Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iraqi PM Nouri Al-Maliki Rejects U.S. Congressional Proposal to Divide His Country

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 08:09 AM
Original message
Iraqi PM Nouri Al-Maliki Rejects U.S. Congressional Proposal to Divide His Country
Iraqi Leader rejects division of nation

Iraqi PM Nouri Al-Maliki Rejects U.S. Congressional Proposal to Divide His Country

QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
AP News

Sep 28, 2007 06:44 EDT

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Friday rejected a U.S. Senate proposal calling for the decentralization of Iraq's government and giving more control to the country's ethnically divided regions, calling it a "catastrophe."

The measure, whose primary sponsors included presidential hopeful Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., calls for Iraq to be divided into federal regions for the country's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities in a power-sharing agreement similar to Bosnia in the 1990s.

In his first comments since the measure passed Wednesday, al-Maliki strongly rejected the idea, echoing the earlier sentiments of his country's vice president.

"It is an Iraqi affair dealing with Iraqis," he told The Associated Press while on a return flight to Baghdad after appearing at the U.N. General Assembly in New York. "Iraqis are eager for Iraq's unity. ... Dividing Iraq is a problem and a decision like that would be a catastrophe."


more...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/09/iraqi_leader_rejects_division.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FormerRepub Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. Dividing Iraq
Didn't someone from Saudi Arabia say the same thing? And, IF what remains of the elected Iraqi govt is viable, we look awfully imperialistic when we call for Maliki to be replace, for the partition of Iraq into regions, etc. I agree w/ the Emir (or whatever) of our friend Qatar, the U.N. needs to get involved because it's getting way beyond "one country" to calm this down. But I don't think the U.N. will get meaningfully involved as long as they have to deal with George W. Bush.

I fear that David Gergen was right when he opined on CNN a while back that many of the Shiites now in power are just waiting for the U.S. to leave so they can solidify their hold on Iraq and they have absolutely no intention of sharing anything at all with the Sunni's. I swear, those who say that the only way we can get these people to compromise on anything is to begin a slow redeployment. And I really wonder if a Federal democratic Iraq could ever be strong enough to ward off Iranian, Syrian and al Qaeda incursions. Just look at Lebanon, Israel's and Syria's own private battlefield. I think the U.S. is just engaging in a proxy war w/Iran and Syria while Bush is hoping to find an excuse to bomb Iran. Hope I'm wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. First off, welcome to DU!
I think we're in a lose-lose situation, and sadly, we've pretty much sealed Iraq's fate-not in a good way. I don't see partitioning working despite what Biden et al says; I think they're grasping at any straw that produces itself to show us they're trying to find a solution, even if it's a bad one.
And I think the ultimate goal of this US regime is to control the oil, has been and always will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazer47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. In my life time of 60yrs, this will be the 4th country that our nation
has parceled up,,(East and West Germany) (North and South Korea) (North and South Vietnam)..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerRepub Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Thanks so much for the welcome.
I agree with you on this. Anyone who thinks Iraq has half a chance to rebuild its economy and society is kidding themselves. I was reading on the internet that one large impediment to passing the oil related legislation is that the U.S. is insisting that Iraq give control of its known oil reserves to international oil companies (translated, Bush's oil tycoon buddies). But, understandably, Iraq wants to control its own oilfields and to contract out development like the Saudis and others do. I don't know why we haven't seen more about this because I would think it's a pretty crucial issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. "we look awfully imperialistic"
Would it be imperialistic for the Bush admin to pay for a referendum to allow Kurds to decide whether or not they want to remain as subjects of the Iraqi central government?

There have been referendums in Quebec, Canada. Does it matter whether or not Kurds speak French or have French ancestors? Does the ability of Quebeckers to pay for a referendum without much financial assistance from the American government give them a right that Kurds don't have?

Were Quebeckers in Quebec persecuted more than Kurds in Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neweurope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. Oh, he's got something to say in the matter? Poor deluded
guy...

In other parts of the world this proposal is known as "ethnic cleansing".

Way to go, US!

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

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastic cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
6. How long until he has the militias start targeting the US? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
8. Of course he is against it -
1. What I want to know is WHEN Nouri al-Maliki is going to actually do something - because he is in power how long now? And he obviously has a better idea. You don't think it's possible that someone in the Bush administration got to this Bush appointed leader to come out with a statement against the amendment because it is the opposite of what is best for the neo-cons and Hunt oil. do you? Right - of course the neo-cons would never intervene. It is very curious to me that this is the first time that Nouri decided to speak against it - a full day AFTER it was passed. Biden/Gelb proposed this years ago. Biden proposed it on the Senate floor 1 week ago today. Why didn't he try to stop it before it passed????

I have also read somewhere that Bush tried to stop the Biden amendment from passing - but I did not bookmark it, and am still looking for the link.

2. The Biden/Gelb plan was written from the Iraqi constitution - look it up. Obviously when the leaders of the different sects got together at that time, they all thought Federalism was a good idea.

3. Iraq originally was called Mesopatamia, and was divided by sects, until the 1920's when the Britains tried to do exactly what Bush is trying to do now. Look it up.

4. From Turkey:
The inevitable is happening in Iraq
http://www.thenewanatolian.com/opinion-28978.html

A U.S. Senate resolution approved on Wednesday is suggesting a Bosnia-style plan to divide Iraq on ethnic and religious lines with a weak central government that will control oil revenues. Many blame the U.S. for helping Iraq disintegrate. As a matter of fact they are wrong. Iraq has been falling a part for a long time…

5. A conversation from the Biden blog with an Iraqi:
September 26th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Biden-Brownback-Boxer passes Senate with 78 “aye” votes. This is a watershed moment in American history. Congratulations, Senator Biden, and thank you for all your hard work for this country.

Mohammed Says:

September 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I can’t believe it! This is true right?

Jim Says:

September 26th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Yes. Well, 75 aye votes.

Mohammed Says:

September 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
The first realistic decision ever made in the West in regard to Iraq! Thank you Sen. Biden for doing your homework and understanding the history of my country.

6. An Iraqi blog:
http://babylonians.wordpress.com/about-2/
read the last 2 posts.

7. Who is your candidate? Kucinich? I really don't know.... but what is their *political solution* for Iraq? No, I'm not talking about their plan for withdrawal - that is something completely different. If they have a political solution - let's hear it. Biden said he was open to any debate and criticism of his plan, and to hear other members of the Senate provide their plans. Or we can just let the administration continue to try and make Iraq a country ruled by a central gov't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yes, I have read that the * cabal didn't like this plan, and I don't
have a candidate yet. I'm just trying to make sense at this point of what's going on. I'm not going to back a plan that many Iraqis don't want just because it's a 'plan'.
You are of course entitled to back whomever you want, but I can question what they're doing without being attacked. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Like I said, I'm trying to weigh what everyone is bringing to the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. When you make a post that calls it a 'lousy plan that the Iraqi's don't like'
it doesn't exactly sound like you are trying to look at this from both sides.
In fact - it sounds more like you are happy to report that al-Maliki rejects it.

Maliki has been given ample time to come up with his own plan. How long are we going to wait?

It's not because I support Biden that makes me support his plan.
It's because of his leadership in studying Iraq, meeting with Iraqi leaders, taking the time to understand their constitution, and trying to find a way to help Iraq become a peaceful country, that makes me support Biden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Then apologies are in order.
As you might have noticed, I can be acerbic at times, but I meant no harm and hope you don't take any from what I wrote. I had just seen the al Maliki article so couldn't make any sense of your post.
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Accepted - and I will share with you
that I have come across some interesting findings of what is going on in Iraq that makes Al-Maliki's comments even more suspicious.
It turns out that a major Sunni player in Iraq (Hashemi) has broken away from Bush and has offered a similar plan to Biden's - in Iraq. Al Sistani - a Shi'ite, also in the bush camp, is leaning towards federalism as well - but has not fully endorsed it.

I am going to do more research over the weekend. And when I find more info to confirm this, I will post it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. Here's the deal:
Maliki calls the shots so why isn't he demanding an end to U.S. interference and calling for all U.S. forces to be removed from Iraq? He continues to spout BS about why the U.S. troops should remain in Iraq, but wants no U.S. support for the political solution.

All Maliki cares about is Shia power. He isn't lifting a finger toward reconciliation. He is in fact supporting Bush's stay the course, keep U.S. troops in Iraq for decades failed policy.

A sense of the Senate bill is not a law and support for the Constitution, which the Iraqis have a right to revised is support. The Iraqis have to determine the solution, then the U.S. will offer whatever support it can, and that the Iraqis will accept.

Still, the U.S. needs to withdraw it's troops from the middle of Iraq's civil war, and that's a determination for the U.S. not Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. Here is a critique cited by Juan Cole, who opposes partitioning
Via Juan Cole, Iraq expert Reidar Vissar dissects the Senate vote:

This is one area where Biden's ideas clearly violate the Iraqi constitution: any attempt on the part of the US to identify “major factions” would be a top–down, externally imposed solution on a matter in which the Iraqis themselves have already designed bottom–up mechanisms. Biden does not seem to appreciate the fact that federalist pioneers among the Iraqis have always warned against federalism based on ethnicities: in their opinion, federalism based on geographical, non-sectarian criteria could conceivably serve as national “glue”; conversely, and with the exception of the Kurds and the Shiite faction that happens to be closest to Iran, Iraqi supporters of federalism have always condemned ethno-sectarian variants of federalism as a giant leap towards partition. Biden should be challenged to spell out very explicitly the modalities by which he expects the constitutional right to form small-scale non-sectarian regions to simply disappear, and how he thinks the holy number “three” is to be arrived at. Perhaps he might then better understand how his actions are tantamount to abetting civil strife in today’s Iraq and represent a real step towards full partition? Has he even heard about the small-scale non-sectarian federal schemes that have been circulating in Basra in the far south since late 2003?

Interestingly, in the final version of the Biden amendment the "major factions" language was eliminated, which also meant that the "Biden plan" in many ways was back to square one, with no explicit language on ethnicity, but also with fewer claims to originality. However, a remaining major problem in the amendment is that it severely distorts the Iraqi constitution’s provisions for federalism. Biden does not understand, or does not want to understand, that there is no imperative in the Iraqi constitution for every part of the country to seek a federal status. Federalism is but one of two options: governorates may also elect to retain their current status. This is a feature of the 2005 constitution that is consonant with Iraqi political history. The drafters realised that the country has a long unitary tradition with widespread scepticism towards federalism among the population; appreciating these political tensions they abandoned any idea of imposing federalism “from above”. In fact, leading Iraqi politicians who drafted the 2006 law on implementing federalism have suggested that possibly no more than one or two governorates (like for instance Basra in the far south) will seek a status similar to Kurdistan when the federalism option formally becomes available in April 2008.

link


Even he acknowledges that Bidens plan was amended to take out specifics. Also, while he criticizes Biden understanding of the Iraqi's desire for federalism, he admits that it's one of two option outlined in the Iraq constitution. Text of the Biden revised amendment (which was still being revised during the vote):

SA 2997. Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. KERRY, Mr. SMITH, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mrs. LINCOLN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XV, add the following:

SEC. 1535. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FEDERALISM IN IRAQ.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:


(1) Iraq continues to experience a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence.

(2) The ongoing sectarian violence presents a threat to regional and world peace, and the long-term security interests of the United States are best served by an Iraq that is stable, not a haven for terrorists, and not a threat to its neighbors.

(3) Iraqis must reach a comprehensive and sustainable political settlement in order to achieve stability, and the failure of the Iraqis to reach such a settlement is a primary cause of increasing violence in Iraq.

(4) The Key Judgments of the January 2007 National Intelligence Estimate entitled ``Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead'' state, ``A number of identifiable developments could help to reverse the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory. They include: Broader Sunni acceptance of the current political structure and federalism to begin to reduce one of the major sources of Iraq's instability . . . Significant concessions by Shia and Kurds to create space for Sunni acceptance of federalism''.

(5) Article One of the Constitution of Iraq declares Iraq to be a ``single, independent federal state''.

(6) Section Five of the Constitution of Iraq declares that the ``federal system in the Republic of Iraq is made up of a decentralized capital, regions, and governorates, and local administrations'' and enumerates the expansive powers of regions and the limited powers of the central government and establishes the mechanisms for the creation of new federal regions.

(7) The federal system created by the Constitution of Iraq would give Iraqis local control over their police and certain laws, including those related to employment, education, religion, and marriage.

(8) The Constitution of Iraq recognizes the administrative role of the Kurdistan Regional Government in 3 northern Iraqi provinces, known also as the Kurdistan Region.

(9) The Kurdistan region, recognized by the Constitution of Iraq, is largely stable and peaceful.

(10) The Iraqi Parliament approved a federalism law on October 11th, 2006, which establishes procedures for the creation of new federal regions and will go into effect 18 months after approval.

(11) Iraqis recognize Baghdad as the capital of Iraq, and the Constitution of Iraq stipulates that Baghdad may not merge with any federal region.

(12) Despite their differences, Iraq's sectarian and ethnic groups support the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq.

(13) Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on November 27, 2006, ``The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians''.


(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the United States should actively support a political settlement among Iraq's major factions based upon the provisions of the Constitution of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation of federal regions;

(2) the active support referred to in paragraph (1) should include--

A) calling on the international community, including countries with troops in Iraq, the permanent 5 members of the United Nations Security Council, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and Iraq's neighbors--


(i) to support an Iraqi political settlement based on federalism;

(ii) to acknowledge the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq; and

(iii) to fulfill commitments for the urgent delivery of significant assistance and debt relief to Iraq, especially those made by the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council;

(B) further calling on Iraq's neighbors to pledge not to intervene in or destabilize Iraq and to agree to related verification mechanisms; and

(C) convening a conference for Iraqis to reach an agreement on a comprehensive political settlement based on the creation of federal regions within a united Iraq;

(3) the United States should urge the Government of Iraq to quickly agree upon and implement a law providing for the equitable distribution of oil revenues, which is a critical component of a comprehensive political settlement based upon federalism; and

(4) the steps described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) could lead to an Iraq that is stable, not a haven for terrorists, and not a threat to its neighbors.


It's a sense of the senate bill that supports the federalism provision in the Iraq Constitution, but ultimately recognizes that the solution is up to the Iraqis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Think82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Key points about the BBB amendment:
A few key facts about the Biden amendment:

* The legislation does not tell Iraqis what to do. It speaks only to what U.S. policy should be.
* Federalism is not a U.S. or foreign imposition on Iraq. Iraq's own constitution calls a "decentralized, federal system" and sets out the powers of the regions (extensive) and those of the central government (limited). The Constitution also says that in case of conflict between regional and national law, regional law prevails.
* Federalism is not partition. In fact, it's probably the only way to prevent partition or, even worse, the total fragmentation of Iraq.
* Federalism will not accelerate sectarian cleansing; it's the only way to stop it. Iraqis are already voting with their feet, as yesterday's article in the New York Times demonstrates. Before the surge, Iraqis were fleeing their homes at a rate of about 40,000 month; now, it's about 100,000 a month. Unless Iraqis come to some kind of agreement on sharing power peacefully, the cleansing will continue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
15.  This was a glimse into the type of leader that Biden would be.
He has been promoting this plan for years.

He has listened to the critics, he has asked for their input - worked it out in a manner that was agreeable to 75 out of 98 Senators.

He could have argued that only his way is the right way. But he didn't. He found a way where he could work with others while
not compromising on his ideals (Federalism)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-28-07 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
12. And drank a glass of water at the same time. Amazing! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC