Sistani & Status of Forces

Monday, May 26, 2008

Sistani Opposes SOFA;
"As Long as he is Alive;
Al-Maliki Advisor seems to, Too;
5 Killed, 22 Injured in Baghdad

Mark Kukis at Time reports on Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani's insistence with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that Iraq recover its sovereignty on all levels.

The report is bolstered by this one on Iran's al-Alam channel:

The
USG Open Source Center translates transcripts of Arabic language
satellite stations reporting on the controversies over recent
statements of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. (Via BBC Monitoring). Note
that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's adviser on cultural affairs went
on Iranian television and slammed the US positions in the negotiations
for a Status of Forces Agreement. .

'May 25, 2008 Sunday

AL-SISTANI NOT TO ALLOW US-IRAQ AGREEMENT "AS LONG AS HE IS ALIVE" - AL-ALAM TV

LENGTH: 271 words

Text of report by state-run Iranian Arabic-language television news channel Al-Alam on 25 May

[Presenter]
There have been further reactions to the security agreement, which the
US occupation and the Iraqi government intend to sign. A source close
to the [Shi'i] religious figure Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani has
said that Al-Sistani told Prime Minister Al-Maliki, during their
meeting in the holy city of Al-Najaf, that he totally rejects the
agreement.

He [Al-Sistani] said he would not allow the signing
of the agreement as long as he is alive. However, at the same time, he
voiced support to the Iraqi government and to efforts by Iraqi
officials and people to establish security and stability in the country.

Mr
Husayn Barakah al-Shami, advisor to the Iraqi prime minister for
cultural affairs, said that through this agreement, the US wants Iraq
to be a launch pad to control the region. He added that Iraqis and
their political leaders and religious figures have a lot of
reservations about the agreement and its implications.

[Al-Shami]
Iraq is very serious about getting out of Chapter 7 [of the UN
Charter]. The Americans have their special project and their strategy
in the region and in Iraq. They want Iraq to be their launch pad to
control the region and to strengthen their influence there. The Iraqi
people, political leaders and religious clerics voiced their
reservations about this agreement. But they must enter this agreement
[after seeking] clarifications on the issues of military bases,
arrests, prisons and the use of Iraq's air space.

Source: Al-Alam TV, Tehran, in Arabic 1700 gmt 25 May 08 '

Sawt al-Iraq writes in Arabic that a close associate of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Karbala,
who declined to be identified, denied that he had prepared a fatwa of
jihad against foreign troops in Iraq. He said that Sistani urged
resistance to the occupation, but wanted Iraqis to deploy non-violent
means to end the foreign troop presence.

[While this statement
is true, it does not actually address the legal issue. Sistani was said
by AP to have replied privately to Shiite militiamen who asked him
about the legitimacy of attacking multi-national troops in Iraq. He was
said to have confirmed, in private and in person, that in Shiite law,
attacking a foreign occupier is legitimate. There is no contradiction
between him holding those views as a matter of considered opinion on
the law, and his actual policy of encouraging peaceful resistance.]

The Kuwait
News Agency carried the following with regard to reports that Grand
Ayatollah Ali Sistani was issuing private statements to Shiite
militiamen that it is legitimate to attack foreign troops:

'
BAGHDAD, May 23 (KUNA) -- An Iraqi MP Friday brushed aside reports
suggesting Sayyed Ali Sistani had issued a religious fatwa permitting
armed resistance against foreign forces, and affirmed that the Shiite
cleric had called, since collapse of baathist regime, for peaceful
resistance.
Sheikh Jalaluddin Al-Saghir, head of the United Iraqi
Alliance (UIA) bloc at the parliament, told KUNA these press reports
about the alleged fatwa "are totally baseless." He said the policy of
Sistani was based "on resisting the occupiers via peaceful means and he
is still supporting the political process therefore there these claims
are false." A source close to Sistani in Najaf said the senior cleric
did not issue the fatwa, and was still committed to his previous
position which emphasized that Iraq was not a scene for "jihad or armed
confrontation." The source, speaking to KUNA on condition of anonymity,
said Sistani's position was clear since the toppling of Saddam
Hussein's regime. "He had called repeatedly for peaceful resistance to
get the foreign forces out of Iraq," he added.
Iraqi and Western
media working in Iraq said Sistani has issued a number of fatwas
permitting armed resistance against foreign forces.'

Sistani's
fatwa against selling food to the Americans would be consistent with
what these officials are saying. One wag in the blogosphere called it,
a "No soup for you!" policy.

Najaf, where Sistani lives has told the US that it does not want the "Awakening Council" model but will accept US development aid.

The Iraqi parliament has still not passed an elections law,
a prerequisite for holding provincial elections-- which are therefore
likely to be delayed. Al-Arabiya t.v. had a program on this issue, and
I came away from it pessimistic that the law would soon be passed or
that provincial elections would actually be held in 2008.

McClatchy reports political violence on Sunday:

' Baghdad

-
Around 10am, a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol at Al-Maghrib
Street in Adhamiyah neighborhood (north Baghdad) near the Turkish
embassy .Five people were injured including two policemen.

-
Around 1pm,a car bomb targeted the Babil governor’s convoy near Yarmouk
hospital at Yarmouk neighborhood (west Baghdad). 11 people were injured
(7 guards who were with the convoy and 4 other civilians).

-
Around 1:15pm,a roadside bomb targeted an American patrol at al-Ghadeer
neighborhood of new Baghdad(east Baghdad). No casualties reported.

-
Around 4pm,a roadside bomb exploded at Suleikh neighborhood(north
Baghdad).One civilian was killed and four others were wounded.

-
Around 4:15pm, a mortar shell hit Wihda section in Karrada
neighborhood(downtown Baghdad). Two people were injured in that
incident.

- Police found 4 dead bodies in the following
neighborhoods in Baghdad: 2 were found in Karkh bank(west Baghdad); 1
in Hurriyah and 1 in Mansour while 2 were found in Risafa bank (east
Baghdad); 1 in Jisr Diyala and 1 Suleikh .

Kirkuk

-
Before noon, a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol at Al-Tiseen
neighborhood in downtown Kirkuk .Four policemen were injured.

Anbar

-
Around 10am, a roadside bomb targeted the Sheikh Mishhin Mohammad
Abbas’ convoy in Gharma (east of Falluja).Three of his guards were
injured in that incident. Sheikh Mishhin is the head of Jamila tribes
and the Sahwa leader in the area. A curfew was announced for further
notice on vehicles and pedestrians.

Diyala

- Around 8am,
gunmen attacked an Iraqi army check point at Imam Weis village (37
miles north of Baquba).A tanker driver was killed . Then, a roadside
bomb targeted an army patrol in the same area killing one officer and
injuring four soldiers.

- Around 7am, gunmen opened fire on police patrol at Al-Mafraq (west Baquba).One civilian was killed.

- Around 10am,a random shooting by gunmen at Azzat village (west of Baquba) led to kill a member of the Sahwa in the area.'

Jimmy Carter, still talking sense in his 80s-- on an Iraq withdrawal timetable, on lifting the siege of Gaza, on talking to Iran.

5 Comments:

At 9:58 AM,
Christiane said...

Suppose
that - like Sistani is recommending - the Iraqi government refuses to
sign any Status of Force Agreement with the US, but on the contrary
asks for a withdrawal's time table : isn't that an ideal situation for
any future US Democratic president ? He can then play a legalist game,
stating that since the legitimacy given to US troops by the UNSC has
ended, the US has to plan the withdrawal of its troops. That looks like
a great occasion of ending the Iraq adventure for the Americans.

At 11:07 AM,
Anonymous said...

The
proposed treaty in its current form is opposed by its own backers in
Iraq too: the Kurds; Hakim; and the CIA whores. They want the treaty to
explicitly oblige the USA to protect the regime, which is not in the
proposal yet.

The Americans are using childish arguments to get
the Iraqis to accept their breathtaking demands. Apart from being above
all Iraqi laws, they want to keep control of the Iraqi communications
and intelligence. Why should Iraq accept? For your own good! They also
want to be free to detain or kill whomever they like, to protect Iraq!
How? Although the Americans have been abismal in fighting the
insurgencies, with the only clear successes coming from the Iraqis when
acting alone, the US says that the Iraqis are no good and only the
Americans can do it.

The US says that we need them to protect
us, Iraqis, from internal and external dangers. As for the external
threats, rather than having a provocative treaty with a nasty imperial
power on the other side of the world, we should have friendship and
trade agreements with our neighbors. But to be on the safe side, leave
your phone number before you get out: we will call you if we need you,
but don't call us.

The most ridiculous argument is that this
treaty will restore Iraq's sovereignty (which they said Iraq was
"given" in 2004 anyway.) Well, let's have the same rights given to Iraq
to make it a treaty between equals. Iraq should have the right to build
huge 'enduring' military bases in the USA, and detain and kill any
American they like with impunity. We, Iraqis, should also control the
CIA and the military communication network.

At 9:39 PM,
Anonymous said...

The
Senate's supplemental appropriations bill passed last week seemed to
cut virtually all reconstruction aid to Iraq except for some $100
million in economic aid and some other minor programs to pay for the
Awakening, etc. What little was appropriated besides the economic aid
has to be funded 50% by the Iraqi government. By comparison Mexico got
$350 million in aid from the bill with no strings attached. Further no
more Iraqi major reconstruction projects are to be initiated even if
funding was appropriated earlier.

Ayatollah Sistani seems to be
saying that's totally unacceptable if the US forces want to stay in
Iraq past the end of the year, setting up a potential showdown in the
House when they return from recess. Part of the reports to Congress
last week said the Defense Dept. squandered Iraqi resources as well as
US resources, but the Senate apparently felt under no obligation to
replace Iraqi resources that were squandered by the Defense Dept.

Further
Ayatollah Sistani's statements could be seen as an indication of
further military operations against the Sadrists, and Iranian influence
in Iraq, should the Sadrists and Iran continue to advocate violently
resisting the occupation. It will therefore be important to see how
Sadrists and Iranian clerics in the Khomenist tradition reply to
Sistani, if at all.

At 1:35 AM,
John Francis Lee said...

'Suppose
that - like Sistani is recommending - the Iraqi government refuses to
sign any Status of Force Agreement with the US, but on the contrary
asks for a withdrawal's time table : isn't that an ideal situation for
any future US Democratic president ? '

Well, Christiane, the
future US Democratic president is going to be Clinton or Obama and both
of them are pledged to maintaining US occupation forces in Iraq.

I
know that the Democratic Party bills itself as the opposition but it is
not opposed to US Imperialism and the occupation of Iraq, or of
Palestine.

Obama and Clinton are a "made man and woman", made by the mob in control in the USofA.

The
opposition is Gravel/McKinney/Nader, and perhaps a few others. Anyone
who opposes the war in Iraq must vote for the opposition. A vote for a
Republicrat or Demoblican is a vote for more war.

At 9:26 AM,
Christiane said...

John Francis Lee,

As
far as I know, there is only one turn in the US presidential election,
unlike say in France, where you can choose the person you really want
and have a second turn to choice the one you less dislike. Under these
circumstances, it doesn't make sense to vote for say Nader, thus
perhaps allowing the Rep to win again.
I know that neither Clinton nor Obama will get out of Iraq easily, but they are a lesser evil compared to McCain.
And
if the Iraqi take firmly position against the Status of Force
Agreement, it will be more difficult for either Clinton or Obama not to
withdraw, especially if they face a stronger anti-war movement in the
US, which I hope.

This Status of Force Agreement is a real
occasion to stop the US occupation in Iraq, there should be strong
movements against it both in Iraq and in the US.