U.S., Iraq reportedly close to pullout terms

[Ramo]

I find it hard, if not impossible, to believe we would want 58 bases there.

Right. Prominent members of the ruling parties in Iraq clearly have no credibility...

[Ramo]

More about the pressure:

US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal

By Patrick Cockburn
Friday, 6 June 2008
null

AFP/Getty Images

Under the planned pact, reported in The Independent yesterday, US soldiers in Iraq will enjoy legal immunity

* Photos enlarge

* Print Print
* Email Email

Search Search Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share

* Digg It
* del.icio.us
* Facebook
* Stumbleupon

What are these?
Change font size: A | A | A

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) 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, according to information leaked to The Independent.

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 for the first time in this newspaper 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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-to-iraqs-50bn-foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html

[Dinner]

That my friends is Cheney's work. He wants to force them to agree to a permanent US military presence while Iraqis want the US to get out and are even demanding, not asking but demanding, a time line for withdrawal. Cheney knows that without the US military hanging over their heads the Iraqis likely will eventually throw out the sweet heart deals which give a handful of US oil companies control over 75% of Iraq's oil. Those deals are immensely unpopular in Iraq and after we leave a government WILL renationalize those fields.

That's why Cheney is trying to force a deal before Bush leaves office. In the end the Iraqis will run out the clock on Bush-Cheney and he knows it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos


What permanent presence?

Cheney has been trying to arrange for a permanent US military presence in Iraq. They originally wanted a treaty but since 2006 when Democrats took over Cheney has known that he couldn't get a treaty through Congress so he's been trying to force them to sign an informal agreement which the Iraqis have been resisting tooth and nail. They really don't want us there and want us to leave. We should leave even if it means Exxon looses their sweet heart deal which was signed at the point of a gun.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
We asked for a lot of things at the beginning of the negotiations. That article was published 2 months ago. Nobody is forcing the Iraqis to do anything.

What a crock! We're going to freeze your assets and prevent you from using $50 billion of your own money until you give us what we want but we're not "forcing you".

[Apocalypse]

Ummm....Sadr's cease-fire is over....

[Dinner]

The demands that the US be able to control Iraq's foreign policy WRT what is a threat to Iraq is clearly a neo-colonial arrangement. I mean this is a classic 19th century British method of controlling colonial areas by first insisting that the UK have the right to conduct foreign policy "on their behalf". They don't want us there; 70% of Americans don't want us there so let's leave. I'm tired of wasting tax money just to protect Exxon-Mobile's sweetheart oil deals. Exxon can either be more reasonable or they can **** off.

Does anyone smell echos of the Platt Amendment here? This is the same neo-colonialist **** which lead most of Latin America to hating us.

[Apocalypse]

Also "they" can vary widely. I am not saying I want to be here, but the majority of townspeople seem to like us here. The local city council does not because we are building up infrastructure, which they have failed to do in the past few years. One of the things we are doing is improving the water system. It currently sucks and this will pretty much definitely add years onto the lives of a lot of people. The majority of medical problems in the area are due to the water, according to the head doctor of the hospital. That both is a problem and takes away resources from other health issues.

[Ramo]

Ummm....Sadr's cease-fire is over....

Unless you're breaking some news that just happened, you're mistaken (go to Google News and look up Sadr).

[Zkribbler]

BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

This is INSANE! If this would occur, how could the people of Iraq view their government as anything but a U.S. puppet?? This plan can lead nowhere but to an increased insurrection.

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

[Apocalypse]

It happened a few days ago actually.

[Ramo]

Do you have a source?

As I said, go to google news and look up Sadr. For added measure, you can try words like "cease-fire" and "truce."

[Apocalypse]

Yeah. It was announced, plus JAM already IEDed a couple nights ago.

[Ramo]

For example, this is from today:

Iraqi cleric links truce, US withdrawal timetable

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA – 8 hours ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr will call on his fighters to maintain a cease-fire against American troops but may lift the order if a planned Iraq-U.S. security agreement lacks a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces, a spokesman said Thursday.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD92DG1I81

[Apocalypse]

No, it's over. JAM came back into Maysan and have started ****.