No Iraqi Consensus on US Security Pact
Many unsure what to make of historic deal signed off last week.
No Iraqi Consensus on US Security Pact
Many unsure what to make of historic deal signed off last week.
A new security pact with the United States which will allow American troops to remain in Iraq until 2011 has provoked mixed reactions across the country.
People interviewed by IWPR in several provinces expressed everything from enthusiasm, indifference to cynicism about the new agreement, which Iraq's presidency council approved on December 4.
Under the pact, the power of US forces in Iraq will be restricted, and they will withdraw from its cities by June 30, 2009, and from the rest of the country by the end of 2011.
The Iraqi parliament's approval of the deal was considered a political achievement for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who spent months hammering it out with George W Bush's administration.
Debate over the agreement proved fierce, with Maliki facing opposition from both Sunni as well as Shia members of parliament, mainly those loyal to Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Many Sunni Arab MPs – whose support was crucial to the vote – only came on board after lawmakers agreed to a Sunni demand that a referendum on the pact be held by late July 2009.
“While the MPs represent the Iraqi people, we need the people themselves to share clearly with us their opinions so that we won't have to take on this historic responsibility alone,” Abdul Karim al-Samari, leader of the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front, told IWPR.
If Iraqis reject the security agreement in a referendum, all US forces will leave Iraq by July 2010.
In the northern city of Mosul, a stronghold of the Iraqi insurgency and of al-Qaeda militants, some expressed scepticism.
Muhammad Iqbal Omar, a political analyst, noted that the agreement was not sponsored by the United Nations.
He also said it provided no guarantee that the US would pull its troops out in three years.
However, Omar added that it had many positive points, which would help “restore balance in decision-making positions and the rights of a big section of the society that was wronged by the occupation”, mainly in reference to the country’s Sunni population.
Ibrahim Muhammad, a civil servant from Mosul, said Iraqis had reservations about the agreement because they did not know its details.
He, however, supported the deal, saying he backed “an immediate withdrawal of US forces”.
Kamal Saadi, a professor at Salahaddin University in the Kurdish city of Erbil, noted that under the agreement, Iraq will spend more on reconstruction than on the military.
He said he feared security might deteriorate if US forces withdrew, which would force Iraq to step up its military spending.
Some Iraqi Kurds, meanwhile, are concerned how the pact will affect Iraqi Kurdistan, which has enjoyed substantial autonomy from Baghdad over the past five years and where many distrust the central authorities.
Saddam Hussein's regime relied on all powerful central authority which quashed dissent and persecuted Iraqis, including Shias, Kurds and other groups.
The new deal provides the Iraqi military and government with more power than it has had since the US military began controlling Iraqi security after Saddam's regime was ousted in 2003.
“The pact entitles the central government to be strong,” said Handren Ahmad, editor-in-chief of Regay Kurdistan weekly newspaper in Erbil.
“The reinforcement might be then used against the Iraqi people, as has been the case in the past.”
Walid Khalid, a Basra University lecturer, backs the pact, saying it could provide stability and force Iraqis to “stop blaming neighbouring countries for border problems and other issues”.
Some Iraqis complain that Iran enjoys too much influence in Iraq.
Many interviewed by IWPR expressed frustration at not knowing more about the details of the agreement, however. They blamed the government for not better educating the public about it.
“We don't know if it is in the interest of the Iraqi people because we have no idea about its articles,” said Akila al-Hashimi, a lecturer in Al-Nahrain University in Baghdad.
Hashimi also speculated that the agreement could change under US president-elect Barack Obama, who takes office in January, when it comes into effect.
The heated debate over the US deal created deeper rifts among some parties in parliament and did little to improve confidence in Iraqi lawmakers, said some Iraqis. The vote on the pact, which 149 of 275 Iraqi lawmakers approved, was broadcast live on state television.
The Iraqi foreign minister had to leave one of the parliamentary sessions as debate over the agreement turned into a brawl.
Ahmad Sami Omar, a Baghdad lawyer, described the political bickering during the session as “chaotic”, but said “it reflected the situation in Iraq”.
IWPR-trained journalists in Baghdad, Erbil, Basra and Mosul contributed to this report.
People interviewed by IWPR in several provinces expressed everything from enthusiasm, indifference to cynicism about the new agreement, which Iraq's presidency council approved on December 4.
Under the pact, the power of US forces in Iraq will be restricted, and they will withdraw from its cities by June 30, 2009, and from the rest of the country by the end of 2011.
The Iraqi parliament's approval of the deal was considered a political achievement for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who spent months hammering it out with George W Bush's administration.
Debate over the agreement proved fierce, with Maliki facing opposition from both Sunni as well as Shia members of parliament, mainly those loyal to Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Many Sunni Arab MPs – whose support was crucial to the vote – only came on board after lawmakers agreed to a Sunni demand that a referendum on the pact be held by late July 2009.
“While the MPs represent the Iraqi people, we need the people themselves to share clearly with us their opinions so that we won't have to take on this historic responsibility alone,” Abdul Karim al-Samari, leader of the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front, told IWPR.
If Iraqis reject the security agreement in a referendum, all US forces will leave Iraq by July 2010.
In the northern city of Mosul, a stronghold of the Iraqi insurgency and of al-Qaeda militants, some expressed scepticism.
Muhammad Iqbal Omar, a political analyst, noted that the agreement was not sponsored by the United Nations.
He also said it provided no guarantee that the US would pull its troops out in three years.
However, Omar added that it had many positive points, which would help “restore balance in decision-making positions and the rights of a big section of the society that was wronged by the occupation”, mainly in reference to the country’s Sunni population.
Ibrahim Muhammad, a civil servant from Mosul, said Iraqis had reservations about the agreement because they did not know its details.
He, however, supported the deal, saying he backed “an immediate withdrawal of US forces”.
Kamal Saadi, a professor at Salahaddin University in the Kurdish city of Erbil, noted that under the agreement, Iraq will spend more on reconstruction than on the military.
He said he feared security might deteriorate if US forces withdrew, which would force Iraq to step up its military spending.
Some Iraqi Kurds, meanwhile, are concerned how the pact will affect Iraqi Kurdistan, which has enjoyed substantial autonomy from Baghdad over the past five years and where many distrust the central authorities.
Saddam Hussein's regime relied on all powerful central authority which quashed dissent and persecuted Iraqis, including Shias, Kurds and other groups.
The new deal provides the Iraqi military and government with more power than it has had since the US military began controlling Iraqi security after Saddam's regime was ousted in 2003.
“The pact entitles the central government to be strong,” said Handren Ahmad, editor-in-chief of Regay Kurdistan weekly newspaper in Erbil.
“The reinforcement might be then used against the Iraqi people, as has been the case in the past.”
Walid Khalid, a Basra University lecturer, backs the pact, saying it could provide stability and force Iraqis to “stop blaming neighbouring countries for border problems and other issues”.
Some Iraqis complain that Iran enjoys too much influence in Iraq.
Many interviewed by IWPR expressed frustration at not knowing more about the details of the agreement, however. They blamed the government for not better educating the public about it.
“We don't know if it is in the interest of the Iraqi people because we have no idea about its articles,” said Akila al-Hashimi, a lecturer in Al-Nahrain University in Baghdad.
Hashimi also speculated that the agreement could change under US president-elect Barack Obama, who takes office in January, when it comes into effect.
The heated debate over the US deal created deeper rifts among some parties in parliament and did little to improve confidence in Iraqi lawmakers, said some Iraqis. The vote on the pact, which 149 of 275 Iraqi lawmakers approved, was broadcast live on state television.
The Iraqi foreign minister had to leave one of the parliamentary sessions as debate over the agreement turned into a brawl.
Ahmad Sami Omar, a Baghdad lawyer, described the political bickering during the session as “chaotic”, but said “it reflected the situation in Iraq”.
IWPR-trained journalists in Baghdad, Erbil, Basra and Mosul contributed to this report.
