Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraqi Leaders Veto Law Bush Administration Hailed As Political Breakthrough
BAGHDAD - Iraq's three-man presidency council Wednesday announced that it's vetoed legislation that U.S. officials two weeks ago hailed as significant political progress.
Also Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he hoped that Turkey's incursion into northern Iraq to fight Kurdish rebels would last a "week or two" but "not months."
Turkish news agencies reported that as many as 77 guerrillas were killed the night before in the most violent night of the week-old incursion on Iraq's northern border. A rebel spokesman said fighters for the Kurdish Workers Party, known as the PKK, had killed 18 Turkish soldiers.
The rejected bill, which sets out the political structure for Iraq's provincial governments and establishes a basis for elections in October, was only the second of 18 U.S.-set political benchmarks that the war-tore nation needs to reach.
Parliament considered it in a bundle with two other bills, a general amnesty and a budget, and approved it on Feb. 12 in what was welcomed in Washington as an example of good government, compromise and progress toward national unity.
Now the question is whether parliament is willing to revise the measure.
"It was a package deal. Now that package is broken," said Joost Hiltermann, an Iraq expert at the International Crisis Group in Amman, Jordan.
At the heart of the rejection of the provincial law is the question of whether Iraq will have strong provincial governors who answer only to their elected executive councils or if the federal prime minister will have a voice in their appointment and removal.
The presidency council vetoed the bill, challenging the role it gave both the prime minister and the governor.
Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., said the law is needed to define the roles of Iraq's provinces and of the central government and to set ground rules for any future discussion of creating a federation of Sunni and Shiite Muslim and Kurdish regions.
"The key issue is whether the presidency council sent the law back for the right reasons and if parliament will improve the law rather than oppose further delays," he said.
A spokesman declined to say which member or members of the presidency council, which is composed of a Kurd, a Shiite and a Sunni, refused to sign the legislation, sending it back to parliament.
He said the Oct. 1 elections aren't compromised.
However, Hiltermann expressed doubt that the elections would take place as scheduled in October. "It's all up for grabs," he said. "Everything is set back."
Political groupings that oppose extreme government centralization, such as Sunnis, Shiite nationalists and Shiite followers of radical cleric Moqtada al Sadr, could see an uphill battle in parliament, Hiltermann said.
Hassan al Sneid, a Dawa Party member in the large Iraqi Alliance, supports the idea of a prime minister wielding control over governors. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is also a Dawa member.
"If the prime minister doesn't have the authority to depose a governor, we will have a president in each governorate," he said.
Meanwhile, fighting in northern Iraq continued Wednesday between Turkish soldiers and PKK, who have fought for years for an independent Kurdish region of Turkey.
"It's very important that the Turks make this operation as short as possible and then leave. They have to be mindful of Iraqi sovereignty," Gates told reporters during a visit to New Delhi, India. "I measure quick in terms of days, a week or two, something like that, not months."
Gates is expected to meet with Turkish officials in Ankara Thursday.
Lannen writes for the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader. Special correspondent Laith Hammoudi in Baghdad and Nancy A. Youssef in Washington contributed to this article.
© 2008 McClatchy Newspapers
27 Comments so far
Show AllOil is what matters to multinationals and private armies.
Imperialist neo-cons want to occupy a strategically located country to move into any neighboring countries posing "a threat to our interests in the Middle East" or should I say "our and Israel's interests in the..." There is A LOT at play there: just imagine if the Democratic govt of Saudi Arabia fell, elections occured, and we did not like the resuts (as in Palestine)!
Wait now, better no-one suggests the House of Saud is not Democratic! U could be named an enemy combatant under current laws...that's what "Islamoterrorists" think and u are giving them weapons to fight -albeit in words only- clearly they'd never think about this without U.
"They have to be mindful of Iraqi Sovereignty".
Only the United States of America has the Authority, From Who? to violate the Sovereignty of other weak nations. The UNited Nations, which supposed to be the World Governing Authority has not the Authority to stop Unilatrial exploits of the United States.
Iraq did not have anything to do with 911. Americans were duped into invading Irag. America has and is violating the Sovereignty of Iraq.
this is for bbr-001 ...because it is IMPERIALISM AND ILLEGAL IT WON'T WORK !!!! the greatest military on earth still cannot win after 5 years....i guess we wnt to war with the army we had,instead of the army we wanted.....
The discussion of the Iraqi parliament parallels the two aims that existed when the US invaded. One group, the neocons (who attempted to install Ahmed Chalabi to succeed Hussein), wanted to take over Iraqi oil production, and that the result of opening the oil spigots would break the back of OPEC. For this to occur, the Iraqi central government would have to be weak (e.g. the various tribes and religious sects would spend their time fighting amongst themselves than stand up to the US). The other group, the US petroleum production corporations (re: Halliburton) want merely to earn billions servicing (while Blackwater would gain millions proviing security for) Iraq's oil fields. This would only be possible with a strong central Iraqi government. The US corporations that actually own crude oil fields grew to like the higher prices (500% increase since 2000) that the Iraqi occupation engendered. It was apparent (the US raid on Chalabi's office, amongst other things) that the neocons lost. Therefor, the insistence that the Iraqi parliament pass a Petroleum Law was largely dropped, while the Bush administration now pushes Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki towards a strong central government (which is, after all, preferable to dictators everywhere).
I was rather puzzled by the lack of a coherent Iraq oil policy push until I read Greg Palast's excellent book, "Armed Madhouse".
As to the question of whether Iraq is truly a sovereign country, remember when Prime Minister al-Maliki ordered Blackwater out of his country, then a few days later changed his mind? 'Nuf said.
"It's very important that the Turks make this operation as short as possible and then leave. They have to be mindful of Iraqi sovereignty," Gates told reporters during a visit to New Delhi, India. "I measure quick in terms of days, a week or two, something like that, not months."
Spoken like a true Bush league Hypocrite!
Quite the slap in the face for the White House, eh?
Yet another reason to get out of this. WE have no reason to be there! They do not want us there. Continuing this only makes us weaker and poorer.
Sorry folks. Iraq was a weak country with lots of oil in the dawning peak oil age. We just got there first. Even the multi trillion dollar cost will be paid back when we sell ourselves that oil under market price.
Bush and Cheney probably feel they did the right "realpolitik" thing by this strategic oil grab. 115 billion barrels and counting, and we can share it with anyone or no one. The lies, destruction, upheaval and deaths are necesary for our future economy. They just don't say it in so many words, because its imperialism and illegal.
I'll bet that if Obama becomes the next president, he is going to be leaned on by every industry lobbyist and power broker type in DC to continue the big lie and stay in Iraq for "humanitarian" reasons.
I don't know anything about the Center for Strategic and International Studies, not that I recall having come across before, anyway. However, one thing is obvious and it's that the USA has NO RIGHTS whatsoever in Iraq and on its affairs. The only right and duty the US has is to GET OUT and STAY OUT of Iraq altogether.
The US has too many ongoing and extreme crimes of war and against humanity in respects other than war in many countries, and this is what the USA MUST BE FOCUSING every f*cking ounce of energy it has to work on stopping and then providing reparations for. Among these crimes is the (basically anyway) forced and certainly predatory, imperialist, colonialist, ... hellbent criminal expansion of NATO, which is WICKEDLY expanding far beyond its respectful limits. Another case is the extreme corruption and clobbering of the UN and UNSC; while others are the need to make Israel ABIDE by international laws and UN Charter, making the IMF and World Bank morally ethical entities or operations, and curtailing the (basically or very) forced and predatory corporate agricultural racketeering of Monsanto et al, f.e. Those are in addition to the need for the USA to restore the democratically elected govt of Haiti, Kosovo as a province of Serbia, stopping the US-proxied genocide in Congo and other genocides (or quasi) in other African countries, terminating NAFTA and the SPP, etcetera.
The USA needs to withdraw itself and all of its allies from Iraq, and to sanely do this by transitioning external assistance to the UN and Arab states that can and are willing to help; while providing ALL needed funding required to restore Iraq to a functioning economy, re-nationalised natural resources and etcetera, etcetera.
The 1999 UNSC resolution for Kosovo was for Serbia to recognise the province as self-governing, and given that this is all the UNSC resolution permitted and called for, and due to US demands or pressure, the USA has no grounds for demanding anything more be done in Iraq; while such and all other related demands must be made at the UNSC, not directly between the USA and the Iraqi govts.
As far as direct relationship between the USA (and UK) and Iraq, it should be that the US govt (and UK govt) have their (minimally) testicles removed; literally, for whoever feels up to the job, too. Might want to do the same with their heads TOO! The latter would "polish" off the "job" nicely, and we could make it a spectator "sport".
" hazmat February 28th, 2008 12:21 pm
"They have to be mindful of Iraqi sovereignty," Gates told reporters…just before downing another double shot of anti-irony serum."
AND he'S unfortunately not joking. For those who wonder why, see the following and other related articles at Global Research, f.e. It's a good, definitely and strongly fitting example.
"Washington gets a new colony in the Balkans
by Sara Flounders
Global Research, February 28, 2008
International Action Center - 2008-02-21"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8185
It ain't for no peace-and-love or peace-and-justice reason that the criminally forced independence of Kosovo has been completed, so far. It wouldn't have been possible to impose sovereignty for Kosovo if these criminal imperialist-Western powers had not separated the Serbian province from Serbia. Provincial self-governance, greater respect for it by Serbia, perhaps; but nothing of the scale or scope of national sovereignty, which is something these criminal imperialist-Western powers have absolutely NO respect for, but of course, criminals as they are, they hypocritically employ "defence" of it when it is strategically profitable to do so.
Anyway, between this other situation and the one in Iraq, among others, we find the same thematic.
They demand this false sovereignty because they plan on being the deciders, secretly, when it needs to be secretly anyway, of the laws that will be applicable, so the laws that will be eliminated or replaced, and those that'll be only but wrongly modified.
This is obvious to most people who've been paying ATTENTION, or been working on making ourselves informed in non-narrow terms; but maybe stating the above can be helpful to some people still needing to do a little catching up.
And for people who think that drawing attention to the situation in Kosovo is distraction from the war on Iraq, or any other critical issues, and to any degree whatsoever, I say that it's then necessary for such people to make sure to become well informed about what's going on there, before passing such rash (invalid) judgement calls. Ethical people will agree that they can't disagree with me about this; not truthfully anyway.
["It's very important that the Turks make this operation as short as possible and then leave. They have to be mindful of Iraqi sovereignty," Gates told reporters during a visit to New Delhi, India.]
What the hell are these criminals smoking? They attacked, invaded, and occupied Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, and are still there. They attacked, invaded, and occupied Iraq in March of 2003, and are still there. They are openly supporting the murdering, genocide, land theft, and occupation of the Palestinian People since 1967. But they are concerned about the "sovereignty" of IRAQ? WOW!!!
When this administration, or its military kills innocent people, it's called an "operation." But when the opposition kill, it is called "terrorist."
All of our "benchmarks" lead to our total control, politically and economically, of Iraq. I hope Iraq veroes them all.
The Iraq handbasket must be very large, Iran and Turkey want to get in with us. Wonder which one will first notice the temperature rise as we head for hell? Who will be able to jump clear before the basket passes the hinges on the door of hades?
Tune in next week for 'Ethically Challenged Empire Wanna Bes and the Bankrupt' You won't even need a television to see it!
The main stream media will be offering ENTIRELY alternate programming.
It looks like Iraq is moving toward establishing a government just like they operated under Saddam Hussein, but without him or somebody comparable.
Tribal rights and rules are not seen as something to be given up in the name of a "democracy" imposed on Iraq by its invaders. In Iraq, each group takes care of its own as a discrete entity and barters with other neighboring entities where the playing field is in constant motion but eventually balanced. Nothing the Iraqi people have seen of "democracy" or those who want to force it on them is better than what they had.
canukchuck you are correct..........how did he say that and the media does not question him ? oh that's right they own the media......here's another whopper....pres bush told israel should get out of t he west bank and gaza strip (while we are in iraq and afghanistan ) ?????????/
Its the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Sovereign indeed!
At this rate they will never get to the Production Sharing Agreements! We want that oil! (Or at least to make it look legitimate when we do take it all.)
"It's very important that the Turks make this operation as short as possible and then leave. They have to be mindful of Iraqi sovereignty," Gates told reporters"
DID HE ACTUALLY GET THIS OUT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE????
I guess that Bush who has stayed bought, thereby making him an 'honest', is very upset at those others who are 'dishonest', i.e. they did not stay bought and acted in their own interests.
Iraqi "democracy" is turning into a nightmare for the US leadership who claimed that it was a goal. I can hear Bush now say....."We don't WANT them to do that, what the hell...who told them they could decide these kinds of things?"
Actually, the rejection of the law was a breakthrough for Iraqi govermental integrity. Don't you just love checks and balances--don't you wish we had such in the government of the United States?
"Things are continuing as planned in Iraq"
BTW - Isn't the height of arrogance to tell Turkey to withdraw from Iraq? What will(s/b what can) the US do if they refuse to withdraw when requested?
Turkey is only accomplishing what the US and Iraq and Iraqi Kurds promised to do for 4 1/2 years - attempt to prevent terrorists from crossing the border to kill and maim. (The MSM calls them 'rebels' - hmmmm)
Seems like US and Iraq have other problems getting their attention and Turkey is only helping them keep their promises. I guess the Iraqi Kurds figured that since the US did not force them to keep their promise, they could 'ignore' the problem.
Really weird.
"At the heart of the rejection of the provincial law is the question of whether Iraq will have strong provincial governors who answer only to their elected executive councils or if the federal prime minister will have a voice in their appointment and removal."
Just as Musharraf is designated a democrat, and Chávez a dictator in the strange looking glass of Bush, the removal of a governor in Iraq is seen as democratic, while the same right in Venezuela for the president was seen as a power grab by a dictatorship. In Iraq, the question was put to a parliament; in Venezuela, to the people. Maybe the same should be done in Iraq, but it would beunthinkable.
"At the heart of the rejection of the provincial law is the question of whether Iraq will have strong provincial governors who answer only to their elected executive councils or if the federal prime minister will have a voice in their appointment and removal."
was only the second of 18 U.S.-set political benchmarks that the war-tore nation needs to reach.
Benchmarks for Iraq to reach? Says who? Says the capitalists? The Green Party platform includes some benchmarks for the capitalists to reach.
Actually, a better analogy would be Oceana invades the US and dissolves all old structures of authority, and replace them with a puppet government cosnsiting, oddly, almost entirely of Roman Catholics from the old northeast and rust belt cities. The powerful Catholics, in turn, are refusing to resist the brutal foreigh Oceana occupation as patriotic USAns ought to be doing. Meanwhile, Jews, in their comfortable isolated neighborhoods, seem to be liking the occupiers too. Resentment from majority Protestants in the south, midwest, and west, builds against these two religions and their manifestly traitorous behavior and sectarian civil war breaks out.
The Oceananins like this situation, in fact they planned it; divide-and-conquer is as old as war itself.
It may seem improbable in even a fantasy scenario that a sectarian civil war could occur in the US. but, the MSM has been very, very good in hiding the fact that, before the US invaded Iraq, sectarian tensions between Sunni, Shia and Christians were hardly more than those between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews (respectively) in the US today - i.e. practically nonexistent.
"They can bicker all they want, so long as we can maintain a secure perimeter around the oil rigs, refineries and other strategic targets into perpetuity."
-Probably a quote from a planning room in DC, an oil company boardroom, etc.
"They have to be mindful of Iraqi sovereignty," Gates told reporters...just before downing another double shot of anti-irony serum.
Imagine this: China unlawfully invades the United States, dissolves the government, and then finds itself entangled in a civil war between whites, blacks, and Latinos. China decides the best exit strategy is one which pushes for a federated political system wherein whites, blacks, and Latinos would have direct power to decide their leaders but the role and powers of the federal government is unspecified. When quarreling breaks out among the three groups and between them and the federal government, the Chinese just shrug and decide "historic tensions" and "age-old" hatreds among Americans make it impossible to establish "democracy." A fair conclusion of the Chinese, right? (Sarcasm intended.)