MPs rule out quick signing of U.S.-Iraq security deal

BAGHDAD / IraqiNews.com: A number of Iraqi lawmakers ruled out the possibility of signing the U.S.-Iraq security pact this year. Some of them considered the American presidential elections the main reason for the delay while another attributed it to the U.S.-Iran conflict and its impact upon the Middle East region. “I think voting on the security agreement would occur after the American presidential elections,” MP Ahmed Anwar from the Kurdish Coalition (KC) told IraqiNews.com. The security pact has set off long-time debates in government and religious circles. Some government politicians said the U.S. had given the furthest point in the current draft of the agreement, while other regarded it as “breaching Iraq’s sovereignty.” “It is a key issue that requires long discussions,” MP Anwar said. “It will be passed from the Political Council for National Security to the government, which would refer to the Parliament where two essential readings must be made before voting.” Washington and Baghdad are currently negotiating a security pact that would decide the future of U.S. forces in Iraq after the present UN mandate expires at the end of this year. The UN mandate currently acts as the legal framework for the presence of foreign forces in the violence-wracked country. MP Abdelkarim al-Enzi from the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) highlighted “the agreement was discussed by the Political Council for National Security and a consensus has not yet been reached on one version.” “The Council of Ministers emphasized making amendments before being renegotiated so it would take long time before getting the thumbs-up approval by the Parliament,” he explained. The Iraqi government unanimously agreed that a security pact with the U.S. lacked some “necessary amendments” according to government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. “The Iraqi part are negotiating pulling foreign troops out of the country, while the Americans are looked to extend their presence” MP al-Enzi said “the key points had been amended and only superficial items were changed”. The draft status-of-forces agreement calls for U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraqi cities by July 30, 2009, and out of the country entirely by December 31, 2011. The agreement allows for an earlier withdrawal or an extension of the U.S. forces’ stay in Iraq by agreement of both parties. It allows the Iraqi government to ask “the U.S. government to leave certain forces for training and for support purposes for the Iraqi forces. Legal jurisdiction over U.S. forces in Iraq has been a sticking point in the negotiation, with the U.S. preferring that its troops and contractors remain immune from Iraqi law. Baghdad sought the power to arrest and try Americans accused of crimes and not related to official military operations, plus jurisdiction over troops and contractors who commit major crimes in the course of their duties. Under the draft agreement, U.S. forces or contractors who commit “major and premeditated murders” while off duty and outside U.S. facilities would fall under Iraqi jurisdiction. For MP Izzat al-Shahbandar from the Iraqi National List (INL) the agreement scene “looked difficult and had brought about further complications.” “The U.S pressures to lift protection over Iraqi funds in U.S. banks as one of the potential tool” he accounted for the consequence of rejecting the security deal. “The agreement will not easily be signed easily due to American-Iranian conflict and its impact on the security pact.” U.S. officials believe Iranian interference were creating obstacles to the accord and derail Iraqis from signing the agreement. U.S. Army Gen. Ray Odierno, who took command of U.S forces last month, told the Washington Post last month in an interview that American intelligence reports alleged that Iran had attempted to bribe Iraqi lawmakers to sabotage the agreement. The comments, which drew the ire of Iraqi politicians all week afte