of American forces in Iraq.
“We look forward to the ratification of this vote by Iraq’s Presidency Council,” the statement said. “Taken together, these two agreements formalize a strong and equal partnership between the United States and Iraq. :lol :lol
They provide the means to secure the significant security gains we have achieved together and to deter future aggression. They establish a framework for cooperation in the fields of defense, political relations, economics, trade, culture, education, the rule of law, health, the environment and science and technology.”
The deal was backed by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/nuri_kamal_al-maliki/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and his Shiite-majority government, and was approved by the Iraqi cabinet on Nov. 16, but needed ratification by the 275-seat Iraqi Parliament.
That ratification on Thursday afternoon came after two weeks of intense and sometimes rowdy debate; the vote was delayed twice. The agreement was opposed to the end by legislators belonging to the political bloc of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/moktada_al_sadr/index.html?inline=nyt-per).
On the final day, they disrupted proceedings during the reading of the agreement by banging on their desks and shouting, “Yes, yes to Iraq; no, no to the occupier,” and “No, no to the agreement.”
The Sadrists held a news conference in the Parliament building immediately after the vote, many of them wearing black sashes used by Shiites to indicate mourning.
Akeel al-Khazali read out a dismissive statement comparing the pact to historic treaties signed with Western powers during the colonial mandate era after the First World War. That theme has featured frequently at Sadrist rallies and speeches.
“The agreement was passed in illegal way,” he said. “The way was rapid and the representatives were forced. We have started the era of mandates, not the era of withdrawals.”
The new agreement comes into force when the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’ mandate that currently governs the American troops expires on Dec 31. The new pact says all American combat forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 next year and all American troops should be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011. :lol
However, Mr. Maliki’s government, or its successor, can negotiate a later, separate, agreement with the Americans allowing them to stay longer if it believes Iraq is not yet stable enough.
The pact gives Iraq considerable say in what operations American troops can undertake in the country, and sets limits on the Americans’ ability to search homes and buildings, and hold suspects that they detain.
The agreement also allows some foreign contractors to be tried under Iraqi law if they commit a crime, a clause aimed particularly at curbing the behavior of Western security contractors such as Blackwater (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/blackwater_usa/index.html?inline=nyt-org). In a high profile incident last year, Blackwater shot into a crowd of traffic in Nisour Square in central Baghdad, killing 17 Iraqi civilians.
American troops will remain subject to American military law if they are on duty and on their bases, but could be prosecuted under Iraqi law if they commit heinous offences while off duty and outside their bases.
It was also initially opposed by many members of Parliament from Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority who were given leverage because the country’s most senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/ali_al_sistani/index.html?inline=nyt-per), had indicated that he believed any final deal should achieve broad consensus among Iraq’s main ethnic and sectarian groups.
One concession obtained by the Sunnis in return for their eventual support was a post-facto referendum to test public support for the pact, to be held by the end of July next year. Rejection would trigger a mechanism by which Iraq could withdraw from the deal in a year.
“We insist on having a referendum because it is very important to know if our people support this or not,” said Saleem al-Jubouri, a Sunni lawmaker.
The government also promised to study proposals put forward by Sunni members of Parliament to address their long-standing grievances. :lol
================
No US combat troops in Iraq by next June 30? GMAFB :lol
So now we'll see if the US actually respects the agreement co-equal "sovereign" Iraq, ie, combat troops, their support troops, and US "stuff" starts withdrawing in the next few weeks.
And what about the US-paid armed mercenaries that outnumber the US combat troops? They aren't official US "forces" so they don't fall under SOForcesA.
The word "Kurd" is not in that article.