Cheney Enrages Iraqis with Demands for New Laws

[Joanne98]

“This Law Is a Bomb that May Kill Everyone”

by Gary Leupp / June 7th, 2008

Dick Cheney wants the Iraqi government installed by the U.S. occupation to sign a “security pact” with Washington by the end of July. (The pact, including a status-of-forces agreement, would be signed by the U.S. president but not constitute a treaty requiring Congressional approval.) U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has been feverishly struggling to meet the deadline and to commit the next administration to the agreement’s terms. But that may be a tall order. Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki says negotiations are only in a beginning stage; public opinion is opposed to the pact based on leaked information about its content; and a majority of members of the Iraqi parliament have endorsed a letter to the U.S. government demanding U.S. withdrawal as the condition for “any commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States.”

Few Americans are familiar with the proposed treaty. If they were, they might be shocked at its provisions, ashamed about its naked sadism. It:

* grants the U.S. long-term rights to maintain over 50 military bases in their California-sized country
* allows the U.S. to strike any other country from within Iraqi territory without the permission of the Iraqi government
* allows the U.S. to conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting with the local government
* allows U.S. forces to arrest any Iraqi without consulting with Iraqi authorities
* extends to U.S. troops and contracters immunity from Iraqi law
* gives U.S. forces control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft.
* places the Iraqi Defense, Interior and National Security ministries under American supervision for ten years
* gives the U.S. responsibility for Iraqi armament contracts for ten years

Humiliating, right? The sort of conditions most Americans can’t imagine themselves accepting from a foreign occupying power.

What self-respecting people would ever agree to such provisions? Especially after their country’s been illegally invaded and occupied, on the basis of lies. Perhaps a million have been killed by the invaders and the civil strife they’ve unleashed. Two million have been driven into foreign exile, two million internally displaced. Thousands have been humiliated, terrified and tortured by the invaders. Millions’ electrical and water supply still lags behind Saddam-era levels. Millions’ personal security and enjoyment of human rights has deteriorated as a result of the invasion. Why should their leaders sign such an agreement?

No doubt some key figures in the Bush administration have asked themselves that, and here’s what they come up with. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York holds $ 50 billion of Iraq’s foreign exchange reserves as a result of the UN sanctions dating back to the first Gulf War. These include virtually all oil revenues that under UN mandate must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq “controlled” by the Iraqi government. $ 20 billion of this is owed to plaintiffs who’ve won court judgments against Iraq, but a presidential order gives the account legal immunity. Bush can threaten to remove the immunity and wipe out 40% of Iraq’s foreign reselves if Baghdad doesn’t cooperate. At the same time, Bush can tell al-Maliki that if Iraq enters into a ‘strategic relationship” with the U.S., the U.S. will arrange for Iraq to finally escape those lingering UN “Chapter Seven” sanctions. Perhaps Bush and Cheney are confidant that this carrot and stick approach will force the Iraqi government to sign the deal.

But Iranian political leader Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani hardly exaggerates in saying the proposed deal is designed “to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans” and to create “a permanent occupation.” Many Iraqis use similar language. “The agreement wants to put an American in each house,” claimed a supporter of Shiite cleric and nationalist firebrand Mutada al-Sadr. “This agreement is poison mixed in poison, not poison in honey because there is no honey at all.” “Why,” he asks, “do they want to break the backbone of Iraq?”
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/06/cheney-enrages-iraqis-with-demands-for-new-laws/

[yurbud]

1. everything they do seems designed to make Iraq worse

[Peace Patriot]

2. "Why do they want to break the backbone of Iraq?" To protect the oil contracts.

That's why over a million Iraqis have been slaughtered, and millions more tortured, maimed, displaced. That's what over 4,000 U.S. soldiers' lives were spent on, and tens of thousands injured. That's what broke our backs, financially, as well as ethically and legally--the same reason that the U.S., England and Israel destroyed Iran's democracy in 1954 and installed a horrid dictator--U.S. and British oil corporations!

"Iranian political leader Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani hardly exaggerates in saying the proposed deal is designed 'to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans' and to create 'a permanent occupation.' Many Iraqis use similar language. 'The agreement wants to put an American in each house,' claimed a supporter of Shiite cleric and nationalist firebrand Mutada al-Sadr. 'This agreement is poison mixed in poison, not poison in honey because there is no honey at all.' 'Why,' he asks, 'do they want to break the backbone of Iraq?'”

------------

You know, the Iraqi government really ought to form a friendly alliance with Iran--for protection, trade, and country-rebuilding, and take it to the UN--demand that the U.S. get out. They've been at war with Iran in the past, as the two countries rivaled each other for dominant power in the Middle East (or rather as Saddam sought to be that power--he was the aggressor in the Iraq-Iran war, backed by the Reaganites). The two countries have seldom cooperated, but, if they take a lesson from South America, they will band together for great mutual benefit. This is, no doubt, one reason for the Bushites' relentless propaganda against Iran--trying to make us believe that they are now the greatest evil on earth--a country that has harmed no one, invaded no one, and has shown no territorial ambitions. The Bushites' horrible crime in Iraq has set up just this possibility: that the two countries will pull together and force U.S. occupiers and their corporations out.

It's interesting, too, that some of these imperialist conditions that the Bushites are trying to force on Iraq sound very familiar to anyone who has been following U.S./Bush policy in Latin America: U.S. corporate control of resources, immunity from local laws for the U.S. military, installation of U.S. military bases (in L/A, with the excuse of "war on drugs"), control of armaments contracts, control of air space, and, get this, allowing "the U.S. to strike any other country from within Iraqi territory without the permission of the Iraqi government." What just happened with the Colombia/U.S. bombing/incursion against Ecuador? The U.S./Bush has all but destroyed Colombian sovereignty by its use of that country for aggressive activities, including plotting of assassinations and topplings of democratic governments--Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia--and constant violations of their borders, and, most recently, illegal flyovers of Venezuelan territory. In Paraguay, until recently, alliance with the U.S./Bush meant a U.S. air base, U.S. military exercises, legal immunity for the U.S. military, and--more than likely--use of Paraguay's territory in a U.S./Bush plot against Bolivia. The election of a leftist president (after 60 years of rightwing rule) is ending all that in Paraguay--but now Peru has a neo-liberal ("free trade") government, which is permitting ARMED U.S. soldiers to operate in areas where political opposition to the U.S.-dominated government is heavy. Peru's sovereignty is being trampled--much like Paraguay's was, before the last election, much like Colombia's is--on-going--much like the U.S./Bush is trying to do in Mexico (rightwing privatization of Mexico's oil resource), and, of course, as the Bushites are doing to Iraq.

In South America, however, there are strong alliances among the many leftist governments, whose cooperation with each other is enabling them to repel U.S. domination, aggression and violations of their sovereignty (both economic and military)--to the mutual benefit of everyone.

I once argued with someone here at DU, who was criticizing Hugo Chavez for his talks with Iranians. They were trying to use this as evidence that Chavez is "authoritarian" (anti-democratic). The opposite is true, of course. The evidence is overwhelming that Venezuela is one of the MOST democratic governments in South America (a view recently expressed by the President of Brazil)--and a far better democracy than our own, in many ways. So, why assume that Iran would influence Venezuela in an "authoritarian" direction, rather than the opposite--that Chavez, Venezuela and democracy would influence Iran in the direction of peace, cooperation and mutually beneficial trade, and maybe even more democracy. Chavez would abhor government by the mullahs. His government recently proposed an equal rights amendment for women and gays! Why assume that the far better form of government--democracy--will somehow lose out or be harmed, by contacts and trade with a government like Iran's, which has some democratic institutions (for men), but is essentially ruled by religious dictators?

Democracy and cooperation go hand in hand. And maybe what the Iranians will pick up on first is the advantages of regional cooperation--with Iraq (sans the U.S.), Egypt and others, and even Israel (if U.S. war profiteer/oil interests would stop pushing Israel into being a medieval fortress bristling with armaments--an untenable condition for Israel!)

In fact, ALL THINGS ARE SOLVEABLE AND TEND TOWARD PEACE AND COOPERATION if you remove the U.S. from the picture! The U.S. and our goddamned, vampirish lust for more oil! In Venezuela, in Ecuador, in Bolivia, in poor, ravaged tool, Colombia, in Mexico, in Iraq, in Iran. EVERYBODY's better off, without the U.S. trying to take resources by force, and using one country against another--or one class against another (rich vs. poor), or one tribe against another--to do so. And the remedy against the U.S. doing that is COOPERATION, with the South Americans progressing very fast along that path, SPURRED BY DEMOCRACY.

Maybe Iran--by Chavez extending a hand of friendship--will see what's happening in South America, PEACEFULLY, and that will help Iranians figure out the formula for peaceful cooperation in the Middle East. The problem is not Iranian nukes. That is just fear speaking (legitimate fear, it seems to me). The problem is the bad, bad, BAD intentions of the U.S.

[starroute]

3. Not oil -- they want a permanent presence in the Middle East

They're looking at Russia and looking at China and seeing that both of them together dominate the Eurasian landmass, where the bulk of the human population and resources are concentrated. They also see that both Russia and China separately very much want access to the Middle East -- for its oil but also for its trade routes. Russia particularly wants access to warm-water ports, while China is busily recreating the old Silk Road to give itself more direct connections to European markets.

US planners are very aware of all this. They worry about the US getting squeezed out of markets and resources. They worry about Russia and China becoming militarily dominant -- or China and India becoming technologically dominant. And the best answer they can come up with is to shove the US military right into the middle of things to act as a roadblock.

That's what this is about. It's about trying to hold back the tide with sheer military muscle. That is the real reason why they never intend to leave Iraq. And it's precisely where this non-treaty is targeted.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Well, you make a very good point--but what drives trade? Oil!

It is essential for tanker transport, and for product manufacture--not to mention all the zillions of gallons being burned up on our highways at $4-$5/gallon, in truck transport, and to get the consumers to the Wal-Marts.

I think we are both right. Trade routes, markets--and the oil to use them! Without the latter, trade routes are useless, unless we go back to camels and horses, and sailing ships. And you've somehow got to get the consumers to the goods, or the goods to consumers, if you're want to have a market. (And then there are all the plastic products in that market, which require oil to produce).

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. Poland will be next...

saw the movie

[Doctor_J]

6. Winning hearts & minds

who believed that one of the most despicable, filthiest, amoral men in history would be able to make a positive impact anywhere?