SOFA Vote Set for Wednesday;
The Iraqi parliament has postponed its vote on the proposed US-Iraq security pact from Monday to Wednesday. MPs had complained that there were not given enough time to study its provisions. It is still not clear how the Sunni Arab MPs will vote; without their support, the agreement would likely be seen as a joint Shiite-Kurdish conspiracy.
Sunni Arabs have grievances against the Baghdad government, but many seem willing to cooperate with it.
The presidency council in Iraq has criticized Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for building up tribal levies of Shiite Arabs into forces supporting the PM. There are rumors in Iraq that they are loyal to the Da'wa or Islamic Mission Party, and may play a role in strengthening that party against Shiite rivals.
Further evidence that Kurdistan is already acting like an independent country surfaced on Saturday, when it was revealed that the Kurds have imported arms from Bulgaria without directing so much as a by your leave to Baghdad.
An Iranian arrested last week by US forces at Baghdad Airport as a gun runner has been released. Maybe the Iraqis wanted him running guns (see story just above).
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/23/2008 12:49:00 AM
|
Facebook
3 Comments:
The main Sunni bloc has given Maliki a set of demands as their price for supporting the agreement. They include the release of prisoners and more say in government. The Mutlag group of 18 have rejected it outright. Allawi's list, which includes both Sunnis and Shi'as will vote against, although one of the lawmakers will vote for it.
With so many absentees, both in Mecca and those avoiding going on record either way, a quorum is seen as a serious hurdle.
The courts are also studying an official complaint from the Sadrists and others that the agreement needs two third majority to pass, not a simple majority, in accordance with the draft law governing agreements with other countries.
I just finished reading through the SOFA.
I have two questions.
The SOFA concludes by stating that the "agreement is valid for three years..." (Article 30).
The agreement's timer starts ticking on 1 Jan, 2009, three years from that is 1 Jan, 2012. The troop withdrawals are specifically stated for 2011, so I understand the 2012 date to include all other Articles within the agreement.
So, doesn't this indicate that the US would no longer explicitly be empowered, by agreement, to defend Iraq from internal and external security threats as several SOFA Articles indicate is the prime US mission, thus concluding its mandate unless a new agreement is signed following 1 Jan, 2012?
Also, regarding the US bases (called "installations and areas agreed upon" in the SOFA), wouldn't they also have to be transferred to the Iraqi government unless a new agreement is signed by 2012?
Thank for a good explanation of the SOFA
Post a Comment
<< Home