US Holding Iraqi Money Hostage

[DRV1804]

Iraq SOFA Facing Resistance; US Holding Iraqi Money Hostage

Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 14:29:59 PM EDT

Facing a number of discrepancies and disagreements over the US proposed Status of Forces Agreement, the Iraqi government may be looking into different alternatives, including the possibility of staying under UN protection.

Official Spokesman for the Iraqi Government Ali al-Dabbagh said, "Currently, there is open talk on the need to look for alternatives to the long-term security agreement between Iraq and the United States."

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat by phone from his office in Baghdad, Al-Dabbagh said, "At its meeting today [3 June], the Council of Ministers discussed the objections to the provisions of the agreement. There should be agreement between two fully sovereign countries respecting the Iraqi people's rights and sovereignty or no agreement at all." He emphasized, "We do not need an agreement that compromises our sovereignty and harms our people's rights."

Iraqis feel that there is a real threat to their sovereignty. Both Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani , and Iraq's former prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari have made public statements against the agreement. Moqtada Sadr is encouraging his followers in the Sadrist Trend to protest and conduct public demonstrations until the agreement is dropped.

Al-Dabbagh said, "The Iraqi Government's vision differs from that of the Americans who think that the agreement will give them almost totally a free hand in Iraq and that, as a military force, they must have absolute powers. This stand contravenes Iraqi sovereignty and our people's rights. No Iraqi political force or party would accept this. The issue of the country's sovereignty and people's rights cannot be compromised at all. It is not subject to discussion or even mere talk." He added, "The agreement must respect Iraq and the Iraqis or there should be no agreement. We are not compelled to sign the agreement or submit to it. The agreement must respect our sovereignty and rights." The official spokesman for the Iraqi Government said, "Currently, there is open talk on the need to look for alternatives, if no plan is agreed upon. These alternatives include signing a cooperation agreement instead of a long-term security agreement and staying under the United Nations protection to protect Iraqi funds, in addition to many other alternatives that are under discussion. "Al-Dabbagh denied that the negotiations between Iraq and the US Administration on the agreement have been suspended. He explained, "The negotiators went back to their higher political authorities for consultation. We do not consider the negotiations as having been suspended. Iraq has not submitted and will not submit to any pressure or influence. As a matter of fact, the Americans did not press for accepting the agreement." Earlier, a leader of the Al-Da'wah Party announced that negotiations between the two sides came to an end.

The Iraqis feel rather strongly about our continued occupation there, and the free reign that our troops and contractors are given. Recently, representatives of Iraq's parliament visited DC in an effort to clear up some of the misconceptions that their American political counterparts may have. They expressed opposition to the US-proposed SOFA. They also expressed concerns as to why the US felt the need for a long-term military presence. They felt that the US invasion up to this point has not made the country better, and that our current presence contributes to instability. One of the main goals of the long-term military presence in Iraq is to protect them from outside threats. However, the Iraqi government has stated that they do not feel there are outside threats that are a danger to Iran. They have stated that they are capable of defending themselves against foreign threats, and solving their own problems.

In response to this, the US is increasing the pressure on the Iraqi government by holding their money hostage.

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

When I was first deployed to Iraq in 2003, there was a list of reasons why we were there. President Bush felt that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US. He felt that he was developing WMD that he could then spread to terrorist organizations around the world. And he stated several times that Saddam was working in collusion with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. We accomplished the mission. Saddam was removed from power. The search for WMD was completed. That was five years ago. America needs to listen to the nation of Iraq. A long-term US military presence is not in their best interest, and it never was. We have done our part. We have given them their freedom, and the tools they needed to jumpstart their fledgling government. Our part is over. Our interference should now end, and we should allow them to take control of their own land.

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1413

[2fast4u2c]

I understand Iraqi's don't want us to be able to walk thru their homes etc. but you cannot fight fair in an unfair fight. So if we can't do it our way ...let them put their lives at risk. Obviously they don't want to do that.

[FRUSTRATED]

Yea,you are right,we should just leave all the idiots over in iraq alone and respect their right to hate AMERICANS for stepping in and saving their arsses from SADDAM HUSSEIN and teaching them to set up a better government in which for them to achieve prosperity and also just forget our soldiers that gave their lives and the billions of our tax dollars.The US should own at least half of IRAQ.For them to tell us to get all our people out of IRAQ IS A HUGE INSULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[quadraph0nic]

fantastic, the dinar will be cheaper to purchase....

[SushiLovr2]

Sadly, politicians in Washington habitually ignore anyone they actually should listen to.

I won't be surprised if they find a way to screw this whole thing up.

[icfaith]

Old article, 2008

[Dalite]

Old article, 2008

Unfortunately, they are of the same opinion and publishing more insistent articles today.

They would be quite happy with a Benevolent Dictator managing a Socialist Regime.

They aren't likely to change this desire in the next century either.

It is all they know, and I fear all that they will ever be comfortable with.

[HAJN1951]

IS THIS HOLDING UP OUR RV? ARE THEY USING THAT AS A BARGINING CHIP ALSO?

JUST SAYING.

[kennyc]

To the VICTORS go the spoils. Thats us!!!