What’s behind the resistance of Iraqis to the U.S. Iraq Security deal – is it a matter of patriotism or sectarianism?
Criticizing Iraqi leaders for fanning public suspicion by not releasing the details of the security deal with the U.S. to the public, Malum Abu Ragheef writes for Iraq’s Sotal Iraq newspaper:
“If for political and tactical reasons, the American administration won’t announce the terms of the Convention; if some of the terms of the deal adversely affect Iraqi “sovereignty and dignity”; and if as Nouri al-Maliki has said, talks are at a standstill, then why doesn’t the Iraqi government or it’s representatives at the talks reveal to the Iraqi people the items that they say so detrimentally affect Iraqi sovereignty and dignity, to help win popular support for the government’s position so that all can understand how the government defines its “sovereignty and dignity”? … Do we truly live in the era of transparency and democracy, as our esteemed government leaders, members of Parliament and party leaders claim? Or is this only talk – the sowing of seeds of illusion within the minds of this pitiful people, whose field of dreams is desolate and barren, and for whom the hoped-for heaven is instead a living hell?”
“Someone should explain the meaning of the absolute secrecy that has surrounded the draft Convention – and the meaning of the non-disclosure of the names of those on the negotiating team … Are negotiators afraid to shoulder the blame, or are they concerned they can’t stand up to the Arabic or Iranian backlash? The legs of the negotiators tremble when it comes to accepting responsibility for their actions.”
“… not only to repel the conflicting ambitions of Arabs, Turks and Iranians, but also to prevent a civil war, the flame of which has yet to be extinguished. For there are thousands who continue to blow on the embers – embers that are mainly due to the presence of political Islam at the head of the state and the spread of sectarian thinking in politics, culture and different types of Arab media.”
“That attitude of some parties, politicians and religious authorities are just an echo of the sectarian forces outside of Iraq, that don’t care about Iraq nor the people of Iraq, except to the extent that it’s in harmony with their wasteful, selfish interests. Hence we can understand why so many are opposed to the Iraqi-American agreement, because their opposition isn’t based on the national interest. Rather, they oppose it on the basis of sectarian motivations, decided by people outside of Iraq.”
By Malum Abu Ragheef
Translated By James Jacobson and Nicolas Dagher
June 24, 2008
Iraq – Sotal Iraq – Original Article (Arabic)
If for political and tactical reasons, the American administration won’t announce the terms of the Convention being sought with the Iraqi Government; if some of the terms of the deal adversely affect Iraqi “sovereignty and dignity”; and if as Nouri al-Maliki has said, talks are at a standstill, then why doesn’t the Iraqi government or it’s representatives at the talks reveal to the Iraqi people the items that they say so detrimentally affect Iraqi sovereignty and dignity, to help win popular support for the government’s position so that all can understand how the government defines its “sovereignty and dignity”?
Why does the government leave the Iraqi people prey to confusing rumors that are manipulated by people out-bidding one [to prove their love of country] and who fill newspapers and satellite TV channels with injurious misinformation and delusional irrationality … Do we truly live in the era of transparency and democracy, as our esteemed government leaders, members of Parliament and party leaders claim? Or is this only talk – the sowing of seeds of illusion within the minds of this pitiful people, whose field of dreams is desolate and barren, and for whom the hoped-for heaven is instead a living hell?
Or are the government and its members trying to be heroes by pretending to be fighters and defenders of Iraqi interests by claiming responsibility for acts they haven’t performed; by pretending to be champions without ever entering the field of battle; by posing as protectors of the faith who stand by the power of their arguments by claiming to have turned the tables on the Americans and having achieved an agreement in the interests of Iraq, without revealing the names of the negotiators or the terms of the agreement? … The government must disclose the contents of the talks so that we might know of its heroism and the sincerity of its claims.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated Iraqi press coverage of the war in Iraq.
Founder and Managing Editor of Worldmeets.US