Læsetid: 4 min.

USA vil måske blive i Irak på ubestemt tid

Mørklagte forhandlinger om en ny amerikansk-irakisk aftale om fortsat amerikansk militær tilstedeværelse vækker bekymring blandt irakiske politikere, der frygter permanent besættelse
USA og Irak forhandler i disse uger om en strategisk sikkerhedsaftale, der bl.a. betyder, at USA fortsat vil bevare en stående styrke iIrak, stationeret på mere end 50 permanente baser i landet.

USA og Irak forhandler i disse uger om en strategisk sikkerhedsaftale, der bl.a. betyder, at USA fortsat vil bevare en stående styrke iIrak, stationeret på mere end 50 permanente baser i landet.

Mauricio LIMA

Udland
6. juni 2008

Beirut: Den irakiske shia-leder, Muqtada al-Sadr, har bebudet nye demonstrationer efter fredagsbønnen i dag, vendt mod en 'strategisk sikkerhedsaftale', der i disse uger forhandles mellem USA og den irakiske regering under Nouhri al-Maliki. Sidste fredag demonstrerede al- Sadrs tilhængere første gang, og i de seneste døgn er Irak rystet af bombe-eksplosioner, der har krævet 18 dødsofre, og hvor al-Sadrs Mehdi-milits mistænkes som gerningsmænd.

Formålet med den 'strategiske sikkerhedsaftale' er at sikre USA's besættelsesstyrke et legitimt grundlag for fortsat tilstedeværelse i Irak, når det nuværende FN-mandat udløber 31. december.

Den er ikke forhandlet helt på plads, endsige ratificeret i det irakiske parlament, men det britiske dagblad Independent kunne i går citere et 'lækket papir' fra parlamentet, hvoraf det fremgår, at der forhandles om:

- USA vil fortsat bevare en stående styrke i Irak, stationeret på mere end 50 permanente baser i landet.

- USA vil fortsat have ret til at gennemføre militære operationer i Irak uden at konsultere den irakiske regering.

- De amerikanske regulære styrker og 'kontrahender' - lejesoldater - vil bevare retten til at anholde irakiske borgere uden at konsultere Iraks myndigheder eller regering.

- Alle amerikanske styrker, regulære som 'kontrahender', vil have immunitet i forhold til irakisk lovgivning.

Washington afviser

Det hvide Hus har afvist, at der forhandles om permanent amerikansk besættelse af Irak, men har ikke oplyst om forhandlingsoplæggets indhold, hverken til kongressen eller offentligheden. Journalisten, der offentliggjorde det lækkede parlamentspapir, er Patrick Cockburn, som opererer hjemmevant udenfor Bagdads beskyttede 'grønne zone' og er kendt for at pleje gode kilder i den brogede labyrint, der udgør irakisk politik. Da han i går kommenterede sin historie på tv-kanalen al Jazeera sagde han, at selvom aftalen ikke er underskrevet, 'bliver den det, for Nouri al-Malikis regering kan ikke holde til at undsige amerikanerne'.

Forhandlingerne føres af USA's ambassadør, Ryan Crocker ud fra et oplæg udfærdiget i vicepræsident Dick Cheyneys kontor, og det eneste, der er meldt ud, er, at den amerikanske administration forventer at aftalen er på plads med udgangen af juli.

Onsdag advarede to irakiske politikere, Nadim al-Jaberi, en shia-parlamentariker fra Basra-provinsen, og Khalaf al-Ilyan, en sunni-politiker, et amerikansk kongrespanel mod, at en aftale underskrives med den nuværende Bush-administration. De anførte, at enhver langtidsaftale om sikkerhed bør afvente en amerikansk tilbagetrækning - og en ny amerikansk administration, da de fik foretræde for et underudvalg under kongressens udenrigskomité.

Også kongresmedlemmerne er holdt 'i mørke' om forhandlingerne, eller som underudvalgets formand, demokraten William Delahunt, udtrykte det: "Kongressen har, for nu at sige det høfligt, modtaget minimale informationer fra præsident Bush".

Det hvide Hus henholder sig til, at kongressen ikke skal inddrages, da aftalen ikke er 'en traktat', men et sikkerheds-arrangement, der kan klares på cirkulære-basis.

Bred modstand

Og selvom 'arrangementet' i følge to irakiske politiske journalister, Information talte med i går, ikke fylder ret meget i de irakiske aviser, der kun har total pressefrihed på papiret så at sige, har det ikke desto mindre vakt modstand i Bagdad, også udenfor Muqtada al-Sadr's tilhængerskare, der jo altså har bebudet demonstrationer hver uge, indtil aftalen er afblæst.

Bredere politiske kredse - herunder efter sigende også den aldrende shia-imam, Ali Sistani, der er en slags åndelig leder for de irakiske shi'iter, er imod at binde Irak op på en militær besættelse uden en konkret slut-dato.

Således kunne kongresmedlemmet William Delahunt, der ledede mødet med de to irakiske politikere i Washington, tillige citere et brev fra 31 medlemmer af Iraks parlament, hvis politiske tilhørsforhold tilsammen udgør et flertal i parlamentet, og som skrev, at 'de på (flertallets vegne) på det stærkeste afviser enhver militær, sikkerhedsmæssig, økonomisk, kommerciel, landsbrugsfaglig, investeringsmæssig eller politisk aftale, der ikke sammenkædes med helt klare mekanismer, der forpligter den amerikanske besættelsesmagt til fuld tilbagetrækning fra Irak'.

Spænder ben for Obama

De politiske implikationer af en aftale, der giver amerikanerne carte blanche til at forblive i Irak, er mangeartede: den vil gøre det betydeligt sværere for Barack Obama at love de amerikanske vælgere at trække USA's styrker ud af Irak, hvorimod den vil styrke den republikanske kandidat John McCain's argumentation om at blive i Irak til 'jobbet er gjort'. Den vil endvidere sætte Bush-regeringen i stand til at erklære krigen for 'vundet', hvis den irakiske regering underskriver en aftale af denne art, ligesom den - siger tilhængere af aftalen - vil 'berolige' Saudi-Arabien og de små oliestater i Golfen, der frygter at et Irak under shia-politikeres ledelse vil ende med at være marionet for Iran.

Den tidligere iranske præsident, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, sagde da også torsdag, at enhver aftale af denne karakter 'vil gøre irakerne til USA's slaver'. Rafsanjani var i Mekka til et mellemreligiøst møde mellem muslimer, jøder og kristne, hvor han bl.a. omfavnede Saudi-Arabiens kong Abdallah, Irans sunni-muslimske hovedmodstander.

Dog fremgår det af såvel de meget forsigtige vurderinger, Information har kunnet hente hos to politiske redaktører i Irak, der kun nødigt erklærer sig konkret om politik, som af nyhedsbureauernes dækning, at også den irakiske regering, herunder premierminister Nour al-Maliki, er mere end skeptiske overfor de amerikanske krav. Men, som Patrick Cockburn sagde på al Jazeera: "Maliki vil vende og dreje sig, men har i den sidste ende ikke noget valg, da hans regering står og falder med amerikansk beskyttelse."

Følg disse emner på mail

Vores abonnenter kalder os kritisk, seriøs og troværdig.
Få ubegrænset adgang med et digitalt abonnement.
Prøv en måned gratis.

Prøv nu

Er du abonnent? Log ind her

"De politiske implikationer af en aftale, der giver amerikanerne carte blanche til at forblive i Irak, er mangeartede: den vil gøre det betydeligt sværere for Barack Obama at love de amerikanske vælgere at trække USA's styrker ud af Irak, hvorimod den vil styrke den republikanske kandidat John McCain's argumentation om at blive i Irak til 'jobbet er gjort'. Den vil endvidere sætte Bush-regeringen i stand til at erklære krigen for 'vundet', hvis den irakiske regering underskriver en aftale af denne art, ligesom den - siger tilhængere af aftalen - vil 'berolige' Saudi-Arabien og de små oliestater i Golfen, der frygter at et Irak under shia-politikeres ledelse vil ende med at være marionet for Iran."

Det er et besynderligt rids der her bliver tegnet, i en ellers udmærket artikel. De vigtigste "politiske implikationer" må vel være for det irakiske folk, som på besynderlig vis glimrer ved deres fravær. Hvis en aftale, som den der her i artiklen citeres, underskrives, så vil irakerne reelt ikke have mere suverænitet end Danmark havde i 1942. Det irakiske demokrati er institutionelt afskaffet, volden vil fortsætte, og USAs (leje)-soldater vil fortsætte med at myrde, torturere og kidnappe irakiske civile efter forgodtbefindende. Det er da politiske konsekvenser som er værd at tage i betragtning...eller hvad?

Ulrik Høstblomst

USA bliver ikke i Iraq på ubstemt tid

Tiden er direkte bestemt af mængden af energi bundet i fossile brændstoffer -

Den dag olien slipper op under sandet er Iraq blæst for Yankies

Det er der da ikke ret meget raketvidenskab i at forudsige ?

Olie-argumentet er stendødt. Krigen i Irak har kostet amerikanerne, hvad der svarer til Iraks olieproduktion de næste 100 år. Dertil skal tilføjes, at olien stadig skal købes af Irakerne og ikke stjæles, som mange anti-amerikanere ønsker at udlægge det.
Nu får Irakerne glæde af oliepengene fremfor Sadam Husein.

Ulrik Høstblomst

og du er lønnet af Exxon's pressetjeneste eller Oliebranchens fællesråd ?

en lidt mere sober afregning i min mening:

Revealed: Secret Plan To keep Iraq Under US Control

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

By Patrick Cockburn

05/06/08 "The Independent" --- A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

___________________________________________________________
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Poya Pakzad has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Poya Pakzad endorsed or sponsored by the originator.

Tak for bidraget, Poya.

Det lyder som USA's standard-kontrakt for besættelse, de samme regler gælder overalt hvor USA har baser, f.eks. på Okinawa hvor befolkningen er rasende over de bølger af voldtægter, trafikdrab og overfald som de lokale myndigheder ikke har mulighed for at retsforfølge.

For alle de godtroende, som hoppede på dén med Bush's "vision" om demokrati i mellemøsten, bør dette her virke som en wake-up call. Bush regeringens totale foragt for Iraks suverænitet kunne ikke blive udtrykt mere tydeligt.

Ved det 56..sindstyvende Bilderberg Meeting, som finder sted nu i disse dage i Chantilly nær Washington, USA bliver Iraq sikkert diskuteret off-the-record sammen med andre emner, som er af betydning for befolkningerne. 140 personer fra Europa og USA deltager og pressen refererer ikke fra møderne, som af deltagerne ses som private.
Politikens Tøger Seidenfaden har bl.a. deltaget flere gange og avisen refererer ikke...

""CHANTILLY, Va. — The 56th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Chantilly, Virginia, USA 5 - 8 June 2008. The Conference will deal mainly with a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran. Approximately 140 participants will attend, of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America. About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds are from finance, industry, labor, education and communications. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion....""

http://www.centredaily.com/business/story/640197.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080605/20080605006246.html
https://secure.gn.apc.org/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.ph...
www.Bilderberg.org

Dutch Embassy changes Bilderberg 2008 press release.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-61ilgFH6U

Der skal selvfølgelig være en tilstedeværelse, så længe vi har et behov.

@Kim Vibe

Så længe 'vi' har et behov?

Så kan 'vi' jo lige så godt erklære at vi ikke er anderledes end nazisterne.

Nej, den afgørende forbrydelse var, at de tabte. Stalin blev jo ikke dømt for det samme trods angrebet på Polen, Finland, de baltiske lande og Rumænien.

"Der skal selvfølgelig være en tilstedeværelse, så længe vi har et behov."

Tal for dig selv - personligt har jeg intet behov for en amerikansk tilstedeværelse i Irak, snarere det modsatte. Det er muligt at du tilhører en obskur demografisk gruppe som faktisk har sådan et behov, selvom jeg tvivler. Og selv hvis det var tilfældet ville jeg tillade mig at fremføre at dine behov sandsynligvis må vige for hensynet til andre mennesker.

@Jacob1

Det anslås at der findes op mod 300 milliarder tønder olie i Irak!
Hvor meget er det irakkrigen har kostet?

Desuden kommer olien på private hænder, så irakerne ser nok ikke meget til alle de penge.

Og så kommer det jo ikke kun an på penge... den som kontrollerer olien i verden har reelt magten, for ikke et tandhjul drejer uden hjælp fra olien.

Frej,

Det er fordi, du lever i en naivistisk forestilling om forholdene i verdenssamfundet.

Du kan jo se på udviklingen, og så selv vurdere om "mit behov" må vige for hensynet til andre mennesker. Jeg stiller mig tvivlende.

UPDATE:

U. S. Extorts Iraq to Approve Military Deal

By PATRICK COCKBURN

The US is holding hostage some $50 billion of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported here yesterday.

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn.

The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.

Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity.

The US had previously denied it wanted permanent bases in Iraq, but American negotiators argue that so long as there is an Iraqi perimeter fence, even if it is manned by only one Iraqi soldier, around a US installation, then Iraq and not the US is in charge.

The US has security agreements with many countries, but none are occupied by 151,000 US soldiers as is Iraq. The US is not even willing to tell the government in Baghdad what American forces are entering or leaving Iraq, apparently because it fears the government will inform the Iranians, said an Iraqi source.

The fact that Iraq's financial reserves, increasing rapidly because of the high price of oil, continue to be held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is another legacy of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Under the UN mandate, oil revenues must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq which is in the bank.

The funds are under the control of the Iraqi government, though the US Treasury has strong influence on the form in which the reserves are held.

Iraqi officials say that, last year, they wanted to diversify their holdings out of the dollar, as it depreciated, into other assets, such as the euro, more likely to hold their value. This was vetoed by the US Treasury because American officials feared it would show lack of confidence in the dollar.

Iraqi officials say the consequence of the American action was to lose Iraq the equivalent of $5bn. Given intense American pressure on a weak Iraqi government very dependent on US support, it is still probable that the agreement will go through with only cosmetic changes. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the immensely influential Shia cleric, could prevent the pact by issuing a fatwa against it but has so far failed to do so.

The Grand Ayatollah met Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is the main supporter of the Iraqi government, earlier this week and did not condemn the agreement or call for a referendum. He said, according to Mr Hakim, that it must guarantee Iraqi national sovereignty, be transparent, command a national consensus and be approved by the Iraqi parliament.

Critics of the deal fear that the government will sign the agreement, and parliament approve it, in return for marginal concessions.

___________________________________________________________
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Poya Pakzad has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Poya Pakzad endorsed or sponsored by the originator.