Iraq at odds with US over troop presence beyond 2008

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the cabinet discussed the proposed Status of Forces Agreement which is scheduled to be concluded by next month and insisted that Iraq’s national interests must be protected.

 

"A joint vision on this issue is yet to be achieved between the two sides, and ... the Iraqi side has a different vision, and it will not undercut or be negligent towards Iraqis rights and sovereignty," Dabbagh said.Â

 

He said the cabinet had backed the Iraqi negotiating team which had already been asked by the national Security Council to ensure that national interests were not compromised.

 

"The Council of Ministers agreed unanimously on backing the Iraqi negotiating delegation in relation to adhering to the national principles, safeguarding Iraq’s full sovereignty, and Iraq’s control over national decisions and its people’s interests," Dabbagh said.

 

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and US President George W. Bush signed a non-binding statement of principles in November for the negotiations, which began in March with the aim of concluding a pact by the end of July.

 

The proposed agreement is aimed at giving a legal basis to US troops after the December 31 expiry of a UN mandate defining their current status.

 

There are currently about 150,000 US troops deployed in Iraq, which was invaded by US-led forces in March 2003.

 

The proposed pact has come under fire from religious and political leaders both in Iraq and in neighboring Iran with anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr vowing to keeping up protests until the deal is scrapped.

 

Dabbagh said the cabinet emphasized the full commitment to protecting Iraq’s security, property, and resources in line with international resolutions and the level of protection currently provided.

 

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari welcomed the political debate within the country and said Baghdad had sent teams to several countries to study their military pacts with the US.

 

"We dispatched four technical teams to Germany, Turkey, South Korea and Japan to see how they did in these countries," Zebari told reporters on Sunday.

 

Zebari said the situation in Iraq was different to other countries with which Washington had military agreements because of continuing military operations. "There are still ongoing operations by the US army," he said. "We need this strategic agreement. It is an Iraqi need, but it will not be open-ended."

 

He added that Baghdad had assured its neighbors that the deal will not go against their national interests. "There is no hidden agenda," he added.

 

The Bush administration has said that any deal with Iraq would be similar to more than 80 such pacts Washington has with other nations around the world governing the scope of US operations and providing protection for its soldiers. It says the pact will not specify troop levels, establish permanent bases in Iraq or tie the next president’s hands.

 

But Democrats in the US say a pact with Iraq is different because troops are in a war zone, and fear the deal would be used by the administration to set in stone a US presence far outlasting Bush’s term which expires in January.

 

Democrat presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both argued for a prompt withdrawal of US troops.

 

Photo: AP