Home

US, Iraq Far Apart on Security Pacts

Submitted by JonathanSchwarz on Tue, 2008-04-15 10:19.

ORIGINAL

BAGHDAD (AP) — U.S. and Iraqi negotiators are far apart over key issues in talks to replace the U.N. mandate that governs American military operations in this country, Iraqi officials said Monday.

Talks began last month on a strategic framework agreement providing for long-term bilateral ties and a separate status of forces pact that spells out the regulations governing U.S. military operations in Iraq.

U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said the two sides have exchanged "a number of drafts and proposals." She refused to give details because negotiations continue.

However, Iraqi officials familiar with the discussions said significant differences exist on the major issues of immunity for U.S. personnel and contractors, authority to order raids and attacks and detention of people believed a threat to security.

The officials refused to discuss the differences in detail and spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to talk about the negotiations.

Those three issues have caused friction in the past between the U.S. military and the Iraqi government.

The Iraqis have from time to time demanded an end to the immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law enjoyed by U.S. soldiers and U.S. government contractors and have criticized U.S. military operations in some populated areas such as the Sadr City district of northeastern Baghdad.

U.S. officials claim authority under the U.N. mandate to detain indefinitely anyone suspected of being a threat to coalition forces. The mandate expires at the end of this year.

Last December, President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a statement of principles regarding future U.S.-Iraqi relations and said they planned to finalize a new security agreement by July 31.

Nantongo said the Iraqi government intends to submit the agreement to Iraq's parliament for ratification, a move which could spell trouble for the document if it is perceived as being too generous to the Americans.

»