Democracy is on the cusp of coming to Iraq - or so the PR machine, principally American driven, tells us.
Suadad Al-Salhy writes from the Baghdad Bureau of the NY Times. His "take" on the agreement between the US and Iraq which the Parliament is due to consider - as he reports from inside the Parliament - makes for interesting reading:
"It seems like 70% of the Iraqi MP’s have no idea what is in the agreement. This is clear from the complaints and criticisms that I hear when I am listening to their questions in the press room of the parliament building, and on the television coverage when I get home.
For example some criticize the agreement for not giving the Iraqi government the right to search equipment and material being imported into Iraq. But the last draft DOES give the Iraqi government the right to verify the contents of containers coming into the country, if they have security concerns.
Another one said the agreement does not give Iraq guarantees that the next administration will push to end its status under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which deals with “threats to the peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression.”
But in fact the draft contains clear items relating to that, saying that the U.S. government will work to help Iraqis end their status under Chapter VII. They will use their power to argue that this country is no longer a threat to its neighbors.
During one of the debates a Sadrist asked: ‘are there any guarantees that the Americans will not use Iraqi land to attack Islamic and neighboring countries?’ But the agreement clearly says: ‘Iraqi land, sea, and air shall not be used as a launching or transit point for attacks against other countries.’
The opponents of the agreement are using this big national issue to blackmail the government, and they are forgetting their duty to their voters.
For example, during the last five years they spent all the time raising their slogans to request the Americans’ withdrawal. They said they would accept any schedule for withdrawal, even if it takes 10 years. Now this agreement will give them guarantees to withdraw completely in the next three years. But they reject it because they will have no excuse left to toy with the government, and with their voters.
Some of them try to use our religion to convince their voters that this agreement will make Iraq submit to the Americans, and they use people’s ignorance about what exactly this agreement includes to make them support their party’s position."
Suadad Al-Salhy writes from the Baghdad Bureau of the NY Times. His "take" on the agreement between the US and Iraq which the Parliament is due to consider - as he reports from inside the Parliament - makes for interesting reading:
"It seems like 70% of the Iraqi MP’s have no idea what is in the agreement. This is clear from the complaints and criticisms that I hear when I am listening to their questions in the press room of the parliament building, and on the television coverage when I get home.
For example some criticize the agreement for not giving the Iraqi government the right to search equipment and material being imported into Iraq. But the last draft DOES give the Iraqi government the right to verify the contents of containers coming into the country, if they have security concerns.
Another one said the agreement does not give Iraq guarantees that the next administration will push to end its status under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which deals with “threats to the peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression.”
But in fact the draft contains clear items relating to that, saying that the U.S. government will work to help Iraqis end their status under Chapter VII. They will use their power to argue that this country is no longer a threat to its neighbors.
During one of the debates a Sadrist asked: ‘are there any guarantees that the Americans will not use Iraqi land to attack Islamic and neighboring countries?’ But the agreement clearly says: ‘Iraqi land, sea, and air shall not be used as a launching or transit point for attacks against other countries.’
The opponents of the agreement are using this big national issue to blackmail the government, and they are forgetting their duty to their voters.
For example, during the last five years they spent all the time raising their slogans to request the Americans’ withdrawal. They said they would accept any schedule for withdrawal, even if it takes 10 years. Now this agreement will give them guarantees to withdraw completely in the next three years. But they reject it because they will have no excuse left to toy with the government, and with their voters.
Some of them try to use our religion to convince their voters that this agreement will make Iraq submit to the Americans, and they use people’s ignorance about what exactly this agreement includes to make them support their party’s position."
Comments