Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Bush administration says it may not get Iraq deal this year

Yahoo! News
Back to Story - Help
Bush administration says it may not get Iraq deal this year
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press WriterMon Jun 9, 10:48 PM ET
The Bush administration is conceding for the first time that the United 
States may not finish a complex security agreement with Iraq before 
President Bush leaves office.
Faced with stiff Iraqi opposition, it is "very possible" the U.S. may have 
to extend an existing U.N. mandate, said a senior administration official 
close to the talks. That would mean major decisions about how U.S. forces 
operate in Iraq could be left to the next president, including how much 
authority the U.S. must give Iraqis over military operations and how quickly 
the handover takes place.
The official said the goal is still to have an agreement by year's end. And 
the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said he feels no pressure from 
the U.S. political calendar, and that Dec. 31 is "a clear deadline."
Still, Crocker also said last week, "My focus on this is more on getting it 
done right than getting it done quick."
The Bush administration is seeking an agreement with Baghdad that would 
provide for a normal, permanent U.S. military and diplomatic presence in 
Iraq. The word "permanent" has been a flashpoint for many who oppose the 
war, both in the U.S. and Iraq. But the U.S. official stressed that the 
agreement will not call for permanent U.S. bases on Iraqi soil.
Instead, the proposed agreement would allow U.S. troops or personnel to 
operate out of U.S., Iraqi or joint facilities through either short or 
long-term contracts, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity 
because the negotiations are not public.
"The idea that the U.S. will have a normal, diplomatic and military 
presence, and need access to facilities - not necessarily our facilities, 
but need facilities - is permanent," said the official, who is close to the 
ongoing talks.
Those facilities, the official said, could belong to the Iraqis, and the 
U.S. would simply be using them on a renewable basis. Or they could be 
existing U.S. facilities that over time would be taken over by the Iraqis.
U.S. and Iraqi leaders are struggling to negotiate two parallel agreements. 
One would lay out broad, long-term political, economic and security ties 
between the U.S. and Iraq, setting up a normal state-to-state relationship.
The second - and decidedly more difficult pact - is the Status of Forces 
Agreement that would detail the legal basis for the ongoing presence of U.S. 
military forces operating in Iraq. The agreements would replace a United 
Nations mandate that has been in place since the U.S.-led invasion in March 
2003, but expires at the end of this year.
The U.S. and Iraq may be able to map out the broader document describing the 
two countries' long-term relationship, but may have to extend the current 
U.N. mandate because many of the thornier military details will require more 
time, the U.S. official said.
On Monday, Sens. Carl Levin and John Warner sent a letter to Secretary of 
State Condoleezza Rice urging the administration to "be more transparent, 
with greater consultation, about the progress of these deliberations."
"The situation in Iraq is extremely complex and Congress ... has legitimate 
concerns" about the agreements, wrote Levin, D-Mich., and Warner, R-Va. 
Levin is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Warner is a 
member.
Iraqi officials have raised a number of objections to the draft documents, 
both publicly and privately. And they are now suggesting that the latest 
proposal isn't even worth submitting to their parliament for approval.
On Monday two Iraqi lawmakers who saw the proposed draft said the document, 
put forward Sunday, said it seeks to address some of Iraq's concerns. It 
adds an explicit promise that U.S. forces in Iraq will not attack 
neighboring countries and that Iraqi authorities will be notified in advance 
of any action by U.S. ground forces, the lawmakers said.
While it gives U.S. forces the power to arrest suspects, it says any 
detainees would be handed over to Iraqi authorities, said the lawmakers, 
Mahmoud Othman and Iman al-Asadi.
Hadi al-Amri, head of the Badr Organization, a pro-government Shiite party 
with close ties to Iran, said the latest draft was still unacceptable, and 
warned that the positions and interests of the two sides are so far apart 
that any kind of agreement is "impossible."
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been meeting with Iranian leaders 
in Tehran this week, and Iran's supreme leader voiced strong opposition to 
the U.S.-Iraqi security pact.
The Iranians fear the deal would solidify U.S. influence in Iraq and give 
American forces a launching pad for military action against them. Al-Maliki 
tried to ease Tehran's concerns, assuring the Iranians that a deal would 
pose no threat to their security.
Preserving Iraq's sovereignty is the critical underpinning of the agreement, 
affecting all of the more specific, and troublesome issues. For example, 
while the Iraqis want control of their own air space, the U.S. questions 
whether Iraq commanders should have to approve every aircraft flight or 
combat operation.
Iraq has been expanding and improving its military, but approving each of 
the many U.S. troop movements that go on daily all across the country likely 
would be beyond its current capability.
Another option would be for U.S. commanders to coordinate movements with the 
Iraqis, but only require approval for certain operations. A key priority for 
Washington is to maintain the U.S. military's ability to gather intelligence 
and conduct counterterrorism activities.
One way to resolve the matter would be to include provisions in the 
agreement that would expire, or require renewal every year or two. That 
would allow a gradual transition to greater Iraqi control as the country 
advances.
One key sticking point involves the Iraqis' desire to end the blanket 
immunity that U.S. contractors now enjoy. But U.S. officials believe that 
security contractors working for the State Department and Defense Department 
should continue to be immune under Iraqi law.
The issue gained notoriety last year after a shooting incident involving 
Blackwater Worldwide guards left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.
A second point involves coalition forces currently serving in Iraq. The 
security agreement would only apply to U.S. forces, so the Iraqis would have 
to decide how to deal with troops from other countries that are included in 
the U.N. mandate.
___
On the Net:
Defense Department: 
http://www.defenselink.mil
 

 E' anche la prova che quello Irakeno non e' un regime fantoccio,
ma ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
e sto imbecille inglese si spaccia per esperto di politica internazionale?
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.larinascita.org
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 E' anche la prova che quello Irakeno non e' un regime fantoccio
o che quella irakena è una resistenza coi controcazzi e quindi il
regime deve mettersi di traverso agli americani per non saltare per
aria...

 A me risulta che e' il Parlamento a rifiutare le leggi dei proconsoli.
e a me risulta che i parlamentari prima o poi dovranno uscire dalla
Zona Verde, e quindi o rifiutano le leggi, o sono uomini morti.