Iraqi views on the Status of Forces Agreement
The daily Attaakhi newspaper carried an editorial Monday regarding the rumors surrounding the long-term security pact, or Status of Forces Agreement, between the Iraqi and U.S. governments.
The editorial, titled "Do the articles of the suggested treaty with the U.S. suit the principles of national sovereignty and independence?" said many people in Iraq believe the United States is not negotiating in the best interests of Iraq. Iraqis think if an agreement is struck between Washington and Baghdad, it would cause harm to Iraqi sovereignty and independence and result in problems among the two peoples and between Iraq and its neighboring countries.
The paper referred to the pact as a "pressure card," because the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki represents an occupying country, the United States, and therefore is unable to reject its demands. The column also stressed the agreement would allow the United States to increase its pressure on Iran, using Iraq as its proxy.
The public in Iraq is divided into three groups on their opinion of the agreement, the editorial claims.
The first group of Iraqis calls for a close and careful examination of Iraqi and U.S. perspectives on the security arrangement before making any decisions about its implementation.
The second group calls for denouncing any agreement with the United States because it would create a heavy burden on Iraq, poison Iraq's relationship with neighboring countries and impact the sovereignty of the country.
The third group, it says, calls for a long-term security agreement with the United States in order to save the Iraqi people from the attacks of "bloody terrorism" that have plagued the country for the last five years. The arrangement would also discourage neighboring countries from interfering in Iraq's internal affairs.
"The third group of Iraqis, in the current global world of openness, don't find in the conditions presented by the U.S. administration any harm to the interests of Iraq," the editorial said.
The editorial also said any agreement must take into account the fact that security, military and political concerns are only one aspect of successfully implementing the agreement. Socioeconomic concerns, the newspaper said, come second, and Iraq's relationship with the world, especially neighboring countries, is a third consideration.
"The public in Iraq hope that by committing to the security treaty between Iraq and the United States, Iraq would gain back its sovereignty and Iraqi national, political, security and military and economic interests would be reserved," it said.
Prior to voting on such an agreement, its articles should be presented fully and "transparently" to the Iraqi electorate.
"It is important to assure the people of Iraq that this agreement will prevent the United States from interfering in other countries' issues and disallow a U.S. use of the Iraqi land to assault neighboring countries," the editorial said.
"For this treaty to be successful, it has to carry positive political relations with the United States and must depend on the principles established by the United Nations, and lead to helping Iraq to stand up again and change its current disastrous situation."
The editorial said the U.S. military wants to renew its supervision of the Iraqi Defense and Interior ministries for the next 10 years, retain the right to arrest Iraqis without coordinating with Iraqi authorities, provide immunity to U.S. military forces from Iraqi law, and receive compensation of $15 billion a year for military expenses and operations at 14 U.S. military bases. These, the newspaper said, are some of the key matters discussed regarding the sovereignty, independence and national interests of Iraq.
"The U.S. forces' ability to take part in ending terrorism and their role in securing the Iraqi government are the playing cards the U.S. uses to pass the treaty, regardless of the fact they are an occupying country," it addressed.
The Attaakhi newspaper also said the current U.S. administration wants Iraq to sign the treaty before the presidential elections in November so it gives the Republican Party a good position in spite of the weak security situation in Iraq. Pressuring the Maliki administration to sign the agreement as soon as possible also discourages Baghdad from rejecting it, the newspaper said.
The truth of the matter is that U.S. concerns over an Iranian nuclear program that may be used to threaten U.S. allies in the region, including Israel, and the U.S. desire to drive policies in the Middle East are the overriding objectives of the security arrangement with Iraq, the paper said.
"A short- or long-term treaty with the United States or any other country is a possibility, in fact, it is important to implement in today's Iraq. However, the content of it must be studied and analyzed before any step forward," the Baghdad-based paper concluded.
