Sistani Opposes SOFA;
"As Long as he is Alive;
Al-Maliki Advisor seems to, Too;
5 Killed, 22 Injured in Baghdad
Mark Kukis at Time reports on Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani's insistence with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that Iraq recover its sovereignty on all levels.
The report is bolstered by this one on Iran's al-Alam channel:
The USG Open Source Center translates transcripts of Arabic language satellite stations reporting on the controversies over recent statements of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. (Via BBC Monitoring). Note that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's adviser on cultural affairs went on Iranian television and slammed the US positions in the negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement. .
'May 25, 2008 Sunday
AL-SISTANI NOT TO ALLOW US-IRAQ AGREEMENT "AS LONG AS HE IS ALIVE" - AL-ALAM TV
LENGTH: 271 words
Text of report by state-run Iranian Arabic-language television news channel Al-Alam on 25 May
[Presenter] There have been further reactions to the security agreement, which the US occupation and the Iraqi government intend to sign. A source close to the [Shi'i] religious figure Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani has said that Al-Sistani told Prime Minister Al-Maliki, during their meeting in the holy city of Al-Najaf, that he totally rejects the agreement.
He [Al-Sistani] said he would not allow the signing of the agreement as long as he is alive. However, at the same time, he voiced support to the Iraqi government and to efforts by Iraqi officials and people to establish security and stability in the country.
Mr Husayn Barakah al-Shami, advisor to the Iraqi prime minister for cultural affairs, said that through this agreement, the US wants Iraq to be a launch pad to control the region. He added that Iraqis and their political leaders and religious figures have a lot of reservations about the agreement and its implications.
[Al-Shami] Iraq is very serious about getting out of Chapter 7 [of the UN Charter]. The Americans have their special project and their strategy in the region and in Iraq. They want Iraq to be their launch pad to control the region and to strengthen their influence there. The Iraqi people, political leaders and religious clerics voiced their reservations about this agreement. But they must enter this agreement [after seeking] clarifications on the issues of military bases, arrests, prisons and the use of Iraq's air space.
Source: Al-Alam TV, Tehran, in Arabic 1700 gmt 25 May 08 '
Sawt al-Iraq writes in Arabic that a close associate of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Karbala, who declined to be identified, denied that he had prepared a fatwa of jihad against foreign troops in Iraq. He said that Sistani urged resistance to the occupation, but wanted Iraqis to deploy non-violent means to end the foreign troop presence.
[While this statement is true, it does not actually address the legal issue. Sistani was said by AP to have replied privately to Shiite militiamen who asked him about the legitimacy of attacking multi-national troops in Iraq. He was said to have confirmed, in private and in person, that in Shiite law, attacking a foreign occupier is legitimate. There is no contradiction between him holding those views as a matter of considered opinion on the law, and his actual policy of encouraging peaceful resistance.]
The Kuwait News Agency carried the following with regard to reports that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani was issuing private statements to Shiite militiamen that it is legitimate to attack foreign troops:
' BAGHDAD, May 23 (KUNA) -- An Iraqi MP Friday brushed aside reports suggesting Sayyed Ali Sistani had issued a religious fatwa permitting armed resistance against foreign forces, and affirmed that the Shiite cleric had called, since collapse of baathist regime, for peaceful resistance.
Sheikh Jalaluddin Al-Saghir, head of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) bloc at the parliament, told KUNA these press reports about the alleged fatwa "are totally baseless." He said the policy of Sistani was based "on resisting the occupiers via peaceful means and he is still supporting the political process therefore there these claims are false." A source close to Sistani in Najaf said the senior cleric did not issue the fatwa, and was still committed to his previous position which emphasized that Iraq was not a scene for "jihad or armed confrontation." The source, speaking to KUNA on condition of anonymity, said Sistani's position was clear since the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime. "He had called repeatedly for peaceful resistance to get the foreign forces out of Iraq," he added.
Iraqi and Western media working in Iraq said Sistani has issued a number of fatwas permitting armed resistance against foreign forces.'
Sistani's fatwa against selling food to the Americans would be consistent with what these officials are saying. One wag in the blogosphere called it, a "No soup for you!" policy.
Najaf, where Sistani lives has told the US that it does not want the "Awakening Council" model but will accept US development aid.
The Iraqi parliament has still not passed an elections law, a prerequisite for holding provincial elections-- which are therefore likely to be delayed. Al-Arabiya t.v. had a program on this issue, and I came away from it pessimistic that the law would soon be passed or that provincial elections would actually be held in 2008.
McClatchy reports political violence on Sunday:
' Baghdad
- Around 10am, a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol at Al-Maghrib Street in Adhamiyah neighborhood (north Baghdad) near the Turkish embassy .Five people were injured including two policemen.
- Around 1pm,a car bomb targeted the Babil governor’s convoy near Yarmouk hospital at Yarmouk neighborhood (west Baghdad). 11 people were injured (7 guards who were with the convoy and 4 other civilians).
- Around 1:15pm,a roadside bomb targeted an American patrol at al-Ghadeer neighborhood of new Baghdad(east Baghdad). No casualties reported.
- Around 4pm,a roadside bomb exploded at Suleikh neighborhood(north Baghdad).One civilian was killed and four others were wounded.
- Around 4:15pm, a mortar shell hit Wihda section in Karrada neighborhood(downtown Baghdad). Two people were injured in that incident.
- Police found 4 dead bodies in the following neighborhoods in Baghdad: 2 were found in Karkh bank(west Baghdad); 1 in Hurriyah and 1 in Mansour while 2 were found in Risafa bank (east Baghdad); 1 in Jisr Diyala and 1 Suleikh .
Kirkuk
- Before noon, a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol at Al-Tiseen neighborhood in downtown Kirkuk .Four policemen were injured.
Anbar
- Around 10am, a roadside bomb targeted the Sheikh Mishhin Mohammad Abbas’ convoy in Gharma (east of Falluja).Three of his guards were injured in that incident. Sheikh Mishhin is the head of Jamila tribes and the Sahwa leader in the area. A curfew was announced for further notice on vehicles and pedestrians.
Diyala
- Around 8am, gunmen attacked an Iraqi army check point at Imam Weis village (37 miles north of Baquba).A tanker driver was killed . Then, a roadside bomb targeted an army patrol in the same area killing one officer and injuring four soldiers.
- Around 7am, gunmen opened fire on police patrol at Al-Mafraq (west Baquba).One civilian was killed.
- Around 10am,a random shooting by gunmen at Azzat village (west of Baquba) led to kill a member of the Sahwa in the area.'
Jimmy Carter, still talking sense in his 80s-- on an Iraq withdrawal timetable, on lifting the siege of Gaza, on talking to Iran.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/26/2008 12:25:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
Suppose that - like Sistani is recommending - the Iraqi government refuses to sign any Status of Force Agreement with the US, but on the contrary asks for a withdrawal's time table : isn't that an ideal situation for any future US Democratic president ? He can then play a legalist game, stating that since the legitimacy given to US troops by the UNSC has ended, the US has to plan the withdrawal of its troops. That looks like a great occasion of ending the Iraq adventure for the Americans.
The proposed treaty in its current form is opposed by its own backers in Iraq too: the Kurds; Hakim; and the CIA whores. They want the treaty to explicitly oblige the USA to protect the regime, which is not in the proposal yet.
The Americans are using childish arguments to get the Iraqis to accept their breathtaking demands. Apart from being above all Iraqi laws, they want to keep control of the Iraqi communications and intelligence. Why should Iraq accept? For your own good! They also want to be free to detain or kill whomever they like, to protect Iraq! How? Although the Americans have been abismal in fighting the insurgencies, with the only clear successes coming from the Iraqis when acting alone, the US says that the Iraqis are no good and only the Americans can do it.
The US says that we need them to protect us, Iraqis, from internal and external dangers. As for the external threats, rather than having a provocative treaty with a nasty imperial power on the other side of the world, we should have friendship and trade agreements with our neighbors. But to be on the safe side, leave your phone number before you get out: we will call you if we need you, but don't call us.
The most ridiculous argument is that this treaty will restore Iraq's sovereignty (which they said Iraq was "given" in 2004 anyway.) Well, let's have the same rights given to Iraq to make it a treaty between equals. Iraq should have the right to build huge 'enduring' military bases in the USA, and detain and kill any American they like with impunity. We, Iraqis, should also control the CIA and the military communication network.
The Senate's supplemental appropriations bill passed last week seemed to cut virtually all reconstruction aid to Iraq except for some $100 million in economic aid and some other minor programs to pay for the Awakening, etc. What little was appropriated besides the economic aid has to be funded 50% by the Iraqi government. By comparison Mexico got $350 million in aid from the bill with no strings attached. Further no more Iraqi major reconstruction projects are to be initiated even if funding was appropriated earlier.
Ayatollah Sistani seems to be saying that's totally unacceptable if the US forces want to stay in Iraq past the end of the year, setting up a potential showdown in the House when they return from recess. Part of the reports to Congress last week said the Defense Dept. squandered Iraqi resources as well as US resources, but the Senate apparently felt under no obligation to replace Iraqi resources that were squandered by the Defense Dept.
Further Ayatollah Sistani's statements could be seen as an indication of further military operations against the Sadrists, and Iranian influence in Iraq, should the Sadrists and Iran continue to advocate violently resisting the occupation. It will therefore be important to see how Sadrists and Iranian clerics in the Khomenist tradition reply to Sistani, if at all.
'Suppose that - like Sistani is recommending - the Iraqi government refuses to sign any Status of Force Agreement with the US, but on the contrary asks for a withdrawal's time table : isn't that an ideal situation for any future US Democratic president ? '
Well, Christiane, the future US Democratic president is going to be Clinton or Obama and both of them are pledged to maintaining US occupation forces in Iraq.
I know that the Democratic Party bills itself as the opposition but it is not opposed to US Imperialism and the occupation of Iraq, or of Palestine.
Obama and Clinton are a "made man and woman", made by the mob in control in the USofA.
The opposition is Gravel/McKinney/Nader, and perhaps a few others. Anyone who opposes the war in Iraq must vote for the opposition. A vote for a Republicrat or Demoblican is a vote for more war.
John Francis Lee,
As far as I know, there is only one turn in the US presidential election, unlike say in France, where you can choose the person you really want and have a second turn to choice the one you less dislike. Under these circumstances, it doesn't make sense to vote for say Nader, thus perhaps allowing the Rep to win again.
I know that neither Clinton nor Obama will get out of Iraq easily, but they are a lesser evil compared to McCain.
And if the Iraqi take firmly position against the Status of Force Agreement, it will be more difficult for either Clinton or Obama not to withdraw, especially if they face a stronger anti-war movement in the US, which I hope.
This Status of Force Agreement is a real occasion to stop the US occupation in Iraq, there should be strong movements against it both in Iraq and in the US.
Christiane,
The Iraqis can tell the foreigners to leave at any time according to rules of the UN resolution which
mandates the presence of the US and other troops. But if you have a puppet government then they are not going to volunteer to do that.
The treaty is not essential for the US to stay anyway. The Iraqi government has been renewing the UN mandate every year, and they can do that again at the end of this year.
The Americans prefer the treaty because it cuts out the the UN Security Council interference, and they and their puppet regime can agree anything they like. The treaty can also be a template for other deals in the region: The New Middle East! The Zionist lunatics in Washington and Israel have it all worked out. The Arabs put their trillions in oil revenues and a third of a billion people under the leadership of Israel and the USA to buld a mega, virtual, Zionist empire fulfilling God's promise to his Chosen Jewish People.
Post a Comment
<< Home