Press TV reports:
The main Sunni-Arab bloc in the Iraqi Parliament threatens to boycott a parliament session to vote on the Iraq-US security agreement.
"The IAF would not enter the parliament if there was no popular referendum over the agreement or assurances from the US side," Abdelkareem al-Samarraie, a leading lawmaker from the Iraqi Accord Front (IAF), told the Voices of Iraq on Tuesday.
The lawmaker said parliament should postpone voting on the deal, since every one agrees how serious the pact is. The Parliament is to put the pact to a vote on Wednesday.
Earlier, the bloc's leader, Adnan al-Dulaimi, had said the agreement, which is endorsed by the Iraqi cabinet, should be put to the public in a referendum.
Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi also called on the country's politicians not to make any 'hasty' decision on the agreement, which is the most challenging issue facing Iraq since the overthrow of the Saddam regime in 2003.
Under the deal the US would be allowed to stay three more years in Iraq after its UN mandate expires in December 31.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Chávez Supporters Win 17 out of 23 Venezuelan States, but Lose 3 Most Populous
from venezuelanalysis.com
President Hugo Chavez’s governing party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) got mixed results in the regional and local elections today, winning stronghly in 17 out of 23 states, but losing the country’s two most populous states and the Capital District of Caracas, with two more states still to be decided.
At midnight Venezuelan time, about eight hours after the first polls closed, the president of Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE), Tibisay Lucena, announced the results of the regional and local elections, with 95% of the vote counted.
According to Lucena, participation had reached an unprecedented high for a regional vote, at 65.45%. Over 17 million voters were registered, which is several million more than in the last such election four years ago. As a result, lines tended to be long and many polling places had to remain open far longer than the official closing time of 4pm.
Chávez’s PSUV lost the governorships of the two most populous states, Miranda and Zulia, and the mayor’s office of greater Caracas, which will be a significant blow to Chávez and his movement.
The perhaps greatest surprise is the upset victory, with 52.45% of the vote, of opposition leader Antonio Ledezma, of the Brave People’s Alliance, in greater Caracas. Ledezma once was governor of the city, from 1992 to 1995, when it was an appointed office. He was then elected as mayor of the city’s main municipality of Libertador in 1995. Ledezma is considered to be an integral part of the country’s old political guard, given his ties to former President Carlos Andrés Perez.
His challenger this time around was Aristóbulo Isturiz, also a former mayor of Libertador, and former education minister for Chávez. Isturiz is one of the few Afro-Venezuelan politicians of Venezuela with national name-recognition.
The other upset victory is in the state of Miranda, one of the country’s most populous and wealthiest states, where Henrique Capriles Radonski won with 52.56% of the vote, against Diosdado Cabello, the incumbent governor and close confidant of President Chávez. Capriles was able to win on the basis of his success as mayor of the upper class Caracas municipality of Baruta, against Cabello’s relatively poor performance in Miranda.
Finally, the third key opposition victory was in Zulia, where Pablo Perez, the right-hand man of current governor and opposition leader Manuel Rosales beat GianCarlo DiMartino 53.6% to 45.0%. Zulia is another relatively wealthy state with some of the country’s main oil deposits and the largest population.
Another opposition win was in the state of Nueva Esparta, which is mainly the tourist island of Margarita, and which was generally an expected opposition victory.
States where the opposition might still win include the industrial state of Carabobo, where the former opposition governor Henrique Salas Feo is running against PSUV candidate Mario Silva, who is the former host of the satirical talk show “The Razor Blade.” The other state for which no result has been announced is the border state of Táchira, on the Colombian border.
The 17 states where Chávez’s candidates won, they managed to do so often by beating both the opposition candidates and dissident Chávez supporters. For example, PSUV candidate and former communications minister William Lara beat, with 52.1% of the vote, Lenny Manuitt, the daughter of the former pro-Chávez governor in Guarico state.
The Process
Whilst it was aimed to have voting centers closed by 4pm, the president of the CNE, Tibisay Lucena, said that they would remain open as long as there were voters in waiting in line to vote. Some opposition leaders, including Julio Borges from Justice First party, Henry Ramos from Democratic Action and Ismael Garcia from We Can, denounced the extension of voting hours and threatened not to recognize the results.
By 9pm, according to the chief of the Strategic Operational Command (CEO), General Jesus Gonzalez, more than 50 people had been arrested and 106 detained for various electoral crimes. Other than that voting was considered to have proceeded very normally and calmly.
Gonzalez said the vast majority of the crimes were destruction of electoral material, and for distributing political pamphlets. A large proportion of the violations were for tearing up the voting receipt.
In the state of Anzoategui a group of people on motorbikes removed two rifles from militia acting as part of Plan Republic, aimed at protecting the voting center.
Chávez Congratulates Nation
In a late-night address to the nation, President Chávez congratulated the Venezuelan people for having participated in the electoral event in a “civic and joyful” manner.
The event “ratifies” Venezuelan democracy, but not like the “democracy of before” his election to the presidency, which “belonged to the elites,” said Chávez.
Chávez also conceded defeat in the state of Miranda and of the capital district, asking, “Who can say that there is a dictatorship in Venezuela? Well, perhaps some will continue to say so.”
However, he highlighted that of the 17 governorships his party had won, eight of these it won with about 60% of the vote and the others with about 10% difference to the closest rival. Also, his party garnered about six million votes, which represents a significant development for his recently formed party, the PSUV.
This result for the PSUV compares to the approximately four million votes the opposition obtained, according to PSUV vice-president Alberto Müller Rojas, and thus maintains the ratio of previous elections (except last year’s constitutional reform referendum, which was barely lost 51-49), of more or less 60-40 in favor of Chavez’s Bolivarian movement.
For Chávez, “The construction of socialism in Venezuela is ratified and now we will now take charge of deepening it.”
Tamara Pearson also contributed to this article.
-------
Comment: this election should, hopefully, calm down the knee-jerk "socialism bashers" who claim that socialist regimes are never democratic: the fact is that Chavez, unlike his CIA funded opponents, is a democrat *and* a socialist and that socialism is neither more nor less inherently democratic than capitalism as both of these economic models can be democratic and both of these can turn democracy into a farce.
Turning to the bigger picture for a minute, it is very heartening to see that almost all of Latin America (except Colombia) has now thrown off the yoke of US imperialism and is doing what Europe failed to do: gradually developing a regional development model. While the case of Bolivia has clearly shown that very real risks of direct US intervention, I am hopeful that the continent is gradually reaching a point of no return in which the old hyper-capitalist American stooges are gradually loosing their grip on power and, to use the Soviet expression, are finally headed for the "trash heaps of history".
The Saker
President Hugo Chavez’s governing party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) got mixed results in the regional and local elections today, winning stronghly in 17 out of 23 states, but losing the country’s two most populous states and the Capital District of Caracas, with two more states still to be decided.
At midnight Venezuelan time, about eight hours after the first polls closed, the president of Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE), Tibisay Lucena, announced the results of the regional and local elections, with 95% of the vote counted.
According to Lucena, participation had reached an unprecedented high for a regional vote, at 65.45%. Over 17 million voters were registered, which is several million more than in the last such election four years ago. As a result, lines tended to be long and many polling places had to remain open far longer than the official closing time of 4pm.
Chávez’s PSUV lost the governorships of the two most populous states, Miranda and Zulia, and the mayor’s office of greater Caracas, which will be a significant blow to Chávez and his movement.
The perhaps greatest surprise is the upset victory, with 52.45% of the vote, of opposition leader Antonio Ledezma, of the Brave People’s Alliance, in greater Caracas. Ledezma once was governor of the city, from 1992 to 1995, when it was an appointed office. He was then elected as mayor of the city’s main municipality of Libertador in 1995. Ledezma is considered to be an integral part of the country’s old political guard, given his ties to former President Carlos Andrés Perez.
His challenger this time around was Aristóbulo Isturiz, also a former mayor of Libertador, and former education minister for Chávez. Isturiz is one of the few Afro-Venezuelan politicians of Venezuela with national name-recognition.
The other upset victory is in the state of Miranda, one of the country’s most populous and wealthiest states, where Henrique Capriles Radonski won with 52.56% of the vote, against Diosdado Cabello, the incumbent governor and close confidant of President Chávez. Capriles was able to win on the basis of his success as mayor of the upper class Caracas municipality of Baruta, against Cabello’s relatively poor performance in Miranda.
Finally, the third key opposition victory was in Zulia, where Pablo Perez, the right-hand man of current governor and opposition leader Manuel Rosales beat GianCarlo DiMartino 53.6% to 45.0%. Zulia is another relatively wealthy state with some of the country’s main oil deposits and the largest population.
Another opposition win was in the state of Nueva Esparta, which is mainly the tourist island of Margarita, and which was generally an expected opposition victory.
States where the opposition might still win include the industrial state of Carabobo, where the former opposition governor Henrique Salas Feo is running against PSUV candidate Mario Silva, who is the former host of the satirical talk show “The Razor Blade.” The other state for which no result has been announced is the border state of Táchira, on the Colombian border.
The 17 states where Chávez’s candidates won, they managed to do so often by beating both the opposition candidates and dissident Chávez supporters. For example, PSUV candidate and former communications minister William Lara beat, with 52.1% of the vote, Lenny Manuitt, the daughter of the former pro-Chávez governor in Guarico state.
The Process
Whilst it was aimed to have voting centers closed by 4pm, the president of the CNE, Tibisay Lucena, said that they would remain open as long as there were voters in waiting in line to vote. Some opposition leaders, including Julio Borges from Justice First party, Henry Ramos from Democratic Action and Ismael Garcia from We Can, denounced the extension of voting hours and threatened not to recognize the results.
By 9pm, according to the chief of the Strategic Operational Command (CEO), General Jesus Gonzalez, more than 50 people had been arrested and 106 detained for various electoral crimes. Other than that voting was considered to have proceeded very normally and calmly.
Gonzalez said the vast majority of the crimes were destruction of electoral material, and for distributing political pamphlets. A large proportion of the violations were for tearing up the voting receipt.
In the state of Anzoategui a group of people on motorbikes removed two rifles from militia acting as part of Plan Republic, aimed at protecting the voting center.
Chávez Congratulates Nation
In a late-night address to the nation, President Chávez congratulated the Venezuelan people for having participated in the electoral event in a “civic and joyful” manner.
The event “ratifies” Venezuelan democracy, but not like the “democracy of before” his election to the presidency, which “belonged to the elites,” said Chávez.
Chávez also conceded defeat in the state of Miranda and of the capital district, asking, “Who can say that there is a dictatorship in Venezuela? Well, perhaps some will continue to say so.”
However, he highlighted that of the 17 governorships his party had won, eight of these it won with about 60% of the vote and the others with about 10% difference to the closest rival. Also, his party garnered about six million votes, which represents a significant development for his recently formed party, the PSUV.
This result for the PSUV compares to the approximately four million votes the opposition obtained, according to PSUV vice-president Alberto Müller Rojas, and thus maintains the ratio of previous elections (except last year’s constitutional reform referendum, which was barely lost 51-49), of more or less 60-40 in favor of Chavez’s Bolivarian movement.
For Chávez, “The construction of socialism in Venezuela is ratified and now we will now take charge of deepening it.”
Tamara Pearson also contributed to this article.
-------
Comment: this election should, hopefully, calm down the knee-jerk "socialism bashers" who claim that socialist regimes are never democratic: the fact is that Chavez, unlike his CIA funded opponents, is a democrat *and* a socialist and that socialism is neither more nor less inherently democratic than capitalism as both of these economic models can be democratic and both of these can turn democracy into a farce.
Turning to the bigger picture for a minute, it is very heartening to see that almost all of Latin America (except Colombia) has now thrown off the yoke of US imperialism and is doing what Europe failed to do: gradually developing a regional development model. While the case of Bolivia has clearly shown that very real risks of direct US intervention, I am hopeful that the continent is gradually reaching a point of no return in which the old hyper-capitalist American stooges are gradually loosing their grip on power and, to use the Soviet expression, are finally headed for the "trash heaps of history".
The Saker
Sunday, November 23, 2008
What are the Israelis up to next?
Amazing article in Ha'aretz today. Check this one out (my comments added in blue):
Defense establishment paper: Golan for Syria peace, plan for Iran strike
By Barak Ravid
A defense establishment paper recommends making contingency plans to attack Iran, reaching an agreement with Syria that includes leaving the Golan Heights and preventing new elections in the Palestinian Authority, even if this means a confrontation with the United States.
The paper will be presented to the cabinet next month as part of the National Security Council's annual situation assessment.
The document warns that in 2009, Israel may find itself facing a nuclear Iran virtually alone, following a rapprochement between the U.S., Iran and the Arab world that would also undermine Israel's military superiority.
Additionally, it warns of a possible collapse of the PA, which would effectively kill the two-state solution (notice the wording here? it *warns* that a two-state solution might be killed by a collapse of the PA. This makes it quite clear that the so-called two-state solution is what *Israel* needs as opposed to an anti-Apartheid struggle for equality within one state, which is, of course, what the Palestinians really need)
"Iran's threat to Israel's survival" is at the top of the paper's list of threats, followed by the "strategic threat" of long-range missiles and rockets owned by various countries in the region.
"Israel faces these threats almost alone," the paper says. "It is imperative to mobilize the international community and obtain regional cooperation. The new American administration is an opportunity to do this." (very honest assessment here: Bush was hated world wide, whereas Obama will present the world with a kind of "Zionism with a human face" which will make is possible for Israel to get more support from the rest of the world)
The paper says Israel has a limited "window" in which to act before Iran obtains nuclear arms and regional hegemony. Israel must therefore establish a military option against Iran, in case other countries abandon the struggle. The defense establishment advises the cabinet to "work discreetly on contingency plans to deal with a nuclear Iran." (nothing new here)
It also recommends close cooperation with the U.S. to prevent a deal between Washington and Tehran that would undermine Israel's interests. (Interesting, no? on one side there is the absolutely clear *need* for the USA to get some kind of deal with Iran over Iraq and the rest of the region, on the other there is the equally clear need of Israel to prevent that from happening. Given the choice between US national interests and Israeli nation interests, which do you expect President Emanuel, excuse me, President Obama to choose?)
The paper warns that after PA President Mahmoud Abbas' term ends on January 9, 2009, he might "disappear" from the political arena. (Yeah? no kidding? The Zio-puppet Abbas who has exactly achieved *nothing* for his people might disappear?!) That could cause the PA to disintegrate, which would increase the risk of the two-state solution being taken off the table. (Amen to that! Not one moment too soon)
Due to this possibility, coupled with the fear that Hamas might win a new election, the paper recommends "preventing elections in the PA, even at the cost of a confrontation with the U.S. and the international community." (No worries here, the so-called "international community" does not given a damn about the Palestinians so the Israelis can merrily continue their little genocide in Gaza or even extend it to the West Bank with no adverse effects on being the "only democracy in the Middle-East").
The paper also advises continued Israeli pressure on Hamas to isolate and weaken it, along with bolstering alternatives to it. "If the truce collapses and conflict is resumed in the Gaza Strip, Israel must act to topple Hamas' rule there," it says. (Nonsense, Hamas is already quite busy toppling itself with is utterly naive negotiations with Mubarak and with its inability to make Israel pay a political price for its genocide in Gaza by, for example, large civil protests).
Regarding Syria, the paper says "an agreement with Syria must be advanced, despite the heavy price Israel would have to pay." The defense establishment believes that removing Syria from the conflict would lead to an agreement with Lebanon as well, thus significantly weakening the radical Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. (Here the Israelis are kidding themselves: there is not Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. The only real axis here is an alliance between Iran and Hezbollah which Israel will not be able to disrupt anyway).
The new American administration must be harnessed to support this process, the paper adds (Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nansi Pelosi, Madeleine Albright, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, etc. etc. etc. I would say that the "harnessing" part is going very well)
Israel should support moderate factions in Lebanon in next year's scheduled parliamentary elections, but not at the expense of Israel's interests, it continues. At the same time, Israel must strengthen its deterrence against Hezbollah and take "low-profile" action against Hezbollah's arms smuggling. (Translation: stop supporting the Three Stooges - Hariri, Jumblatt and Siniora - in Lebanon and try to blockade Hezbollah)
The paper proposes various steps to strengthen Israel's ties with moderate Sunni Arab countries, and especially Saudi Arabia. "Israel must examine ways to expand its dialogue with Saudi Arabia on various shared interests," the document says. It must also act to neutralize potential risks in Saudi Arabia, such as its development of nuclear capability, its purchase of long-range missiles or its closing of the military gap with Israel. (Of course, this is part of the strategic anti-Shia "redirection" plan followed by US and Israel for a while already: use the Sunni, including the worst Wahabi crackpots, against the Shia).
Jordan, the paper says, is experiencing an acute political and economic crisis. "Jordan feels abandoned in the regional face-off and continues to see Israel and the West as strategic supports," it says. "Strengthening and stabilizing our ties with Jordan is crucial to Israel's security. Economic cooperation with Jordan must be strengthened." (Sure thing: Jordan is the only US-Israeli puppet which is still halfway stable; they better make sure it stays that way)
With regard to the new administration in Washington, the document warns that "the U.S. is interested in setting up a regional and international alignment against Iran (Against Iran?! Really? But I thought that it was a "deal" between Washington and Tehran which was on the agenda. I guess the "redirection" is problematic too since it will strengthen the Wahabis in the region. So which short term solution is better? Use the Sunnis against the Shia and strengthen the Sunnis, or not strengthen the Sunnis too much and loose much of the effects of the "redirection"? I am amazed at how blind and stupid such Israeli policies are, and how mistaken their hope for the usual "divide and conquer" policies is), and Israel is the one that might pay the price." It predicts that Iran and the U.S. will begin talks and warns that Israel must work to prevent any agreement that would be "problematic" from its point of view (Well, since *any* agreement between the US and Iran is "problematic" from the Israeli point of view, Israel will simply need to prevent any and all of them).
The paper recommends persuading the new administration to support the talks with Syria, to which the Bush administration objected. The U.S., for its part, is expected to demand that Israel bolster the moderates in Lebanon by making concessions in Shaba Farms and Ghajar and ending its objection to America's arming of the Lebanese Army (Like any of that will weaken Hezbollah! The Israelis are just so stupid, it always amazes me...)
Israel must also ensure that recommendations prepared by three American generals on Israeli-Palestinian security coordination, which are to be presented to the new administration, correspond with its interests, the paper says (Notice that there is never, ever, a mention of US interests? Israel does not even pretend to give a damn about that. Some "ally" for the USA...)
It also warns that the U.S. is arming moderate Arab states, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, "in a way that undermines the Israel Defense Forces' edge, especially in the air." Israel must act to prevent this as much as possible, it says.
The paper also discusses Israel's possible responses to a Hamas provocation in the south or a Hezbollah provocation in the north in 2009. It stresses that Israel must avoid a war of attrition or a two-front conflict, and therefore, it must first try to contain the provocation rather than be dragged into a retaliation that would escalate the situation. Afterward, however, it should send a "firm message of deterrence." (No kidding?! After getting beaten the hell by about 1000 Hezbollah fighters the "invincible Tsahal" has no stomach for another such war? Good. But how that is compatible with a message of "firm deterrence" is unclear. What is clear is that Israel fears Hezbollah whereas Hezbollah fears nobody, least of all Israel)
If the escalation continues, Israel must "consider embarking on a broad confrontation to hit the enemy severely and end the clash within a short time, and with as clear a result as possible," it adds. (Translation: attacking the Lebanese civilians with even more brutality than in 2006. Makes sense. After all, that's all that Israel is good at).
Defense establishment paper: Golan for Syria peace, plan for Iran strike
By Barak Ravid
A defense establishment paper recommends making contingency plans to attack Iran, reaching an agreement with Syria that includes leaving the Golan Heights and preventing new elections in the Palestinian Authority, even if this means a confrontation with the United States.
The paper will be presented to the cabinet next month as part of the National Security Council's annual situation assessment.
The document warns that in 2009, Israel may find itself facing a nuclear Iran virtually alone, following a rapprochement between the U.S., Iran and the Arab world that would also undermine Israel's military superiority.
Additionally, it warns of a possible collapse of the PA, which would effectively kill the two-state solution (notice the wording here? it *warns* that a two-state solution might be killed by a collapse of the PA. This makes it quite clear that the so-called two-state solution is what *Israel* needs as opposed to an anti-Apartheid struggle for equality within one state, which is, of course, what the Palestinians really need)
"Iran's threat to Israel's survival" is at the top of the paper's list of threats, followed by the "strategic threat" of long-range missiles and rockets owned by various countries in the region.
"Israel faces these threats almost alone," the paper says. "It is imperative to mobilize the international community and obtain regional cooperation. The new American administration is an opportunity to do this." (very honest assessment here: Bush was hated world wide, whereas Obama will present the world with a kind of "Zionism with a human face" which will make is possible for Israel to get more support from the rest of the world)
The paper says Israel has a limited "window" in which to act before Iran obtains nuclear arms and regional hegemony. Israel must therefore establish a military option against Iran, in case other countries abandon the struggle. The defense establishment advises the cabinet to "work discreetly on contingency plans to deal with a nuclear Iran." (nothing new here)
It also recommends close cooperation with the U.S. to prevent a deal between Washington and Tehran that would undermine Israel's interests. (Interesting, no? on one side there is the absolutely clear *need* for the USA to get some kind of deal with Iran over Iraq and the rest of the region, on the other there is the equally clear need of Israel to prevent that from happening. Given the choice between US national interests and Israeli nation interests, which do you expect President Emanuel, excuse me, President Obama to choose?)
The paper warns that after PA President Mahmoud Abbas' term ends on January 9, 2009, he might "disappear" from the political arena. (Yeah? no kidding? The Zio-puppet Abbas who has exactly achieved *nothing* for his people might disappear?!) That could cause the PA to disintegrate, which would increase the risk of the two-state solution being taken off the table. (Amen to that! Not one moment too soon)
Due to this possibility, coupled with the fear that Hamas might win a new election, the paper recommends "preventing elections in the PA, even at the cost of a confrontation with the U.S. and the international community." (No worries here, the so-called "international community" does not given a damn about the Palestinians so the Israelis can merrily continue their little genocide in Gaza or even extend it to the West Bank with no adverse effects on being the "only democracy in the Middle-East").
The paper also advises continued Israeli pressure on Hamas to isolate and weaken it, along with bolstering alternatives to it. "If the truce collapses and conflict is resumed in the Gaza Strip, Israel must act to topple Hamas' rule there," it says. (Nonsense, Hamas is already quite busy toppling itself with is utterly naive negotiations with Mubarak and with its inability to make Israel pay a political price for its genocide in Gaza by, for example, large civil protests).
Regarding Syria, the paper says "an agreement with Syria must be advanced, despite the heavy price Israel would have to pay." The defense establishment believes that removing Syria from the conflict would lead to an agreement with Lebanon as well, thus significantly weakening the radical Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. (Here the Israelis are kidding themselves: there is not Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. The only real axis here is an alliance between Iran and Hezbollah which Israel will not be able to disrupt anyway).
The new American administration must be harnessed to support this process, the paper adds (Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nansi Pelosi, Madeleine Albright, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, etc. etc. etc. I would say that the "harnessing" part is going very well)
Israel should support moderate factions in Lebanon in next year's scheduled parliamentary elections, but not at the expense of Israel's interests, it continues. At the same time, Israel must strengthen its deterrence against Hezbollah and take "low-profile" action against Hezbollah's arms smuggling. (Translation: stop supporting the Three Stooges - Hariri, Jumblatt and Siniora - in Lebanon and try to blockade Hezbollah)
The paper proposes various steps to strengthen Israel's ties with moderate Sunni Arab countries, and especially Saudi Arabia. "Israel must examine ways to expand its dialogue with Saudi Arabia on various shared interests," the document says. It must also act to neutralize potential risks in Saudi Arabia, such as its development of nuclear capability, its purchase of long-range missiles or its closing of the military gap with Israel. (Of course, this is part of the strategic anti-Shia "redirection" plan followed by US and Israel for a while already: use the Sunni, including the worst Wahabi crackpots, against the Shia).
Jordan, the paper says, is experiencing an acute political and economic crisis. "Jordan feels abandoned in the regional face-off and continues to see Israel and the West as strategic supports," it says. "Strengthening and stabilizing our ties with Jordan is crucial to Israel's security. Economic cooperation with Jordan must be strengthened." (Sure thing: Jordan is the only US-Israeli puppet which is still halfway stable; they better make sure it stays that way)
With regard to the new administration in Washington, the document warns that "the U.S. is interested in setting up a regional and international alignment against Iran (Against Iran?! Really? But I thought that it was a "deal" between Washington and Tehran which was on the agenda. I guess the "redirection" is problematic too since it will strengthen the Wahabis in the region. So which short term solution is better? Use the Sunnis against the Shia and strengthen the Sunnis, or not strengthen the Sunnis too much and loose much of the effects of the "redirection"? I am amazed at how blind and stupid such Israeli policies are, and how mistaken their hope for the usual "divide and conquer" policies is), and Israel is the one that might pay the price." It predicts that Iran and the U.S. will begin talks and warns that Israel must work to prevent any agreement that would be "problematic" from its point of view (Well, since *any* agreement between the US and Iran is "problematic" from the Israeli point of view, Israel will simply need to prevent any and all of them).
The paper recommends persuading the new administration to support the talks with Syria, to which the Bush administration objected. The U.S., for its part, is expected to demand that Israel bolster the moderates in Lebanon by making concessions in Shaba Farms and Ghajar and ending its objection to America's arming of the Lebanese Army (Like any of that will weaken Hezbollah! The Israelis are just so stupid, it always amazes me...)
Israel must also ensure that recommendations prepared by three American generals on Israeli-Palestinian security coordination, which are to be presented to the new administration, correspond with its interests, the paper says (Notice that there is never, ever, a mention of US interests? Israel does not even pretend to give a damn about that. Some "ally" for the USA...)
It also warns that the U.S. is arming moderate Arab states, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, "in a way that undermines the Israel Defense Forces' edge, especially in the air." Israel must act to prevent this as much as possible, it says.
The paper also discusses Israel's possible responses to a Hamas provocation in the south or a Hezbollah provocation in the north in 2009. It stresses that Israel must avoid a war of attrition or a two-front conflict, and therefore, it must first try to contain the provocation rather than be dragged into a retaliation that would escalate the situation. Afterward, however, it should send a "firm message of deterrence." (No kidding?! After getting beaten the hell by about 1000 Hezbollah fighters the "invincible Tsahal" has no stomach for another such war? Good. But how that is compatible with a message of "firm deterrence" is unclear. What is clear is that Israel fears Hezbollah whereas Hezbollah fears nobody, least of all Israel)
If the escalation continues, Israel must "consider embarking on a broad confrontation to hit the enemy severely and end the clash within a short time, and with as clear a result as possible," it adds. (Translation: attacking the Lebanese civilians with even more brutality than in 2006. Makes sense. After all, that's all that Israel is good at).
Saturday, November 22, 2008
1000 Palestinian kids in Israeli jails
Press TV reports:
Nearly one thousand Palestinian children are imprisoned by the Israeli regime, a spokesman of Palestinian prisoners' affairs ministry says.
The spokesman said Israeli forces have detained at least eight thousands of Palestinian children since the start of the second Palestinian intifada (uprising) in 2000.
About one thousand of them are still in Israeli detention facilities, he added.
Marking World Children's Day, hundreds of Palestinians children on Thursday rallied in the Gaza Strip to protest the Israeli atrocities against children and the continued blockade on the region.
Demonstrators called on Israel to release all detainees.
According to the Palestinian figures, 800,000 Palestinian children suffer from poverty.
Israeli prisons incarcerate at least 11,500 Palestinians, including women and children, under harsh conditions.
Nearly one thousand Palestinian children are imprisoned by the Israeli regime, a spokesman of Palestinian prisoners' affairs ministry says.
The spokesman said Israeli forces have detained at least eight thousands of Palestinian children since the start of the second Palestinian intifada (uprising) in 2000.
About one thousand of them are still in Israeli detention facilities, he added.
Marking World Children's Day, hundreds of Palestinians children on Thursday rallied in the Gaza Strip to protest the Israeli atrocities against children and the continued blockade on the region.
Demonstrators called on Israel to release all detainees.
According to the Palestinian figures, 800,000 Palestinian children suffer from poverty.
Israeli prisons incarcerate at least 11,500 Palestinians, including women and children, under harsh conditions.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Hezbollah Condemns US-Iraq Pact, Calls to Reject It
Al-Manar TV reports that while the Iraqi parliament was likely to approve a "suspicious" pact with the US occupation forces allowing them to stay in the country for another three years, Hezbollah finally broke its silence on Thursday and denounced the pact as harmful and called on all Iraqi MPs to assume their responsibilities and reject it as soon as possible.
In a statement it released, Hezbollah emphasized that the US occupation of Iraq actually represents a big crime and an international terrorism against the Iraqi people as well as the region's people "who are still suffering from the occupation's various repercussions at all levels."
The Resistance movement, known to oppose the occupation and haughtiness policies, went on to affirm that all pressures the US was seeking to exert in order to "polish" its picture have actually failed in their mission. "All pressures would lead to more damages and disadvantages for the occupation," Hezbollah's statement read, adding that the security pact, in its actual form, will lead, in its turn, to additional negative impact on Iraq and its people.
Hezbollah pointed out that the pact under question would, if adopted, give the US occupation a supplementary opportunity to organize its domination and plunder the generous country's fortunes.
"What's required at this moment is not to reward the occupation and give it presents or legitimacy," Hezbollah's statement stressed, explaining that "regardless of all the justifications that anyone could give to legalize the occupation, the US withdrawal without conditions remains the major interest for the Iraqi people."
"Iraqis have suffered a lot and paid big sacrifices, they fought against occupation at the most difficult circumstances and strived to achieve the sovereignty and independence of their country," Hezbollah pointed out, recalling how Iraqis have also rejected foreign tutelage.
The Resistance group concluded its statement by calling on members of the Iraqi parliament to reject the pact, drawing their attention to its negative effects on the Iraqi sovereignty, unity as well as fate and future.
Hezbollah called upon the MPs to take such a "courageous" and "historic" position, assuring them of its positive effects on the country "that deserves stability, unity and honorable life."
In a statement it released, Hezbollah emphasized that the US occupation of Iraq actually represents a big crime and an international terrorism against the Iraqi people as well as the region's people "who are still suffering from the occupation's various repercussions at all levels."
The Resistance movement, known to oppose the occupation and haughtiness policies, went on to affirm that all pressures the US was seeking to exert in order to "polish" its picture have actually failed in their mission. "All pressures would lead to more damages and disadvantages for the occupation," Hezbollah's statement read, adding that the security pact, in its actual form, will lead, in its turn, to additional negative impact on Iraq and its people.
Hezbollah pointed out that the pact under question would, if adopted, give the US occupation a supplementary opportunity to organize its domination and plunder the generous country's fortunes.
"What's required at this moment is not to reward the occupation and give it presents or legitimacy," Hezbollah's statement stressed, explaining that "regardless of all the justifications that anyone could give to legalize the occupation, the US withdrawal without conditions remains the major interest for the Iraqi people."
"Iraqis have suffered a lot and paid big sacrifices, they fought against occupation at the most difficult circumstances and strived to achieve the sovereignty and independence of their country," Hezbollah pointed out, recalling how Iraqis have also rejected foreign tutelage.
The Resistance group concluded its statement by calling on members of the Iraqi parliament to reject the pact, drawing their attention to its negative effects on the Iraqi sovereignty, unity as well as fate and future.
Hezbollah called upon the MPs to take such a "courageous" and "historic" position, assuring them of its positive effects on the country "that deserves stability, unity and honorable life."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Unofficial Translation of US SOFA from the Arabic Text
By McClatchy Newspapers
An Agreement between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America regarding the Withdrawal of the American Forces from Iraq and Regulating their Activities During their Temporary Presence in it
PREFACE
The United States of America and the Republic of Iraq - which will hereafter be referred to as the two parties - recognize the importance of strengthening their joint security and participating in global peace and stability, fighting terrorism in Iraq and cooperating in the fields of security and defense to deter aggression and threats directed towards the sovereignty and unity of Iraq and its constitutional, federal, democratic system;
They hereby confirm that this cooperation is built upon the basis of mutual respect for each other's full sovereignty and according to the objectives and principles of the UN mandate;
And according to the wish of both parties to reach a mutual understanding to enhance cooperation between them;
Without encroaching upon the sovereignty of Iraq, upon its soil, water or airspace, and upon the basis of being two independent, equal states of sovereignty, have agreed to the following:
Article 1
Scope and Purpose
This agreement defines the basic rules and requirements that regulate the temporary presence of the American Forces in Iraq, their activities in it and their withdrawal from Iraq.
Article 2
Definition of Terms
"The installations and areas agreed upon" refers to the Iraqi areas used by the U.S. Forces while this agreement is valid."
"U.S. Forces" refers to the entity that includes all the personnel of the American Armed Forces, the civilian personnel connected to them and all their possessions, installations and equipment present on Iraqi territory.
"Member of the U.S. Forces" refers to any person that belongs to the army of the United States, its navy, air force, marine force or coast guard.
"Civilian element member" refers to any civilian working for the U.S. Department of Defense. And this term does not include the personnel usually resident in Iraq.
Contractors with the U.S government" and "those who work for the contractors with the United States of America" refer to the legal non-Iraqi persons or entities and their workers who are either American citizens or third country citizens present in Iraq to provide commodities, services and security for the U.S. Forces or on behalf of them, in Iraq, according to a contract or a sub-contract with or for the U.S. Forces. These two terms do not include the legal persons or entities usually resident upon Iraqi soil.
"Official vehicles" refers to the commercial vehicles that may be modified for security purposes, and that are designed originally to transport individuals on different terrains.
"Military vehicles" refers to all manner of vehicles used by the U.S. Forces that were originally designed for combat operations and carry special distinctive numbers and signs.
"Defense equipment" refers to the systems, weapons, ammunition, supplies and materials used in traditional warfare exclusively, that the U.S. needs in connection to the activities agreed upon in this agreement, and that are not related directly or indirectly to the weapons of mass destruction systems (chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, radiological weapons, biological weapons and the wastes connected to such weapons).
"Storing" refers to keeping the defense equipment that the U.S. needs in relation to its activities agreed upon in this agreement.
"Taxes and charges" refers to all the taxes and charges (including customs tariffs) and all charges of any kind that the Iraqi government, its establishments or provinces levies in accordance with the Iraqi laws and regulations. This term does not refer to the funds that are collected by the Iraqi government, its establishments or provinces for services requested by and rendered to the U.S Forces.
Article 3
The Laws
U.S. troops and the members of the civilian element commit to the necessity of respecting Iraqi laws, customs, traditions and conventions while conducting military operations in accordance with this agreement, and will refrain from any activities that are not compatible with the spirit of this agreement. The U.S. is obliged to take all the necessary measures for this purpose.
With the exception of U.S. troops and the members of the civilian element, it is not permitted for the U.S. to transport anyone into Iraq or out of it on board the ships or aircraft included in this agreement unless in accordance with valid Iraqi laws and regulations including any executive arrangements that the Iraqi government may agree to.
Article 4
The Missions
The Iraqi government requests temporary assistance from the U.S. Forces to support its efforts in keeping peace and stability in Iraq, including cooperation in conducting operations against al Qaida and other terrorist groups and outlaw groups and the remnants of former regime.
All military operations conducted in accordance with this agreement are conducted with the approval of the government of Iraq. Full coordination will take place with the Iraqi authorities regarding these operations and the Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee (JMOCC), which is to be formed according to this agreement, is to supervise the coordination of all the military operations. Any issues regarding proposed military operations that the Committee cannot resolve will be referred to the Joint Ministerial Committee.
All these operations will be conducted with the necessity of fully respecting the Iraqi Constitution and Iraqi Law, and conducting these operations will be without overstepping the sovereignty of Iraq and its national interests as determined by the Iraqi government. It is the duty of the U.S. to respect the laws of Iraq, its customs and traditions and valid international law.
The two parties will continue their efforts to enhance Iraq's security capabilities, as agreed upon by both sides, including training, provision, support, supply, building and updating logistic systems, including transport, accommodations and provisions for the Iraqi security forces.
Both parties retain the right to legitimate self defense within Iraq as is described in valid international law.
Article 5
Ownership of Property
Iraq owns all the buildings and installations, the nontransferable structures on the ground that are located in the areas and installations agreed upon, including those the U.S. utilizes, constructs, changes or improves.
At withdrawal, the U.S. will return all the installations and the agreed upon areas allocated for the use of the U.S. combat forces according to two lists (of inventory) to the Iraqi government. The first of these is to be submitted covering the installations and agreed upon areas as soon as the agreement is implemented. And the other list is to be submitted no later than June 30, 2009, the appointed date for U.S. Forces withdrawal from cities, towns and villages. And the Iraqi government has the right to permit the U.S. Forces to use some necessary installations for this agreement's purposes at withdrawal.
The U.S. bears all the costs of building, modification or renovation in the installations and agreed upon areas allocated for their exclusive use. The U.S. will consult with the Iraqi government as to building, modification or renovation works and must seek the approval of the Iraqi government regarding major modifications and construction projects. And in cases of joint utilization of installations and agreed upon areas, both parties will bear the cost of construction, modification or renovation according to the percentage of use.
The U.S. will bear the cost of the services it requests and receives in the installations and agreed upon areas for its exclusive use. And both parties will bear the cost for requested and received services in the installations and agreed upon areas and according to percentage of each party's use.
When a historical or cultural site is discovered, or a strategic resource is found within the installations and agreed upon areas, all construction, modification and innovation works are to stop immediately, and the Iraqi representatives in the Committee are to be informed in order to determine the appropriate steps in regard to it.
The U.S shall return the installations and agreed upon areas and any other installations, or non-transportable structures that it erected, fixed or used during the validity of this agreement according to mechanisms and priorities defined by the Joint Committee; and these installations and areas are to be returned to the Iraqi government free of debts and any financial obligations.
The U.S. Forces shall return to the Iraqi government the installations and agreed upon areas of traditional, moral and political importance and any other fixed structures that the U.S. Forces may have built, assembled, or installed according to mechanisms and priorities and a time period to be agreed upon in the Joint Committee, and with no financial obligations.
The U.S. shall return the rest of the installations and agreed upon areas to the Iraqi government when the validity of this agreement comes to an end or when it is terminated, or at any time prior to that, agreed upon by the two parties, or when the U.S. no longer needs the installations in accordance to what the Committee decrees, without debt or financial obligations.
The U.S. and the contractors with the U.S. retain the ownership of all the equipment, materials, supplies, transportable installations and other transportable property imported to Iraq or acquired in Iraq legitimately and in connection to this agreement.
Article 6
Usage of the Installations and the Agreed Upon Areas
With full respect for the sovereignty of Iraq, in the framework of exchanging points of view between the two parties regarding this agreement, Iraq guarantees that the U.S. Forces and contractors with the U.S Forces and the workers employed by these contractors and the personnel and other entities can reach and use the installations and agreed upon areas according to what both parties agree upon.
Iraq permits the U.S. Forces, according to this agreement, to exercise inside the installations and agreed upon areas all rights and authorities that may be necessary to build, use and secure these installations and agreed upon areas. Both parties are to coordinate and cooperate as to how these rights and authorities may be practiced in the installations and agreed upon areas that are joint utilities.
The U.S Forces control the entrances to the installations and agreed upon areas that are allocated for their exclusive use. Both parties are to coordinate the control of the installations and agreed upon areas of joint use, and according to mechanisms approved by the Joint Committee to coordinate joint military operations. Both parties are to coordinate the guard missions in the areas adjacent to the installations and the agreed upon areas through the Joint Committee for coordination of military operations.
Article 7
Installing and Storing Defense Equipment
U.S. Forces may install inside the installations and agreed upon areas and in other temporary sites agreed upon by both parties, defense equipment and supplies and materials the U.S. Forces need in connection to activities agreed upon in this agreement. The U.S. is to use and store this equipment in a manner appropriate to their temporary mission in Iraq and in accordance with article four of this agreement, on condition that it has no direct or indirect connection to weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, radiological weapons, biological weapons and the wastes related to such weapons). And the U. S. is to control the use and transport of the defense equipment owned by it that is stored in Iraq. It (the U.S.) is to guarantee that no explosives or ammunition are to be stored in installations near residential areas, and that it is to move materials stored in installations near residential areas. The U.S. is to provide the Iraqi government with the necessary information regarding the quantities and types of these stored materials.
Article 8
Environmental Protection
Both parties are to execute this agreement in a manner consistent with protection of the natural environment, health and human security. And the U.S. commits again to respecting the laws of the environment and Iraqi laws in implementing its policies for the purposes of this agreement.
Article 9
Movement of Vehicles, Ships and Planes
With full respect for the rules of safety in land and marine movement, vehicles and ships used by the U.S Force and those that are administered on its account exclusively, may enter and depart and move within Iraqi territory for the purposes of implementing this agreement. The Joint Committee is to coordinate joint military operations and lay down the appropriate rules and procedures to facilitate and regulate the movement of vehicles.
With full respect for the related rules of safety in flight and aviation, permission will be given for the aircraft of the U.S. government and the civilian aircraft at the time to fly in the Iraqi airspace that are operating in accordance with a contract with the Department of Defense of the U.S. exclusively, and to re-fuel in the air exclusively for the purposes of implementing this agreement; and to land and take off within Iraqi territory for the purposes of implementing this agreement. Iraqi authorities will annually issue a permit for the aforementioned aircraft to land on Iraqi territory and take off from it for the exclusive purpose of implementing this agreement. The aircraft, ships and vehicles of the U.S government and the civilian aircraft exclusively working at the time in accordance with a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense will not permit any party aboard them without the consent of the U.S. Forces authorities, and the related joint subcommittee is to agree upon the appropriate procedures to facilitate regulating the traffic.
Iraqi airspace control and monitoring will be transferred to the Iraqi authorities immediately as this agreement becomes valid.
The Iraqi government has the right to request the temporary support of the U.S. Forces for the Iraqi authorities in controlling and monitoring Iraqi airspace.
U.S. government aircraft and civilian aircraft at that time working in accordance with a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense exclusively are exempt from any taxes, or any similar charges including the flight, aviation, landing or waiting at the airport charges by the Iraqi government. And also exempt from any taxes, government collections or any other charges are the vehicles owned by the U.S. Forces or are being used exclusively by the U.S. Forces for the purposes of implementing this agreement. And this includes the ports run by the Iraqi government, and these vehicles, aircraft and ships are exempt from registration demands inside Iraq.
U.S Forces are to pay for any services it requests and obtains.
Each of the two parties is to provide the other party with maps and other available information regarding locations of mine fields and other obstacles that may obstruct movement within the Iraqi land and waters or endanger it.
Article 10
Contracting Procedures
U.S. forces have the right to choose contractors and have contracts with them, according to American law, to buy materials and services in Iraq, including reconstruction and building services. U.S. forces can have contracts with Iraqi suppliers for materials and services when they have competitive tenders and value. U.S. forces should respect Iraqi law when they have contracts with Iraqi suppliers and contractors, they should inform Iraqi authorities of the Iraqi contractors and suppliers and the value of their contracts.
Article 11
Services and Communications
U.S. forces can produce and supply water and electricity and any other services for the installations and areas agreed upon in coordination with the Iraqi authorities through the related Joint sub-committee.
The Iraqi government owns all frequencies. The Iraqi authorities specialized in frequencies allocate frequencies for the U.S forces according to coordination between the two sides via a Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee (JMOCC).The US forces should return the allocated frequencies when they have finished using them at a date no later than the last day of this agreement.
U.S. forces will operate their communications system with full respect to the Iraqi constitution and laws, and according to the text of communication regulations in the International Union of Communications for the year 1992, including the right to use means and special necessary services related to their system to guarantee the full capacity to operate the communications system.
For the purposes of this agreement, U.S. forces are exempt from paying any government collection for using the transmission waves and frequencies now in use or those which will be allocated to them in the future, including administrative and any other charge.
U.S forces should obtain the Iraqi government's approval regarding any infrastructure projects for communications located outside the installations and areas agreed upon for the exclusive purposes of implementation of this agreement according to Article 4, unless there is an actual combat operation, in which case use Article 4.
U.S. forces should use the communication system exclusively for the purposes of this agreement.
Article 12
Jurisdiction
In recognition of Iraq's sovereign right in defining and enforcing the principles of criminal and civilian law on its land and in view of Iraq's request for temporary assistance from U.S. forces as explained in article 4 and as is consistent with the obligation of U.S. forces' and the members of the civilian element to respect Iraqi laws, traditions, customs and values, both parties agreed to the following:
Iraq has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the U.S. forces and members of the civilian element regarding major and premeditated crimes, according to item 8, when these crimes are committed outside installations and areas agreed upon and off duty.
Iraq has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over private contractors which have contracts with the United States and their employees.
The United States has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the U.S. forces and members of the civilian element regarding matters that take place inside the installation and areas agreed upon and during duty outside the installations and areas agreed upon and circumstances not included in the text of item 1.
According to a request from either party, both parties will assist one another to carry out an investigation into incidents and to collect evidence and to exchange them to guarantee justice.
When a member of the U.S. forces or the civilian element is arrested or detained by the Iraqi authorities, the authorities of the U.S. forces should be informed immediately and the detainee should be handed over within 24 hours from the time of detention or arrest. When Iraq practices its jurisdiction in implementation of the text of item 1 of this article the authorities of the U.S. forces then undertake the detention of the accused from the members of the U.S. forces or the civilian element. Then the authorities of the U.S. forces are to submit the accused person or persons to the Iraqi authorities for the purpose investigation and trial.
The authorities of either side may request the authorities of the other side to forgo their primary right of jurisdiction in a specific case. The Iraqi government agrees to exercise jurisdiction according to item 1 above only after informing and notifying the U.S. in writing within 21 days of discovering the alleged crime, its practice of jurisdiction has a special significance.
In cases where the U.S. has the right to exercise jurisdiction according to item 3 of this article, the members of the U.S. forces and of the civilian element have the right to have the legal criteria, procedures and guaranteed protection under the American law and constitution. In case a crime is committed which falls under item 3 of this article and the victim is not a member of the U.S. forces or of the civilian element, both parties agree upon procedures through a joint committee to inform the persons involved of the investigation in an appropriate way, the status of the investigation of the crime, the charges against the accused, a date of trial and the results of the deliberations regarding the suspects situation, the opportunity to hear the accused's statements in open sessions during which he will be sentenced, consultation with the lawyers of the prosecution to follow up the case and to assist in presenting a request according to article 21 of this agreement. The U.S. authorities will seek to hold a trial for cases such as these inside Iraq. And in case trials of such cases are held in the United States, efforts will be made to facilitate the victim's presence personally in the court.
In the cases where Iraq exercises jurisdiction according to item 1 of this article, members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element have the right to the legal criteria, procedures and guarantees that are consistent with those enjoyed under American and Iraqi law. The joint committee will lay down procedures and mechanisms to implement this article, which includes a record of major and premeditated crimes that fall under item 1 and procedures according to the criteria of legitimate trial and guarantees. It is not permitted to exercise jurisdiction according to the text of item 1 of this article unless the mentioned procedures and mechanisms are in place.
The U.S. authorities will state according to items 1 and 3 of this article whether the alleged crime was committed on duty. In cases in which the Iraqi authorities believe that the circumstances call for revision of this account, both parties will deliberate immediately via the joint committee, and the authorities of the U.S. forces will take into full consideration the facts, the circumstances and any other information the Iraqi authorities may submit and that might have an effect upon the report of the authorities of the U.S. forces.
Both parties will review the provisions of this article every six months, including any suggested amendments of this article, taking into consideration the security situation in Iraq and how engaged the U.S. forces are with military operations, the growth and development of the Iraqi judicial system and changes in the American and Iraqi laws.
Article 13
Carrying Weapons and Wearing Official Uniforms
Members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element have the right to possess and carry weapons that belong to the U.S. during their presence in Iraq according to the authorization given to them, the orders given to them and according to their needs and duties. Also the U.S forces should wear their official uniforms while on duty in Iraq.
Article 14
Entry and Departure
For the purposes of this agreement, members of the U.S. forces and members the civilian element may enter and depart Iraq through the formal passages of entrance and departure. They need only to carry identification and travel orders issued to them from the United States. The joint committee handles the task of laying down procedures and mechanisms to check which the specialized Iraqi authorities will implement.
Iraqi authorities have the right to check and verify the names on lists of members of the U.S forces and the civilian element entering Iraq and departing directly into and out of the installations and areas agreed upon. These lists are to be delivered to the Iraqi authorities by the U.S forces.
For the purposes of this agreement, members of the U.S forces and the civilian element may enter and depart Iraq via the installations and areas agreed upon and will not be required to submit anything other than their identification issued in the United States. The joint committee is to lay down the procedures and mechanisms for checking and verifying these documents.
Article 15
Importing and Exporting
For the purposes of implementing this agreement exclusively U.S. forces and contractors with the U.S. forces may import into Iraq and export from it materials that have been bought inside Iraq, and they have the right to re-export and transport and use in Iraq any equipment, supplies, materials and technology on the condition that the materials they import or bring are not prohibited inside Iraq, from the date this agreement takes effect. Importing such materials and re-exporting, transporting and using these materials would not expose them to searches. Also these materials are not subject to licensing or any other restrictions or taxing or customs or any other charges imposed in Iraq in accordance with the definition in item 10 of article 2. U.S authorities have to file to the Iraqi authorities the suitable documents ensuring that these materials are imported by the U.S forces or those contractors with the U.S. forces for the use of the U.S. forces in implementing this agreement exclusively. According to available security information, the Iraqi authorities have the right to ask the U.S forces, in their presence, to open any container which has imported materials to check its contents. The Iraqi authorities will respect while submitting its request the security requirements of the U.S. forces and will accept if the U.S. forces requested that the verification operations should be carried out in the installations used by the U.S. forces. Iraqi goods exported by the U.S. forces and the contractors with the U.S. forces are not subject to any searches or any restrictions except the requirements of a license. The joint committee with the Ministry of Trade according to the Iraqi law will facilitate the requisition of a license for the purpose of the U.S forces to export goods or commodities that they have bought in Iraq for the purposes of this agreement. Iraq has the right to request a review of any matter related to the implementation of this item. The two parties are to discuss immediately such cases via the Joint Committee, or if necessary, via the Joint Ministerial Committee.
Members of the U.S forces and members of the civilian element can import, re-export, and use the materials and personal equipment for consumption or personal use. Importing, re-exporting, transporting and using such imported materials in Iraq is not subject to licensing, or any restrictions, taxes, collections, or any other charges imposed in Iraq as is illustrated in item 10 of article 2. The amount of the imports should be reasonable and suitable for personal use. The U.S authorities should take measures to guarantee that any valuable cultural materials or historical materials related to Iraq are not exported.
Any searches referred to in item 2 by the Iraqi authorities must be carried out quickly in an agreed upon location according to the procedures laid down by the Joint Committee.
Taxes and custom fees, as defined in item 10 of article 2, will be levied upon any imported material that is exempt from custom fees and any other fees according to this agreement and any other fees at the point of sale to individuals or entities not included in the tax exemption or special privileges for import. The buyer should pay these taxes and fees, including the customs fee, for the materials that have been sold. The amount of tax and customs paid will be estimated at the time of their sale inside Iraq.
Importing and using the materials referred in the above mentioned items of this article are prohibited for commercial purposes.
Article 16
Taxes
No taxes, charges or government duties are levied as defined in item 10 of article 2, which are estimated and levied on Iraqi territory for commodities and services bought inside Iraq by the U.S. forces or on their behalf for official purposes. And no other levy is placed on commodities and services that are bought inside Iraq on behalf of the U.S. forces.
Members of the U.S forces and the civilian element do not bear the responsibility of paying any tax, charge or government collection whose value is determined and levied inside the Iraqi territory unless in exchange for services requested and rendered.
Article 17
Licenses and Permits
Valid driving licenses issued by U.S authorities to the members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element and employees of contractors with the United States are accepted by the Iraqi authorities. Those who carry these licenses do not have to take a test or pay any fee to drive their vehicles, ships and planes that belong to the U.S forces in Iraq.
The valid driving licenses issued by the U.S authorities to the members of the U.S forces and the civilian element and the employees of the contractors with the United States are accepted by the Iraqi authorities when they use their own cars on Iraqi territory without taking a test or paying a fee.
All the professional licenses issued by the U.S authorities to the members of the U.S forces and the civilian element and employees of contractors with the United States are accepted by the Iraqi authorities on the condition that these licenses are related to the services they perform within the frame of performing their official or contracted duties to support the U.S forces and the members of the civilian element and contractors with the United States and the employees who work for those contractors, according to the conditions agreed upon by both parties.
Article 18
Military and Official Vehicles
The official vehicles are to carry Iraqi license plates, which are agreed upon between the two parties. The Iraqi authorities, upon the request by the authorities of the U.S. forces, will issue license plates for the official vehicles of the U.S forces without fees and according to procedures approved by the Iraqi armed forces. The U.S authorities pay the Iraqi authorities the cost of the license plates.
Licensing and registration authorizations issued by the authorities of the U.S forces for official vehicles of the U.S. forces are accepted by the Iraqi authorities.
Military vehicles used by the U.S. forces exclusively are exempt from the licensing and registration requirements and these vehicles are to be marked by clear numbers.
Article 19
Support Activities Services
The U.S forces or those who act on behalf of the U.S forces have the right to build and administer activities and entities inside the installations and areas agreed upon through which they supply services to the members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element, the contractors with the United States and the employees of the contractors with the United States. These entities and activities include; military mail, financial services, stores for selling food, medication and other commodities and services, other places for providing entertainment, wire and wireless communications, including cable and radio broadcasting. Constructing these services does not require a license.
The entertainment, media and radio services, which are outside of the installations and areas agreed upon, fall under Iraqi law.
These supporting activities and services are limited to the members of the U.S forces and the civilian element, contractors with the United States and their employees and individuals and entities the two parties agree upon. The authorities of the U.S. forces should take suitable measures to prevent the misuse of the services mentioned above and to prevent the sale or re-sale of the services mentioned above to persons who are not permitted to reach these entities and benefit from the services they present. The U.S forces determine the broadcasting transmissions for radio and television program for the authorized receivers.
The entities and activities mentioned in this article enjoy the same financial and customs exemption as do the U.S forces, including the guaranteed exemptions in articles 15 and 16 of this agreement. Running and administering these entities and activities that provide services according to United States regulations will not require taxes or any other charges for the activities related to their operation.
Mail sent through military mail services should have the verification of the United States authorities, and this mail will be exempt from searching, examination and confiscation by the Iraqi authorities with the exception of unofficial mail that may be monitored electronically. The Joint Committee will handle such issues that stem from the implementation of this item and they will be settled by the agreement of the two parties. The related joint sub-committee will regularly search for the mechanisms by the U.S. authorities to verify military mail.
Article 20
Currency and Foreign Exchange
The U.S. forces have the right to use any amount of U.S. currency or financial assets whose values are determined by American currency for the purposes of this agreement exclusively. The use of the U.S forces of Iraqi currency and private banks should be according to the Iraqi laws.
The U.S forces are not permitted to export Iraqi currency from Iraq and are to take measures to guarantee that none of the members of the U.S forces and the civilian element, contractors with the United States and the employees working for the contractors with the United States to export the Iraqi currency from Iraq.
Article 21
Claims
Except for claims that stem from contracts, both parties forgo their right to demand the other party to compensate for any damages, loss or destruction of properties of the armed forces or the civilian element of either party or to demand compensation for injuries or deaths that may happen to members of the armed forces or the of civilian element that are a result of carrying out their official duty in Iraq.
U.S. authorities should pay fair and reasonable compensation to settle entitled claims for any third party, that may stem from actions of members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element or as a result of their negligence, malfeasance or during their official duty or may be related to non-combat activities of US forces. U.S. authorities may settle entitlement claims that do not stem from performing their official duty as quickly as possible according to laws and regulations of the United States. When settling the claims, the authorities of the U.S. forces take into consideration any report regarding an investigation or opinion issued by Iraqi authorities concerning the responsibility or volume of damages.
Both parties consult immediately through the Joint Committee or if it is necessary through the Joint Ministerial Committee in the cases that need revision and that have been mentioned in item 1 and 2 above, according to the request of one of the parties.
Article 22
Detention
It is not permitted for the U.S. forces to detain or arrest any person (except the detention or arrest of a member of the US forces or the civilian element) unless it is in accordance with an Iraqi decision issued under Iraqi law implementing Article Four.
If US forces detain or arrest persons as is permitted under this agreement or under Iraqi law, they should be turned over to the specialized Iraqi authorities within 24 hours of their detention or arrest.
Iraqi authorities can request assistance from U.S. forces for the purpose of detaining or arresting wanted persons.
The U.S. forces shall provide the Iraqi Government with the available information about all the detainees when this agreement is implemented. The specialized Iraqi authorities shall issue arrest warrants for those who are wanted. The U.S. forces will coordinate completely and effectively with the Iraqi government for the handover of the wanted people to it, according to valid Iraqi arrest warrants and release all other detainees in an organized and secure way unless the Iraqi government requests otherwise under article 4 of this agreement.
U.S. forces are not permitted to search houses or other premises unless it is in accordance with an Iraqi judicial order issued for this purpose with complete coordination with the Iraqi government, except in cases where there is actual combat which comes under Article 4.
Article 23
Implementation
The implementation of this agreement and the settlement of resulting disputes regarding explanations and implementation are the responsibility of the following commissions:
Forming a Joint Ministerial Committee whose members are persons on the ministerial level determined by both parties. This Joint Ministerial Committee undertakes reviewing and resolving the basic necessary issues to explain and implement this agreement.
The Joint Ministerial Committee will undertake the formation of the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) that is composed of representatives of both parties. There will be a Joint Chairmanship of the Joint Military Operation Cooperating Committee (JMOCC) from the two parties.
The Joint Ministerial Committee also forms a joint committee composed of representatives chosen by the two parties and jointly headed by a representative from each party. This committee undertakes reviewing and resolving all the issues related to this agreement that is not the specialization of the Joint Military Operations Coordinating Committee (JMOCC).
The joint committee forms according to item (3) of this article joint subcommittees in various fields who undertake reviewing the issues that stem from this agreement according to their specializations.
Article 24
Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq
Admitting to the performance of Iraqi forces, their increased capabilities and assuming full responsibility for security and based upon the strong relationship between the two parties the two parties agreed to the following:
All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.
All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces mentioned in item (2) above are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns that will be determined by the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) before the date determined in item (2) above.
The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.
The two parties agree to put a mechanism and preparations for reducing the number of U.S. forces during the appointed period. And they are to agree on the locations where the forces are to settle.
Article 25
The Procedures of Lifting Article Seven from Iraq
Recognizing the Iraqi government's right not to request the renewal of the United Nations mandate and the authorization granted to the Multi-National Force Iraq according to chapter seven that is included in the International Security Council's resolution number (1790) (2007) the authorization that will expire on 31 December 2008,
And referring to the two letters directed to the International Security Council: the letter from the Iraqi Prime Minister and the letter from the American Secretary of State dated 7 and 10 December 2007, respectively and they are annexed to resolution (1790),
Noting the third part of the Declaration of Principles regarding the cooperation and long term friendship that was signed by the President of United States of America and the Prime Minister of Iraq on 26 November 2007 which registered in history the Iraqi call for extending the period of the above mentioned mandate for the last time to end on a date no later than 31 December 2008,
Admitting to the great and positive developments in Iraq and reminding that the situation in Iraq is basically different than the situation that was prevalent when the Security Council adopted the resolution number (661) in (1990), and especially as the danger that the Iraqi government used to represent to international peace and security is gone:
The two parties emphasize, as to this issue, that at the end of the working day on 31 December 2008 which terminates the mandate and authorization granted to the Multi-National Force Iraq according to Chapter Seven, that is included in the resolution of the International Security Council number (1790), Iraq should regain its legal and international position that it enjoyed before adoption of resolution (661) (1990) by the U.N. Security Council. And they confirm that the United States will do its best to help Iraq to take the necessary steps to achieve that on 31 December 2008.
Article 26
Iraqi Assets
In order to enable Iraq to continue developing its national economy by rehabilitating the Iraqi economic infrastructures and also to provide the basic vital services for the Iraqi people and to continue to preserve Iraqi resources such as petroleum, gas and other resources and also to preserve its financial and economic assets abroad, including the Development Fund of Iraq, the United States of America guarantees its best effort in order to:
Support Iraq to cancel its international debts that resulted from the policy of the former regime.
Support Iraq to reach a final and comprehensive decision regarding the demands of compensation that Iraq inherited from the former regime that have not been resolved yet, including the demands of compensation that was imposed on Iraq by the International Security Council.
Admitting to the concern that Iraq shows towards the demands based upon the actions committed by the former regime and in understanding of this matter, the President of the United States will use his authority to provide the protection for the Development Fund of Iraq and other specific assets that Iraq partly owns from the American judicial system. The United States will stay committed in a complete and effective way with the Iraqi government to continue this protection and in regard to those demands.
Based on a letter that will be sent from the President of the United States to the Prime Minister of Iraq, the United States will remain committed to helping Iraq in regard to the demand it submitted to the Security Council to extend the protection and other arrangements regarding petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas produced in Iraq and the resources and commitments that stem from these sales and the Development Fund of Iraq, these are the arrangements defined in the two resolutions of the Security Council (1483)(2003) and (1546)(2003).
Article 27
Deterrence Security Dangers
In order to support the security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to establishing international peace and stability, both parties seek actively to strengthen the political and military abilities for the Republic of Iraq and to enable Iraq to deter the dangers that threaten its sovereignty and political independence, the unity of its land and its democratic federal constitutional system, they agreed upon the following:
When any external or internal danger emerges against Iraq or an aggression upon it violates its sovereignty, its political stability, the unity of its land, water, and airspace or threatens its democratic system or its elected establishments and according to the request of the Iraqi government, the two parties will immediately start strategic talks and according to what they will agree on between them the United States will undertakes the appropriate measures that include diplomatic, economic, military or any other measure required to deter this threat.
Both parties agree to continue their strong cooperation to strengthen and maintain the military, security and democratic political institutions in Iraq in accordance with what they agree upon, cooperation, supplying and arming the Iraqi Security Forces for the prevention of local and international terrorism and outlaw groups, upon the request of the Iraqi government.
It is not permitted to use Iraqi land, water and airspace as a route or launching pad for attacks against other countries.
Article 28
The Green Zone
When this agreement takes effect the Iraqi government undertakes complete responsibility of the Green Zone.
The Iraqi government may request limited, temporary support from the U.S. forces for the Iraqi authorities regarding the mission of securing the Green Zone and when submitting such a request the related Iraqi authorities are to work in collaboration with the U.S. forces regarding security in the Green Zone during a time period determined by Iraq government.
Article 29
Arrangement for Implementation
Whenever there is a need, both parties lay down appropriate mechanisms for the implementation of the articles of this agreement including the articles that do not include specified mechanisms for implementation.
Article 30
Time Period of Validity of this Agreement
This agreement is valid for three years unless it is terminated by one of the parties before that period ends in accordance with item (3) of this article.
This agreement is not to be amended unless by formal written approval of both parties and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in both countries.
The validity of this agreement will terminate after one year from the date that either of the two parties receives written notification for termination.
This agreement will take effect on the first day of January 2009 after both parties have exchanged diplomatic memorandums concerning the completion of necessary procedures for both parties to implement the agreement in accordance with the valid constitutional procedures of both parties.
This agreement has been signed in Baghdad on the 17th day of the month of November, 2008 in two original copies in both the Arabic and English languages and both texts are equal in legal procedures.
Translated from the Arabic by Sahar Issa, Jenan Hussein and Hussein Kadhim of the McClatchy Baghdad Bureau.
An Agreement between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America regarding the Withdrawal of the American Forces from Iraq and Regulating their Activities During their Temporary Presence in it
PREFACE
The United States of America and the Republic of Iraq - which will hereafter be referred to as the two parties - recognize the importance of strengthening their joint security and participating in global peace and stability, fighting terrorism in Iraq and cooperating in the fields of security and defense to deter aggression and threats directed towards the sovereignty and unity of Iraq and its constitutional, federal, democratic system;
They hereby confirm that this cooperation is built upon the basis of mutual respect for each other's full sovereignty and according to the objectives and principles of the UN mandate;
And according to the wish of both parties to reach a mutual understanding to enhance cooperation between them;
Without encroaching upon the sovereignty of Iraq, upon its soil, water or airspace, and upon the basis of being two independent, equal states of sovereignty, have agreed to the following:
Article 1
Scope and Purpose
This agreement defines the basic rules and requirements that regulate the temporary presence of the American Forces in Iraq, their activities in it and their withdrawal from Iraq.
Article 2
Definition of Terms
"The installations and areas agreed upon" refers to the Iraqi areas used by the U.S. Forces while this agreement is valid."
"U.S. Forces" refers to the entity that includes all the personnel of the American Armed Forces, the civilian personnel connected to them and all their possessions, installations and equipment present on Iraqi territory.
"Member of the U.S. Forces" refers to any person that belongs to the army of the United States, its navy, air force, marine force or coast guard.
"Civilian element member" refers to any civilian working for the U.S. Department of Defense. And this term does not include the personnel usually resident in Iraq.
Contractors with the U.S government" and "those who work for the contractors with the United States of America" refer to the legal non-Iraqi persons or entities and their workers who are either American citizens or third country citizens present in Iraq to provide commodities, services and security for the U.S. Forces or on behalf of them, in Iraq, according to a contract or a sub-contract with or for the U.S. Forces. These two terms do not include the legal persons or entities usually resident upon Iraqi soil.
"Official vehicles" refers to the commercial vehicles that may be modified for security purposes, and that are designed originally to transport individuals on different terrains.
"Military vehicles" refers to all manner of vehicles used by the U.S. Forces that were originally designed for combat operations and carry special distinctive numbers and signs.
"Defense equipment" refers to the systems, weapons, ammunition, supplies and materials used in traditional warfare exclusively, that the U.S. needs in connection to the activities agreed upon in this agreement, and that are not related directly or indirectly to the weapons of mass destruction systems (chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, radiological weapons, biological weapons and the wastes connected to such weapons).
"Storing" refers to keeping the defense equipment that the U.S. needs in relation to its activities agreed upon in this agreement.
"Taxes and charges" refers to all the taxes and charges (including customs tariffs) and all charges of any kind that the Iraqi government, its establishments or provinces levies in accordance with the Iraqi laws and regulations. This term does not refer to the funds that are collected by the Iraqi government, its establishments or provinces for services requested by and rendered to the U.S Forces.
Article 3
The Laws
U.S. troops and the members of the civilian element commit to the necessity of respecting Iraqi laws, customs, traditions and conventions while conducting military operations in accordance with this agreement, and will refrain from any activities that are not compatible with the spirit of this agreement. The U.S. is obliged to take all the necessary measures for this purpose.
With the exception of U.S. troops and the members of the civilian element, it is not permitted for the U.S. to transport anyone into Iraq or out of it on board the ships or aircraft included in this agreement unless in accordance with valid Iraqi laws and regulations including any executive arrangements that the Iraqi government may agree to.
Article 4
The Missions
The Iraqi government requests temporary assistance from the U.S. Forces to support its efforts in keeping peace and stability in Iraq, including cooperation in conducting operations against al Qaida and other terrorist groups and outlaw groups and the remnants of former regime.
All military operations conducted in accordance with this agreement are conducted with the approval of the government of Iraq. Full coordination will take place with the Iraqi authorities regarding these operations and the Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee (JMOCC), which is to be formed according to this agreement, is to supervise the coordination of all the military operations. Any issues regarding proposed military operations that the Committee cannot resolve will be referred to the Joint Ministerial Committee.
All these operations will be conducted with the necessity of fully respecting the Iraqi Constitution and Iraqi Law, and conducting these operations will be without overstepping the sovereignty of Iraq and its national interests as determined by the Iraqi government. It is the duty of the U.S. to respect the laws of Iraq, its customs and traditions and valid international law.
The two parties will continue their efforts to enhance Iraq's security capabilities, as agreed upon by both sides, including training, provision, support, supply, building and updating logistic systems, including transport, accommodations and provisions for the Iraqi security forces.
Both parties retain the right to legitimate self defense within Iraq as is described in valid international law.
Article 5
Ownership of Property
Iraq owns all the buildings and installations, the nontransferable structures on the ground that are located in the areas and installations agreed upon, including those the U.S. utilizes, constructs, changes or improves.
At withdrawal, the U.S. will return all the installations and the agreed upon areas allocated for the use of the U.S. combat forces according to two lists (of inventory) to the Iraqi government. The first of these is to be submitted covering the installations and agreed upon areas as soon as the agreement is implemented. And the other list is to be submitted no later than June 30, 2009, the appointed date for U.S. Forces withdrawal from cities, towns and villages. And the Iraqi government has the right to permit the U.S. Forces to use some necessary installations for this agreement's purposes at withdrawal.
The U.S. bears all the costs of building, modification or renovation in the installations and agreed upon areas allocated for their exclusive use. The U.S. will consult with the Iraqi government as to building, modification or renovation works and must seek the approval of the Iraqi government regarding major modifications and construction projects. And in cases of joint utilization of installations and agreed upon areas, both parties will bear the cost of construction, modification or renovation according to the percentage of use.
The U.S. will bear the cost of the services it requests and receives in the installations and agreed upon areas for its exclusive use. And both parties will bear the cost for requested and received services in the installations and agreed upon areas and according to percentage of each party's use.
When a historical or cultural site is discovered, or a strategic resource is found within the installations and agreed upon areas, all construction, modification and innovation works are to stop immediately, and the Iraqi representatives in the Committee are to be informed in order to determine the appropriate steps in regard to it.
The U.S shall return the installations and agreed upon areas and any other installations, or non-transportable structures that it erected, fixed or used during the validity of this agreement according to mechanisms and priorities defined by the Joint Committee; and these installations and areas are to be returned to the Iraqi government free of debts and any financial obligations.
The U.S. Forces shall return to the Iraqi government the installations and agreed upon areas of traditional, moral and political importance and any other fixed structures that the U.S. Forces may have built, assembled, or installed according to mechanisms and priorities and a time period to be agreed upon in the Joint Committee, and with no financial obligations.
The U.S. shall return the rest of the installations and agreed upon areas to the Iraqi government when the validity of this agreement comes to an end or when it is terminated, or at any time prior to that, agreed upon by the two parties, or when the U.S. no longer needs the installations in accordance to what the Committee decrees, without debt or financial obligations.
The U.S. and the contractors with the U.S. retain the ownership of all the equipment, materials, supplies, transportable installations and other transportable property imported to Iraq or acquired in Iraq legitimately and in connection to this agreement.
Article 6
Usage of the Installations and the Agreed Upon Areas
With full respect for the sovereignty of Iraq, in the framework of exchanging points of view between the two parties regarding this agreement, Iraq guarantees that the U.S. Forces and contractors with the U.S Forces and the workers employed by these contractors and the personnel and other entities can reach and use the installations and agreed upon areas according to what both parties agree upon.
Iraq permits the U.S. Forces, according to this agreement, to exercise inside the installations and agreed upon areas all rights and authorities that may be necessary to build, use and secure these installations and agreed upon areas. Both parties are to coordinate and cooperate as to how these rights and authorities may be practiced in the installations and agreed upon areas that are joint utilities.
The U.S Forces control the entrances to the installations and agreed upon areas that are allocated for their exclusive use. Both parties are to coordinate the control of the installations and agreed upon areas of joint use, and according to mechanisms approved by the Joint Committee to coordinate joint military operations. Both parties are to coordinate the guard missions in the areas adjacent to the installations and the agreed upon areas through the Joint Committee for coordination of military operations.
Article 7
Installing and Storing Defense Equipment
U.S. Forces may install inside the installations and agreed upon areas and in other temporary sites agreed upon by both parties, defense equipment and supplies and materials the U.S. Forces need in connection to activities agreed upon in this agreement. The U.S. is to use and store this equipment in a manner appropriate to their temporary mission in Iraq and in accordance with article four of this agreement, on condition that it has no direct or indirect connection to weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, radiological weapons, biological weapons and the wastes related to such weapons). And the U. S. is to control the use and transport of the defense equipment owned by it that is stored in Iraq. It (the U.S.) is to guarantee that no explosives or ammunition are to be stored in installations near residential areas, and that it is to move materials stored in installations near residential areas. The U.S. is to provide the Iraqi government with the necessary information regarding the quantities and types of these stored materials.
Article 8
Environmental Protection
Both parties are to execute this agreement in a manner consistent with protection of the natural environment, health and human security. And the U.S. commits again to respecting the laws of the environment and Iraqi laws in implementing its policies for the purposes of this agreement.
Article 9
Movement of Vehicles, Ships and Planes
With full respect for the rules of safety in land and marine movement, vehicles and ships used by the U.S Force and those that are administered on its account exclusively, may enter and depart and move within Iraqi territory for the purposes of implementing this agreement. The Joint Committee is to coordinate joint military operations and lay down the appropriate rules and procedures to facilitate and regulate the movement of vehicles.
With full respect for the related rules of safety in flight and aviation, permission will be given for the aircraft of the U.S. government and the civilian aircraft at the time to fly in the Iraqi airspace that are operating in accordance with a contract with the Department of Defense of the U.S. exclusively, and to re-fuel in the air exclusively for the purposes of implementing this agreement; and to land and take off within Iraqi territory for the purposes of implementing this agreement. Iraqi authorities will annually issue a permit for the aforementioned aircraft to land on Iraqi territory and take off from it for the exclusive purpose of implementing this agreement. The aircraft, ships and vehicles of the U.S government and the civilian aircraft exclusively working at the time in accordance with a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense will not permit any party aboard them without the consent of the U.S. Forces authorities, and the related joint subcommittee is to agree upon the appropriate procedures to facilitate regulating the traffic.
Iraqi airspace control and monitoring will be transferred to the Iraqi authorities immediately as this agreement becomes valid.
The Iraqi government has the right to request the temporary support of the U.S. Forces for the Iraqi authorities in controlling and monitoring Iraqi airspace.
U.S. government aircraft and civilian aircraft at that time working in accordance with a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense exclusively are exempt from any taxes, or any similar charges including the flight, aviation, landing or waiting at the airport charges by the Iraqi government. And also exempt from any taxes, government collections or any other charges are the vehicles owned by the U.S. Forces or are being used exclusively by the U.S. Forces for the purposes of implementing this agreement. And this includes the ports run by the Iraqi government, and these vehicles, aircraft and ships are exempt from registration demands inside Iraq.
U.S Forces are to pay for any services it requests and obtains.
Each of the two parties is to provide the other party with maps and other available information regarding locations of mine fields and other obstacles that may obstruct movement within the Iraqi land and waters or endanger it.
Article 10
Contracting Procedures
U.S. forces have the right to choose contractors and have contracts with them, according to American law, to buy materials and services in Iraq, including reconstruction and building services. U.S. forces can have contracts with Iraqi suppliers for materials and services when they have competitive tenders and value. U.S. forces should respect Iraqi law when they have contracts with Iraqi suppliers and contractors, they should inform Iraqi authorities of the Iraqi contractors and suppliers and the value of their contracts.
Article 11
Services and Communications
U.S. forces can produce and supply water and electricity and any other services for the installations and areas agreed upon in coordination with the Iraqi authorities through the related Joint sub-committee.
The Iraqi government owns all frequencies. The Iraqi authorities specialized in frequencies allocate frequencies for the U.S forces according to coordination between the two sides via a Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee (JMOCC).The US forces should return the allocated frequencies when they have finished using them at a date no later than the last day of this agreement.
U.S. forces will operate their communications system with full respect to the Iraqi constitution and laws, and according to the text of communication regulations in the International Union of Communications for the year 1992, including the right to use means and special necessary services related to their system to guarantee the full capacity to operate the communications system.
For the purposes of this agreement, U.S. forces are exempt from paying any government collection for using the transmission waves and frequencies now in use or those which will be allocated to them in the future, including administrative and any other charge.
U.S forces should obtain the Iraqi government's approval regarding any infrastructure projects for communications located outside the installations and areas agreed upon for the exclusive purposes of implementation of this agreement according to Article 4, unless there is an actual combat operation, in which case use Article 4.
U.S. forces should use the communication system exclusively for the purposes of this agreement.
Article 12
Jurisdiction
In recognition of Iraq's sovereign right in defining and enforcing the principles of criminal and civilian law on its land and in view of Iraq's request for temporary assistance from U.S. forces as explained in article 4 and as is consistent with the obligation of U.S. forces' and the members of the civilian element to respect Iraqi laws, traditions, customs and values, both parties agreed to the following:
Iraq has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the U.S. forces and members of the civilian element regarding major and premeditated crimes, according to item 8, when these crimes are committed outside installations and areas agreed upon and off duty.
Iraq has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over private contractors which have contracts with the United States and their employees.
The United States has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the U.S. forces and members of the civilian element regarding matters that take place inside the installation and areas agreed upon and during duty outside the installations and areas agreed upon and circumstances not included in the text of item 1.
According to a request from either party, both parties will assist one another to carry out an investigation into incidents and to collect evidence and to exchange them to guarantee justice.
When a member of the U.S. forces or the civilian element is arrested or detained by the Iraqi authorities, the authorities of the U.S. forces should be informed immediately and the detainee should be handed over within 24 hours from the time of detention or arrest. When Iraq practices its jurisdiction in implementation of the text of item 1 of this article the authorities of the U.S. forces then undertake the detention of the accused from the members of the U.S. forces or the civilian element. Then the authorities of the U.S. forces are to submit the accused person or persons to the Iraqi authorities for the purpose investigation and trial.
The authorities of either side may request the authorities of the other side to forgo their primary right of jurisdiction in a specific case. The Iraqi government agrees to exercise jurisdiction according to item 1 above only after informing and notifying the U.S. in writing within 21 days of discovering the alleged crime, its practice of jurisdiction has a special significance.
In cases where the U.S. has the right to exercise jurisdiction according to item 3 of this article, the members of the U.S. forces and of the civilian element have the right to have the legal criteria, procedures and guaranteed protection under the American law and constitution. In case a crime is committed which falls under item 3 of this article and the victim is not a member of the U.S. forces or of the civilian element, both parties agree upon procedures through a joint committee to inform the persons involved of the investigation in an appropriate way, the status of the investigation of the crime, the charges against the accused, a date of trial and the results of the deliberations regarding the suspects situation, the opportunity to hear the accused's statements in open sessions during which he will be sentenced, consultation with the lawyers of the prosecution to follow up the case and to assist in presenting a request according to article 21 of this agreement. The U.S. authorities will seek to hold a trial for cases such as these inside Iraq. And in case trials of such cases are held in the United States, efforts will be made to facilitate the victim's presence personally in the court.
In the cases where Iraq exercises jurisdiction according to item 1 of this article, members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element have the right to the legal criteria, procedures and guarantees that are consistent with those enjoyed under American and Iraqi law. The joint committee will lay down procedures and mechanisms to implement this article, which includes a record of major and premeditated crimes that fall under item 1 and procedures according to the criteria of legitimate trial and guarantees. It is not permitted to exercise jurisdiction according to the text of item 1 of this article unless the mentioned procedures and mechanisms are in place.
The U.S. authorities will state according to items 1 and 3 of this article whether the alleged crime was committed on duty. In cases in which the Iraqi authorities believe that the circumstances call for revision of this account, both parties will deliberate immediately via the joint committee, and the authorities of the U.S. forces will take into full consideration the facts, the circumstances and any other information the Iraqi authorities may submit and that might have an effect upon the report of the authorities of the U.S. forces.
Both parties will review the provisions of this article every six months, including any suggested amendments of this article, taking into consideration the security situation in Iraq and how engaged the U.S. forces are with military operations, the growth and development of the Iraqi judicial system and changes in the American and Iraqi laws.
Article 13
Carrying Weapons and Wearing Official Uniforms
Members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element have the right to possess and carry weapons that belong to the U.S. during their presence in Iraq according to the authorization given to them, the orders given to them and according to their needs and duties. Also the U.S forces should wear their official uniforms while on duty in Iraq.
Article 14
Entry and Departure
For the purposes of this agreement, members of the U.S. forces and members the civilian element may enter and depart Iraq through the formal passages of entrance and departure. They need only to carry identification and travel orders issued to them from the United States. The joint committee handles the task of laying down procedures and mechanisms to check which the specialized Iraqi authorities will implement.
Iraqi authorities have the right to check and verify the names on lists of members of the U.S forces and the civilian element entering Iraq and departing directly into and out of the installations and areas agreed upon. These lists are to be delivered to the Iraqi authorities by the U.S forces.
For the purposes of this agreement, members of the U.S forces and the civilian element may enter and depart Iraq via the installations and areas agreed upon and will not be required to submit anything other than their identification issued in the United States. The joint committee is to lay down the procedures and mechanisms for checking and verifying these documents.
Article 15
Importing and Exporting
For the purposes of implementing this agreement exclusively U.S. forces and contractors with the U.S. forces may import into Iraq and export from it materials that have been bought inside Iraq, and they have the right to re-export and transport and use in Iraq any equipment, supplies, materials and technology on the condition that the materials they import or bring are not prohibited inside Iraq, from the date this agreement takes effect. Importing such materials and re-exporting, transporting and using these materials would not expose them to searches. Also these materials are not subject to licensing or any other restrictions or taxing or customs or any other charges imposed in Iraq in accordance with the definition in item 10 of article 2. U.S authorities have to file to the Iraqi authorities the suitable documents ensuring that these materials are imported by the U.S forces or those contractors with the U.S. forces for the use of the U.S. forces in implementing this agreement exclusively. According to available security information, the Iraqi authorities have the right to ask the U.S forces, in their presence, to open any container which has imported materials to check its contents. The Iraqi authorities will respect while submitting its request the security requirements of the U.S. forces and will accept if the U.S. forces requested that the verification operations should be carried out in the installations used by the U.S. forces. Iraqi goods exported by the U.S. forces and the contractors with the U.S. forces are not subject to any searches or any restrictions except the requirements of a license. The joint committee with the Ministry of Trade according to the Iraqi law will facilitate the requisition of a license for the purpose of the U.S forces to export goods or commodities that they have bought in Iraq for the purposes of this agreement. Iraq has the right to request a review of any matter related to the implementation of this item. The two parties are to discuss immediately such cases via the Joint Committee, or if necessary, via the Joint Ministerial Committee.
Members of the U.S forces and members of the civilian element can import, re-export, and use the materials and personal equipment for consumption or personal use. Importing, re-exporting, transporting and using such imported materials in Iraq is not subject to licensing, or any restrictions, taxes, collections, or any other charges imposed in Iraq as is illustrated in item 10 of article 2. The amount of the imports should be reasonable and suitable for personal use. The U.S authorities should take measures to guarantee that any valuable cultural materials or historical materials related to Iraq are not exported.
Any searches referred to in item 2 by the Iraqi authorities must be carried out quickly in an agreed upon location according to the procedures laid down by the Joint Committee.
Taxes and custom fees, as defined in item 10 of article 2, will be levied upon any imported material that is exempt from custom fees and any other fees according to this agreement and any other fees at the point of sale to individuals or entities not included in the tax exemption or special privileges for import. The buyer should pay these taxes and fees, including the customs fee, for the materials that have been sold. The amount of tax and customs paid will be estimated at the time of their sale inside Iraq.
Importing and using the materials referred in the above mentioned items of this article are prohibited for commercial purposes.
Article 16
Taxes
No taxes, charges or government duties are levied as defined in item 10 of article 2, which are estimated and levied on Iraqi territory for commodities and services bought inside Iraq by the U.S. forces or on their behalf for official purposes. And no other levy is placed on commodities and services that are bought inside Iraq on behalf of the U.S. forces.
Members of the U.S forces and the civilian element do not bear the responsibility of paying any tax, charge or government collection whose value is determined and levied inside the Iraqi territory unless in exchange for services requested and rendered.
Article 17
Licenses and Permits
Valid driving licenses issued by U.S authorities to the members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element and employees of contractors with the United States are accepted by the Iraqi authorities. Those who carry these licenses do not have to take a test or pay any fee to drive their vehicles, ships and planes that belong to the U.S forces in Iraq.
The valid driving licenses issued by the U.S authorities to the members of the U.S forces and the civilian element and the employees of the contractors with the United States are accepted by the Iraqi authorities when they use their own cars on Iraqi territory without taking a test or paying a fee.
All the professional licenses issued by the U.S authorities to the members of the U.S forces and the civilian element and employees of contractors with the United States are accepted by the Iraqi authorities on the condition that these licenses are related to the services they perform within the frame of performing their official or contracted duties to support the U.S forces and the members of the civilian element and contractors with the United States and the employees who work for those contractors, according to the conditions agreed upon by both parties.
Article 18
Military and Official Vehicles
The official vehicles are to carry Iraqi license plates, which are agreed upon between the two parties. The Iraqi authorities, upon the request by the authorities of the U.S. forces, will issue license plates for the official vehicles of the U.S forces without fees and according to procedures approved by the Iraqi armed forces. The U.S authorities pay the Iraqi authorities the cost of the license plates.
Licensing and registration authorizations issued by the authorities of the U.S forces for official vehicles of the U.S. forces are accepted by the Iraqi authorities.
Military vehicles used by the U.S. forces exclusively are exempt from the licensing and registration requirements and these vehicles are to be marked by clear numbers.
Article 19
Support Activities Services
The U.S forces or those who act on behalf of the U.S forces have the right to build and administer activities and entities inside the installations and areas agreed upon through which they supply services to the members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element, the contractors with the United States and the employees of the contractors with the United States. These entities and activities include; military mail, financial services, stores for selling food, medication and other commodities and services, other places for providing entertainment, wire and wireless communications, including cable and radio broadcasting. Constructing these services does not require a license.
The entertainment, media and radio services, which are outside of the installations and areas agreed upon, fall under Iraqi law.
These supporting activities and services are limited to the members of the U.S forces and the civilian element, contractors with the United States and their employees and individuals and entities the two parties agree upon. The authorities of the U.S. forces should take suitable measures to prevent the misuse of the services mentioned above and to prevent the sale or re-sale of the services mentioned above to persons who are not permitted to reach these entities and benefit from the services they present. The U.S forces determine the broadcasting transmissions for radio and television program for the authorized receivers.
The entities and activities mentioned in this article enjoy the same financial and customs exemption as do the U.S forces, including the guaranteed exemptions in articles 15 and 16 of this agreement. Running and administering these entities and activities that provide services according to United States regulations will not require taxes or any other charges for the activities related to their operation.
Mail sent through military mail services should have the verification of the United States authorities, and this mail will be exempt from searching, examination and confiscation by the Iraqi authorities with the exception of unofficial mail that may be monitored electronically. The Joint Committee will handle such issues that stem from the implementation of this item and they will be settled by the agreement of the two parties. The related joint sub-committee will regularly search for the mechanisms by the U.S. authorities to verify military mail.
Article 20
Currency and Foreign Exchange
The U.S. forces have the right to use any amount of U.S. currency or financial assets whose values are determined by American currency for the purposes of this agreement exclusively. The use of the U.S forces of Iraqi currency and private banks should be according to the Iraqi laws.
The U.S forces are not permitted to export Iraqi currency from Iraq and are to take measures to guarantee that none of the members of the U.S forces and the civilian element, contractors with the United States and the employees working for the contractors with the United States to export the Iraqi currency from Iraq.
Article 21
Claims
Except for claims that stem from contracts, both parties forgo their right to demand the other party to compensate for any damages, loss or destruction of properties of the armed forces or the civilian element of either party or to demand compensation for injuries or deaths that may happen to members of the armed forces or the of civilian element that are a result of carrying out their official duty in Iraq.
U.S. authorities should pay fair and reasonable compensation to settle entitled claims for any third party, that may stem from actions of members of the U.S. forces and the civilian element or as a result of their negligence, malfeasance or during their official duty or may be related to non-combat activities of US forces. U.S. authorities may settle entitlement claims that do not stem from performing their official duty as quickly as possible according to laws and regulations of the United States. When settling the claims, the authorities of the U.S. forces take into consideration any report regarding an investigation or opinion issued by Iraqi authorities concerning the responsibility or volume of damages.
Both parties consult immediately through the Joint Committee or if it is necessary through the Joint Ministerial Committee in the cases that need revision and that have been mentioned in item 1 and 2 above, according to the request of one of the parties.
Article 22
Detention
It is not permitted for the U.S. forces to detain or arrest any person (except the detention or arrest of a member of the US forces or the civilian element) unless it is in accordance with an Iraqi decision issued under Iraqi law implementing Article Four.
If US forces detain or arrest persons as is permitted under this agreement or under Iraqi law, they should be turned over to the specialized Iraqi authorities within 24 hours of their detention or arrest.
Iraqi authorities can request assistance from U.S. forces for the purpose of detaining or arresting wanted persons.
The U.S. forces shall provide the Iraqi Government with the available information about all the detainees when this agreement is implemented. The specialized Iraqi authorities shall issue arrest warrants for those who are wanted. The U.S. forces will coordinate completely and effectively with the Iraqi government for the handover of the wanted people to it, according to valid Iraqi arrest warrants and release all other detainees in an organized and secure way unless the Iraqi government requests otherwise under article 4 of this agreement.
U.S. forces are not permitted to search houses or other premises unless it is in accordance with an Iraqi judicial order issued for this purpose with complete coordination with the Iraqi government, except in cases where there is actual combat which comes under Article 4.
Article 23
Implementation
The implementation of this agreement and the settlement of resulting disputes regarding explanations and implementation are the responsibility of the following commissions:
Forming a Joint Ministerial Committee whose members are persons on the ministerial level determined by both parties. This Joint Ministerial Committee undertakes reviewing and resolving the basic necessary issues to explain and implement this agreement.
The Joint Ministerial Committee will undertake the formation of the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) that is composed of representatives of both parties. There will be a Joint Chairmanship of the Joint Military Operation Cooperating Committee (JMOCC) from the two parties.
The Joint Ministerial Committee also forms a joint committee composed of representatives chosen by the two parties and jointly headed by a representative from each party. This committee undertakes reviewing and resolving all the issues related to this agreement that is not the specialization of the Joint Military Operations Coordinating Committee (JMOCC).
The joint committee forms according to item (3) of this article joint subcommittees in various fields who undertake reviewing the issues that stem from this agreement according to their specializations.
Article 24
Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq
Admitting to the performance of Iraqi forces, their increased capabilities and assuming full responsibility for security and based upon the strong relationship between the two parties the two parties agreed to the following:
All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.
All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces mentioned in item (2) above are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns that will be determined by the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) before the date determined in item (2) above.
The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.
The two parties agree to put a mechanism and preparations for reducing the number of U.S. forces during the appointed period. And they are to agree on the locations where the forces are to settle.
Article 25
The Procedures of Lifting Article Seven from Iraq
Recognizing the Iraqi government's right not to request the renewal of the United Nations mandate and the authorization granted to the Multi-National Force Iraq according to chapter seven that is included in the International Security Council's resolution number (1790) (2007) the authorization that will expire on 31 December 2008,
And referring to the two letters directed to the International Security Council: the letter from the Iraqi Prime Minister and the letter from the American Secretary of State dated 7 and 10 December 2007, respectively and they are annexed to resolution (1790),
Noting the third part of the Declaration of Principles regarding the cooperation and long term friendship that was signed by the President of United States of America and the Prime Minister of Iraq on 26 November 2007 which registered in history the Iraqi call for extending the period of the above mentioned mandate for the last time to end on a date no later than 31 December 2008,
Admitting to the great and positive developments in Iraq and reminding that the situation in Iraq is basically different than the situation that was prevalent when the Security Council adopted the resolution number (661) in (1990), and especially as the danger that the Iraqi government used to represent to international peace and security is gone:
The two parties emphasize, as to this issue, that at the end of the working day on 31 December 2008 which terminates the mandate and authorization granted to the Multi-National Force Iraq according to Chapter Seven, that is included in the resolution of the International Security Council number (1790), Iraq should regain its legal and international position that it enjoyed before adoption of resolution (661) (1990) by the U.N. Security Council. And they confirm that the United States will do its best to help Iraq to take the necessary steps to achieve that on 31 December 2008.
Article 26
Iraqi Assets
In order to enable Iraq to continue developing its national economy by rehabilitating the Iraqi economic infrastructures and also to provide the basic vital services for the Iraqi people and to continue to preserve Iraqi resources such as petroleum, gas and other resources and also to preserve its financial and economic assets abroad, including the Development Fund of Iraq, the United States of America guarantees its best effort in order to:
Support Iraq to cancel its international debts that resulted from the policy of the former regime.
Support Iraq to reach a final and comprehensive decision regarding the demands of compensation that Iraq inherited from the former regime that have not been resolved yet, including the demands of compensation that was imposed on Iraq by the International Security Council.
Admitting to the concern that Iraq shows towards the demands based upon the actions committed by the former regime and in understanding of this matter, the President of the United States will use his authority to provide the protection for the Development Fund of Iraq and other specific assets that Iraq partly owns from the American judicial system. The United States will stay committed in a complete and effective way with the Iraqi government to continue this protection and in regard to those demands.
Based on a letter that will be sent from the President of the United States to the Prime Minister of Iraq, the United States will remain committed to helping Iraq in regard to the demand it submitted to the Security Council to extend the protection and other arrangements regarding petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas produced in Iraq and the resources and commitments that stem from these sales and the Development Fund of Iraq, these are the arrangements defined in the two resolutions of the Security Council (1483)(2003) and (1546)(2003).
Article 27
Deterrence Security Dangers
In order to support the security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to establishing international peace and stability, both parties seek actively to strengthen the political and military abilities for the Republic of Iraq and to enable Iraq to deter the dangers that threaten its sovereignty and political independence, the unity of its land and its democratic federal constitutional system, they agreed upon the following:
When any external or internal danger emerges against Iraq or an aggression upon it violates its sovereignty, its political stability, the unity of its land, water, and airspace or threatens its democratic system or its elected establishments and according to the request of the Iraqi government, the two parties will immediately start strategic talks and according to what they will agree on between them the United States will undertakes the appropriate measures that include diplomatic, economic, military or any other measure required to deter this threat.
Both parties agree to continue their strong cooperation to strengthen and maintain the military, security and democratic political institutions in Iraq in accordance with what they agree upon, cooperation, supplying and arming the Iraqi Security Forces for the prevention of local and international terrorism and outlaw groups, upon the request of the Iraqi government.
It is not permitted to use Iraqi land, water and airspace as a route or launching pad for attacks against other countries.
Article 28
The Green Zone
When this agreement takes effect the Iraqi government undertakes complete responsibility of the Green Zone.
The Iraqi government may request limited, temporary support from the U.S. forces for the Iraqi authorities regarding the mission of securing the Green Zone and when submitting such a request the related Iraqi authorities are to work in collaboration with the U.S. forces regarding security in the Green Zone during a time period determined by Iraq government.
Article 29
Arrangement for Implementation
Whenever there is a need, both parties lay down appropriate mechanisms for the implementation of the articles of this agreement including the articles that do not include specified mechanisms for implementation.
Article 30
Time Period of Validity of this Agreement
This agreement is valid for three years unless it is terminated by one of the parties before that period ends in accordance with item (3) of this article.
This agreement is not to be amended unless by formal written approval of both parties and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in both countries.
The validity of this agreement will terminate after one year from the date that either of the two parties receives written notification for termination.
This agreement will take effect on the first day of January 2009 after both parties have exchanged diplomatic memorandums concerning the completion of necessary procedures for both parties to implement the agreement in accordance with the valid constitutional procedures of both parties.
This agreement has been signed in Baghdad on the 17th day of the month of November, 2008 in two original copies in both the Arabic and English languages and both texts are equal in legal procedures.
Translated from the Arabic by Sahar Issa, Jenan Hussein and Hussein Kadhim of the McClatchy Baghdad Bureau.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
So what's the deal with the US SOFA in Iraq?
First, let me point you to some other analyses about the SOFA: Juan Cole,Robert Dreyfuss, Stratfor and Pepe Escobar.
Reading through these analyses I amazed that nobody seems to be very concerned about the fact that the final text has still not been leaked. It will, probably before the end of the week, but for the time being everybody is commenting mostly on the basis of what can only be called hearsay. Still, whatever the fine print of the SOFA is, a number of elements in it appear to be quasi-certain. According to the SOFA,
There is more stuff than that, but the rest is mostly "fluff" (for example, nobody seriously expects the USA to place any of its forces under Iraqi authority).
So who 'won' here? Did the Maliki government obtain major concessions from the USA?
Frankly, I am not impressed. Not one bit.
First, there defenders of the SOFA are trying to present as a huge victory that the US will not be able to station bases in Iraq. That is no victory at all. Consider this:
De jure, First, the UN mandate expires in December and after that the US would, theoretically need to get out anyway.
De facto, the US is bankrupt and regardless of its imperial hubris it does not have the means so sustain an occupation which costs the taxpayer anywhere from a billion a day to several trillions over time.
So what does this SOFA achieve on getting the USA out of Iraq? Nothing. Nothing for the Iraqis, that is.
For the Americans is gives them three years to withdraw in an organized and planned fashion. Is that in the interests of the Iraqi people? That is for them to decide, of course, but I for one thing would have preferred a panicked "run for our lives" similar to what happened when the Vietnamese booted out the Empire out of their country, with the last folks jumping into helicopters from the roof the US embassy. That kind of image is *priceless* in hammering into the minds of the (mostly militaristic) American people the basic truth that wars are dangerous, costly, and not so easily won. What does the SOFA do in this respect? It allow the USA to do what it loves to do: declare victory and leave. Why give them this present?
Score on this one: USA 1, Iraq 0
Now let's look at the second "victory": the guarantee that the US will not launch military operations from Iraq.
Let's us just use basic common sense here. Let's say that the Americans decide to bomb some construction site in Syria or an empty building in Khorramshar (the usual "terrorist bases" the Americans love to destroy). What will the Iraqis do in response? They will protest, no doubt. And what will the Americans answer to the Iraqi protests? "Sue me!", of course.
The fact that the USA has no problems violating international law in all its aspects and that it would be naive in the extreme to expect it to abide by the terms of a SOFA signed with a puppet government whose survival depends on American protection in the first place.
Score card so far: USA 2, Iraq 0
Let's look at the last "victory". The USA will be out of Iraq by 2011. Last time I checked, Obama promised to be out in 16 months, so what the Maliki cabinet is giving him is *more* time to stay in Iraq, hardly something to be proud of.
Final score card: USA 3, Iraq 0.
I would also add the following: a SOFA is not an international treaty and the USA has absolutely no legal obligation to abide by its provisions. An international treaty has to be ratified by Congress after which, and only after which, it becomes the Law of the Land in the USA. Not so with a SOFA whose exact terms are often kept secret to begin with.
No matter how you look at it, the SOFA gives the Iraqis absolutely nothing while providing the USA with a desperately needed figleaf to hide is abject failure in Iraq and that begs the question of why al-Sistani and the Iranians are not overly opposing it like the Sadrists do.
I don't know enough about al-Sistani to speculate about his motives. The little I know about him leaves me utterly unimpressed by his attitude. Sure, being "above the crowd" does look noble and majestic, but when your country is being raped, pillaged and destroyed and when more of your fellow Iraqis have been killed then in the Cambodian and Rwandan genocides this kind of lofty silence does not look so noble at all, at least to me.
What about the Iranians?
The idea is being floated out there about some kind of bargain being made between the Iranians and the new Obama administration and I have to say that this seems plausible to me. For many years the Iranians have tried to reach some deal with the USA and only the amazing stupidity of the Neocons prevented any kind of deal from being made. There is, however, another explanation which seems far more likely, at least to me.
Iran is not the unitary actor which the Western media likes to say it is. The fact is that the Iranian political system is extremely decentralized, with plenty of different centers of power and that the Iranian society in general, and the Iranian political scene in particular, is composed of many different factions with often radically opposed views and agendas. To make things worse, or better - depending on your outlook, there is an upcoming Presidential election in Iran, and considering the, shall we say, less than stellar performance of President Ahmadinejad, this election will be highly contested. As a result, politicians in Iran are walking a very fine line with the situation in Iraq. On one hand, to openly criticize the Maliki government might alienate some Shia factions in Iran (and Iraq), but on the other hand not criticising this SOFA, or the generally collaborationist attitude of the Maliki government, might alienate other Shia factions. One has to also consider the objective options Iran has.
Taking an openly "Sadrist" position is guaranteed to finally push Maliki and the rest of his cabinet in the arms of the American and leave the Iranians with only one potential ally in Iraq: al-Sadr himself. I don't know what the assessment of al-Sadr is in Tehran, but I would most definitely not want to rely on this character for my policy towards Iraq. The fundamental reality for the Iranian is this:
While Iran has plenty of power and influence in Iraq, it does not have any reliable allies. In other words, there is no "Iraqi Hezbollah" or "Iraqi Hassan Nasrallah". That is the crucial dilemma, the most painful headache for the Iranians and their stance towards Iraq.
The devil's choice of "Maliki versus Sadr" leaves only one viable option for the Iranians: not to decide at all. It is far more advantageous for the Iranians to play one against the other since that maximizes Iran's influence over the developments in Iraq and it allows them time to seek out and groom a much needed *trustworthy* partner in Iraq.
In the meantime, this dilemma explains the rather bland mix of reservations and tacit understanding which we see coming out of Iran on the topic of the SOFA. I have no doubt whatsoever that Tehran fully understands that Maliki and his cohorts are for sale to the highest bidder. Likewise, the Iranians also fully understand that Sadr is too inconsistent and too unreliable to bet on him. Thus, they are stuck in a very dangerous role of being always halfway here and halfway there.
This is a very dangerous place to be in for the Iranians. First, it makes them look unprincipled and cynical. I bet you that all the arguments about the lack of good allies don't look one bit convincing to the average Iraqi. Second, but not being able to articulate a clear position, Iran risks alienating every major faction in Iraq. "Divide and conquer" can be an effective technique for the short to middle term, but for the long term it never makes you popular and the risk of blowback are very real.
Of course, Iran could try to do what the Americans do in so many countries and create a political force ex nihilo, but think about this: has this tactic every worked?! I can't think of a single case.
Iran did not "create" Hezbollah. Hezbollah really created itself. All the Iranians did was to correctly identify it as a trustworthy partner and support it. That is, alas, not an option which Iran has in Iraq, at least for the time being.
The political realities on the ground in Iraq being what they are, I expect the chaos and bloodshed to continue for the foreseeable future.
The Saker
Reading through these analyses I amazed that nobody seems to be very concerned about the fact that the final text has still not been leaked. It will, probably before the end of the week, but for the time being everybody is commenting mostly on the basis of what can only be called hearsay. Still, whatever the fine print of the SOFA is, a number of elements in it appear to be quasi-certain. According to the SOFA,
- The USA will have to give up the ideas of permanent bases
- The USA will not be able to launch military operations from Iraq on other countries
- The USA will be out of Iraq by 2011
There is more stuff than that, but the rest is mostly "fluff" (for example, nobody seriously expects the USA to place any of its forces under Iraqi authority).
So who 'won' here? Did the Maliki government obtain major concessions from the USA?
Frankly, I am not impressed. Not one bit.
First, there defenders of the SOFA are trying to present as a huge victory that the US will not be able to station bases in Iraq. That is no victory at all. Consider this:
De jure, First, the UN mandate expires in December and after that the US would, theoretically need to get out anyway.
De facto, the US is bankrupt and regardless of its imperial hubris it does not have the means so sustain an occupation which costs the taxpayer anywhere from a billion a day to several trillions over time.
So what does this SOFA achieve on getting the USA out of Iraq? Nothing. Nothing for the Iraqis, that is.
For the Americans is gives them three years to withdraw in an organized and planned fashion. Is that in the interests of the Iraqi people? That is for them to decide, of course, but I for one thing would have preferred a panicked "run for our lives" similar to what happened when the Vietnamese booted out the Empire out of their country, with the last folks jumping into helicopters from the roof the US embassy. That kind of image is *priceless* in hammering into the minds of the (mostly militaristic) American people the basic truth that wars are dangerous, costly, and not so easily won. What does the SOFA do in this respect? It allow the USA to do what it loves to do: declare victory and leave. Why give them this present?
Score on this one: USA 1, Iraq 0
Now let's look at the second "victory": the guarantee that the US will not launch military operations from Iraq.
Let's us just use basic common sense here. Let's say that the Americans decide to bomb some construction site in Syria or an empty building in Khorramshar (the usual "terrorist bases" the Americans love to destroy). What will the Iraqis do in response? They will protest, no doubt. And what will the Americans answer to the Iraqi protests? "Sue me!", of course.
The fact that the USA has no problems violating international law in all its aspects and that it would be naive in the extreme to expect it to abide by the terms of a SOFA signed with a puppet government whose survival depends on American protection in the first place.
Score card so far: USA 2, Iraq 0
Let's look at the last "victory". The USA will be out of Iraq by 2011. Last time I checked, Obama promised to be out in 16 months, so what the Maliki cabinet is giving him is *more* time to stay in Iraq, hardly something to be proud of.
Final score card: USA 3, Iraq 0.
I would also add the following: a SOFA is not an international treaty and the USA has absolutely no legal obligation to abide by its provisions. An international treaty has to be ratified by Congress after which, and only after which, it becomes the Law of the Land in the USA. Not so with a SOFA whose exact terms are often kept secret to begin with.
No matter how you look at it, the SOFA gives the Iraqis absolutely nothing while providing the USA with a desperately needed figleaf to hide is abject failure in Iraq and that begs the question of why al-Sistani and the Iranians are not overly opposing it like the Sadrists do.
I don't know enough about al-Sistani to speculate about his motives. The little I know about him leaves me utterly unimpressed by his attitude. Sure, being "above the crowd" does look noble and majestic, but when your country is being raped, pillaged and destroyed and when more of your fellow Iraqis have been killed then in the Cambodian and Rwandan genocides this kind of lofty silence does not look so noble at all, at least to me.
What about the Iranians?
The idea is being floated out there about some kind of bargain being made between the Iranians and the new Obama administration and I have to say that this seems plausible to me. For many years the Iranians have tried to reach some deal with the USA and only the amazing stupidity of the Neocons prevented any kind of deal from being made. There is, however, another explanation which seems far more likely, at least to me.
Iran is not the unitary actor which the Western media likes to say it is. The fact is that the Iranian political system is extremely decentralized, with plenty of different centers of power and that the Iranian society in general, and the Iranian political scene in particular, is composed of many different factions with often radically opposed views and agendas. To make things worse, or better - depending on your outlook, there is an upcoming Presidential election in Iran, and considering the, shall we say, less than stellar performance of President Ahmadinejad, this election will be highly contested. As a result, politicians in Iran are walking a very fine line with the situation in Iraq. On one hand, to openly criticize the Maliki government might alienate some Shia factions in Iran (and Iraq), but on the other hand not criticising this SOFA, or the generally collaborationist attitude of the Maliki government, might alienate other Shia factions. One has to also consider the objective options Iran has.
Taking an openly "Sadrist" position is guaranteed to finally push Maliki and the rest of his cabinet in the arms of the American and leave the Iranians with only one potential ally in Iraq: al-Sadr himself. I don't know what the assessment of al-Sadr is in Tehran, but I would most definitely not want to rely on this character for my policy towards Iraq. The fundamental reality for the Iranian is this:
While Iran has plenty of power and influence in Iraq, it does not have any reliable allies. In other words, there is no "Iraqi Hezbollah" or "Iraqi Hassan Nasrallah". That is the crucial dilemma, the most painful headache for the Iranians and their stance towards Iraq.
The devil's choice of "Maliki versus Sadr" leaves only one viable option for the Iranians: not to decide at all. It is far more advantageous for the Iranians to play one against the other since that maximizes Iran's influence over the developments in Iraq and it allows them time to seek out and groom a much needed *trustworthy* partner in Iraq.
In the meantime, this dilemma explains the rather bland mix of reservations and tacit understanding which we see coming out of Iran on the topic of the SOFA. I have no doubt whatsoever that Tehran fully understands that Maliki and his cohorts are for sale to the highest bidder. Likewise, the Iranians also fully understand that Sadr is too inconsistent and too unreliable to bet on him. Thus, they are stuck in a very dangerous role of being always halfway here and halfway there.
This is a very dangerous place to be in for the Iranians. First, it makes them look unprincipled and cynical. I bet you that all the arguments about the lack of good allies don't look one bit convincing to the average Iraqi. Second, but not being able to articulate a clear position, Iran risks alienating every major faction in Iraq. "Divide and conquer" can be an effective technique for the short to middle term, but for the long term it never makes you popular and the risk of blowback are very real.
Of course, Iran could try to do what the Americans do in so many countries and create a political force ex nihilo, but think about this: has this tactic every worked?! I can't think of a single case.
Iran did not "create" Hezbollah. Hezbollah really created itself. All the Iranians did was to correctly identify it as a trustworthy partner and support it. That is, alas, not an option which Iran has in Iraq, at least for the time being.
The political realities on the ground in Iraq being what they are, I expect the chaos and bloodshed to continue for the foreseeable future.
The Saker
Monday, November 17, 2008
Yes, I am my brother's keeper
By Siv O'Neall, Axis of Logic Columnist
The polarized world
Do we need further proof that greed is not the solution for a sound economy? Do we need further proof that capitalism is foundering? Do we need further proof that ignoring the poor is not the way to make the world go round? That selfish accumulation of wealth is not the key to peace of mind and a life worth living?
The weirdoes who are presently at the helm of the world don't know a thing about what a good life is all about. A half-starving family in India may well have a more meaningful life than high-riding madmen who accumulate riches and who never stop striving for more – the very people who are ruining the lives of the poverty-stricken slum dwellers in the third world, people who were once farmers, poor but self-sustaining. Now they are scavenging on the garbage dumps on the outskirts of the big cities. The goals in the lives of the poor rich people who are ruining the earth couldn't be more out of joint.
There is certainly no beauty in desperate poverty, nothing positive in being deprived of the decent lives of billions of the earth's population. But the poor soulless billionaires who have set as a goal in their lives to destroy the lives of millions, so as to wallow in luxury in their secluded mansions, are the victims of their own selfishness and their disastrous misjudgment of the human psyche.
Why haven't those criminals who are the mad founders of 'disaster capitalism' been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail a long time ago?
Then again: Why was Hitler so very close to conquering the world?
Love and solidarity have so many ingenious and dangerous enemies – the ones who know nothing about the humane qualities that hold us up and keep us together in a community, spiritual or geographical. Those are the dangerous fanatics who construct edifices of world domination theories in an attempt to compensate for the lack of anything constructive in their lives. They are trying desperately to use power and wealth to cover up the emptiness of their inner beings.
The world before the meltdown
There are two major problems today. And don't miss the forest for looking at all the trees. There is the willful murder of the poor and there is the killing of the environment, thus ending life on earth as we know it.
Greed is the ultimate cause in both these disasters. Lack of vision and lack of the urge to live a meaningful life of love, solidarity, and intellectual challenges are the secondary factors that have shaped our modern world since large-scale expansionism became the leading urge for a handful of madmen who wanted to rule the world. Greed combined with utter lack of empathy, such as is seen in today's deranged heads of state and corporations.
In order to rule the world, they have been working very deliberately and consistently on expanding their territories and on spreading their so-called culture all over the world, to make us all into Disneyworld-going, shopping-mall-loving, and anti-intellectual robots. Dumbing down the people was one of their prime goals. Robots do what their propagandized brains have been made to indulge in. Which is more television propaganda, digesting preposterous lies (such as spreading democracy and freedom and fighting 'terrorism'), more consumerism, more borrowing to make for more indebted and dependent consumer addicts. Once they are indebted heavily and propagandized to a state of mental vacuity, thought the ruling madmen, we'll command all their movements. They will be helpless victims in this wonderful world where only the lives of the very few have any real importance. The rest of the people of the world will get by on the scraps from the rich man's table and, since they've been dumbed down, there is nothing they can or will do to change anything.
What the people of the world want more than anything else is peace. So the clique who runs the show invents the Pax Americana. Trumpets are blowing and flags are waving. Wow! To begin with people went hysterical with ostentatious patriotism. Pax Americana, democracy at home and abroad, freedom for all people. The United States of America, always the fighter for freedom and prosperity for all its citizens. The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave! U.S. citizens were floating around on clouds of slogans.
The U.S. brand of patriotism replaces true solidarity. Fear makes the people at home deaf and blind to the true nature of the aggression of the powerful – those same madmen who have lost all touch with reality. There is no attempt to actually try to understand the way foreign peoples react to the cruel acts of domination by the superpower. There is only a naive belief in the possibility of remaking the psyches of the vanquished masses. Making them into a brand of new-age Americans.
"O brave new world that hath such people in't!" The United States dominates the planet with hundreds and hundreds of military bases on all five continents. People all over the world would be sold to the 'American' way of life and they would just be begging to get more McDonalds, more Disneyworlds, more shopping malls. The non-thinking gluttons for self-aggrandizement would see their mirror images in people all over the world. Steeping the world in the red white and blue virtues is seen as a lark. Patriotism is for Americans, the rest of the world is just supposed to be grateful for the civilization that the U.S. domination is bringing to them so generously. Since the only civilized country is the United States, the rest of us must be oh so grateful for the opportunity of sharing in this civilization. The total ignorance of the U.S. leaders and of most of its citizens as to what real civilization is all about and its long and wonderful history is appalling.
Doubt is rearing its head
But something has gone sour. The American people are beginning to see that maybe we are not fighting for peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe we were not fighting for peace in Somalia, maybe we were not fighting for peace anywhere in Asia or Africa. Wasn't this Pax Americana costing them too dearly at home? Weren't they all paying for this war that their sons and daughters were being killed for? Weren't the Big Corporations making huge profits while they suffered foreclosures of their homes?
Was there ever going to be an end to this horrid war? No, say the masters of war, there will be a war without end. Finally a word of truth. And the people began to see that they'd been had. The madmen at the helm of their own country and a huge part of the rest of the world were the only winners. They were the kings for a day in this world without compassion, without a vision for the future, without a plan for how to make their gambling craze be compatible with the survival of the planet. The gambling became a goal in itself and the short-time winning spree made the madmen dizzier than ever and things got a bit out of hand.
There was one value in this setup and its name was money. Paper money, useless money, huge fortunes that only increased the poverty at home and in the third world, but, or so said the 'wise men', they themselves were going to be immune to any wild fluctuations on Wall Street. Let the poor people lose their homes, they themselves would sit comfortably in their mansions. Let the hurricanes blow, they were always going to be protected by the high walls surrounding them. Family values be damned. The phrase had been useful as a political slogan but values were barely needed any more. The people were made powerless and totally malleable to the whims of the masters of war. The slogans of Patriotism, Terrorism and Eternal War were on the agenda of the day.
The end of winner take all
And then the bottom fell out. The U.S economy was in shambles and the crisis spread to the rest of the world. Can this meltdown of the world economy possibly lead to a rethinking in the minds of the ruling 'elite', the bankers and Wall Street conmen who are now scrambling to put a lid on the violently boiling stew? If compassion does not work for the psychopaths who rule the world, can reality tell them that something went terribly wrong? Their monolithic machine hit a massive wall.
Will this be the final proof that raw capitalism does not work? Will the Big Money men finally understand that there has to be production behind capital gains, not just speculation for short-term gains? And who are the producers? You and me. The producers were the people who are now laid off and hurting, who lost their homes through the urge to get into deep debt that was preached to them by the bankers. Preached to them by the Wall Street prophets who have not lost their fortunes or their standing. Only the workers are hurting. This government takes care of its own.
When will the people finally be able to convince Big Money that their wealth is due to the ceaseless efforts of the workers? That they must have a share in the profits or else the economy is bound to tank. Again and again. No buyers, no profits. The Big guys can sit safe on their big estates only for so long before they too begin to hurt. You don't eat shares and derivatives. You don't go on luxury cruises when there is noone to make up the crew. (noone in one word is perfectly correct)
Even the people who don't understand the words compassion and sharing will find one day that speculative short-term gains do not make the world go round.
Being your brother's keeper
How about reinstating an equitable way of running the ship? When will the leaders of the world see that with the billions of the world's population who are starving or on the edge of starvation, the lack of equilibrium on the planet is not going to be solved by letting those billions starve to death?
The people who fail to understand that we are all born equals and that the only humane thing to do is to be your brother's keeper have to do some serious thinking. If your brother is starving it's not because he is lazy, it's because he was never given a chance to earn a decent living, or else you, the criminals who rule the planet, took it away from him. Given equal chances to make a decent living to begin with, the human being is instinctively a hard worker. If you ruined his chances to look out for himself, it's your responsibility to restore his rights to a decent life.
Call it socialism, call it welfare if you like; but I call it repairing the damage caused by colonialism, expansionism and corporatism, and the effects of a game of loaded dice that you invented. You naively believed that you could run the world without the cooperation of the honest people, the workers, the producers, the ones who were not brought up to become rapists and predators. You thought those people could be exploited indefinitely, until they conveniently died from starvation and overwork. In the meantime, you had reaped all the profit possible from their delivering diamonds and gold from the mines in the Congo or in the badly constructed and ill-secured mines in your own country where several deadly accidents have occurred in the past few years alone. Who cares? There are millions of unemployed workers who are waiting to take their dangerous jobs. That's the way you planned your game of Big Profit.
How unfortunate for you to realize finally that your wealth is not going to go on multiplying endlessly, with just a tolerable number of victims of your greed every year. How unfortunate for you to realize that you have to be your brother's keeper or else the economy will come to a screeching halt.
Was democracy a dream only?
If it's unrealistic to think that we might be able to change the minds of the madly accumulating psychopaths, today's world leaders, or to put them in straitjackets, we can at least hope for a future world where humility, cooperation and concern for the Other will reign, instead of fear.
When will we all have a voice in where the world is going? When will we get some semblance of democracy back?
Can we finally have some degree of basic human rights and decency in the running of the world? Please.
The polarized world
Do we need further proof that greed is not the solution for a sound economy? Do we need further proof that capitalism is foundering? Do we need further proof that ignoring the poor is not the way to make the world go round? That selfish accumulation of wealth is not the key to peace of mind and a life worth living?
The weirdoes who are presently at the helm of the world don't know a thing about what a good life is all about. A half-starving family in India may well have a more meaningful life than high-riding madmen who accumulate riches and who never stop striving for more – the very people who are ruining the lives of the poverty-stricken slum dwellers in the third world, people who were once farmers, poor but self-sustaining. Now they are scavenging on the garbage dumps on the outskirts of the big cities. The goals in the lives of the poor rich people who are ruining the earth couldn't be more out of joint.
There is certainly no beauty in desperate poverty, nothing positive in being deprived of the decent lives of billions of the earth's population. But the poor soulless billionaires who have set as a goal in their lives to destroy the lives of millions, so as to wallow in luxury in their secluded mansions, are the victims of their own selfishness and their disastrous misjudgment of the human psyche.
Why haven't those criminals who are the mad founders of 'disaster capitalism' been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail a long time ago?
Then again: Why was Hitler so very close to conquering the world?
Love and solidarity have so many ingenious and dangerous enemies – the ones who know nothing about the humane qualities that hold us up and keep us together in a community, spiritual or geographical. Those are the dangerous fanatics who construct edifices of world domination theories in an attempt to compensate for the lack of anything constructive in their lives. They are trying desperately to use power and wealth to cover up the emptiness of their inner beings.
The world before the meltdown
There are two major problems today. And don't miss the forest for looking at all the trees. There is the willful murder of the poor and there is the killing of the environment, thus ending life on earth as we know it.
Greed is the ultimate cause in both these disasters. Lack of vision and lack of the urge to live a meaningful life of love, solidarity, and intellectual challenges are the secondary factors that have shaped our modern world since large-scale expansionism became the leading urge for a handful of madmen who wanted to rule the world. Greed combined with utter lack of empathy, such as is seen in today's deranged heads of state and corporations.
In order to rule the world, they have been working very deliberately and consistently on expanding their territories and on spreading their so-called culture all over the world, to make us all into Disneyworld-going, shopping-mall-loving, and anti-intellectual robots. Dumbing down the people was one of their prime goals. Robots do what their propagandized brains have been made to indulge in. Which is more television propaganda, digesting preposterous lies (such as spreading democracy and freedom and fighting 'terrorism'), more consumerism, more borrowing to make for more indebted and dependent consumer addicts. Once they are indebted heavily and propagandized to a state of mental vacuity, thought the ruling madmen, we'll command all their movements. They will be helpless victims in this wonderful world where only the lives of the very few have any real importance. The rest of the people of the world will get by on the scraps from the rich man's table and, since they've been dumbed down, there is nothing they can or will do to change anything.
What the people of the world want more than anything else is peace. So the clique who runs the show invents the Pax Americana. Trumpets are blowing and flags are waving. Wow! To begin with people went hysterical with ostentatious patriotism. Pax Americana, democracy at home and abroad, freedom for all people. The United States of America, always the fighter for freedom and prosperity for all its citizens. The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave! U.S. citizens were floating around on clouds of slogans.
The U.S. brand of patriotism replaces true solidarity. Fear makes the people at home deaf and blind to the true nature of the aggression of the powerful – those same madmen who have lost all touch with reality. There is no attempt to actually try to understand the way foreign peoples react to the cruel acts of domination by the superpower. There is only a naive belief in the possibility of remaking the psyches of the vanquished masses. Making them into a brand of new-age Americans.
"O brave new world that hath such people in't!" The United States dominates the planet with hundreds and hundreds of military bases on all five continents. People all over the world would be sold to the 'American' way of life and they would just be begging to get more McDonalds, more Disneyworlds, more shopping malls. The non-thinking gluttons for self-aggrandizement would see their mirror images in people all over the world. Steeping the world in the red white and blue virtues is seen as a lark. Patriotism is for Americans, the rest of the world is just supposed to be grateful for the civilization that the U.S. domination is bringing to them so generously. Since the only civilized country is the United States, the rest of us must be oh so grateful for the opportunity of sharing in this civilization. The total ignorance of the U.S. leaders and of most of its citizens as to what real civilization is all about and its long and wonderful history is appalling.
Doubt is rearing its head
But something has gone sour. The American people are beginning to see that maybe we are not fighting for peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe we were not fighting for peace in Somalia, maybe we were not fighting for peace anywhere in Asia or Africa. Wasn't this Pax Americana costing them too dearly at home? Weren't they all paying for this war that their sons and daughters were being killed for? Weren't the Big Corporations making huge profits while they suffered foreclosures of their homes?
Was there ever going to be an end to this horrid war? No, say the masters of war, there will be a war without end. Finally a word of truth. And the people began to see that they'd been had. The madmen at the helm of their own country and a huge part of the rest of the world were the only winners. They were the kings for a day in this world without compassion, without a vision for the future, without a plan for how to make their gambling craze be compatible with the survival of the planet. The gambling became a goal in itself and the short-time winning spree made the madmen dizzier than ever and things got a bit out of hand.
There was one value in this setup and its name was money. Paper money, useless money, huge fortunes that only increased the poverty at home and in the third world, but, or so said the 'wise men', they themselves were going to be immune to any wild fluctuations on Wall Street. Let the poor people lose their homes, they themselves would sit comfortably in their mansions. Let the hurricanes blow, they were always going to be protected by the high walls surrounding them. Family values be damned. The phrase had been useful as a political slogan but values were barely needed any more. The people were made powerless and totally malleable to the whims of the masters of war. The slogans of Patriotism, Terrorism and Eternal War were on the agenda of the day.
The end of winner take all
And then the bottom fell out. The U.S economy was in shambles and the crisis spread to the rest of the world. Can this meltdown of the world economy possibly lead to a rethinking in the minds of the ruling 'elite', the bankers and Wall Street conmen who are now scrambling to put a lid on the violently boiling stew? If compassion does not work for the psychopaths who rule the world, can reality tell them that something went terribly wrong? Their monolithic machine hit a massive wall.
Will this be the final proof that raw capitalism does not work? Will the Big Money men finally understand that there has to be production behind capital gains, not just speculation for short-term gains? And who are the producers? You and me. The producers were the people who are now laid off and hurting, who lost their homes through the urge to get into deep debt that was preached to them by the bankers. Preached to them by the Wall Street prophets who have not lost their fortunes or their standing. Only the workers are hurting. This government takes care of its own.
When will the people finally be able to convince Big Money that their wealth is due to the ceaseless efforts of the workers? That they must have a share in the profits or else the economy is bound to tank. Again and again. No buyers, no profits. The Big guys can sit safe on their big estates only for so long before they too begin to hurt. You don't eat shares and derivatives. You don't go on luxury cruises when there is noone to make up the crew. (noone in one word is perfectly correct)
Even the people who don't understand the words compassion and sharing will find one day that speculative short-term gains do not make the world go round.
Being your brother's keeper
How about reinstating an equitable way of running the ship? When will the leaders of the world see that with the billions of the world's population who are starving or on the edge of starvation, the lack of equilibrium on the planet is not going to be solved by letting those billions starve to death?
The people who fail to understand that we are all born equals and that the only humane thing to do is to be your brother's keeper have to do some serious thinking. If your brother is starving it's not because he is lazy, it's because he was never given a chance to earn a decent living, or else you, the criminals who rule the planet, took it away from him. Given equal chances to make a decent living to begin with, the human being is instinctively a hard worker. If you ruined his chances to look out for himself, it's your responsibility to restore his rights to a decent life.
Call it socialism, call it welfare if you like; but I call it repairing the damage caused by colonialism, expansionism and corporatism, and the effects of a game of loaded dice that you invented. You naively believed that you could run the world without the cooperation of the honest people, the workers, the producers, the ones who were not brought up to become rapists and predators. You thought those people could be exploited indefinitely, until they conveniently died from starvation and overwork. In the meantime, you had reaped all the profit possible from their delivering diamonds and gold from the mines in the Congo or in the badly constructed and ill-secured mines in your own country where several deadly accidents have occurred in the past few years alone. Who cares? There are millions of unemployed workers who are waiting to take their dangerous jobs. That's the way you planned your game of Big Profit.
How unfortunate for you to realize finally that your wealth is not going to go on multiplying endlessly, with just a tolerable number of victims of your greed every year. How unfortunate for you to realize that you have to be your brother's keeper or else the economy will come to a screeching halt.
Was democracy a dream only?
If it's unrealistic to think that we might be able to change the minds of the madly accumulating psychopaths, today's world leaders, or to put them in straitjackets, we can at least hope for a future world where humility, cooperation and concern for the Other will reign, instead of fear.
When will we all have a voice in where the world is going? When will we get some semblance of democracy back?
Can we finally have some degree of basic human rights and decency in the running of the world? Please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
