By Jamal Hashim, Shaalan Ahmed, Xinhua,
Baghdad : Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s harsh words on “deadlock” over Iraq-U.S. pact talks may not prevent Baghdad and Washington from hammering out a long-term relationship pact, analysts said Saturday.
Maliki could have made the pointed remarks under growing pressure at home and abroad, added the analysts.
The prime minister said on his trip in Jordan that the negotiations had come into a deadlock because the Iraqi side could not accept the U.S. terms which infringe on Iraqi sovereignty.
The Bush administration is struggling to justify its continued influence, including military presence, in Iraq by reaching a deal with Iraq before the extended UN mandate ends in December.
Bush wants to get it done by the end of July. However, the lack of transparency of the negotiations has aroused deep concerns among Iraqis that sovereignty and interests are likely to be compromised.
Maliki’s Friday comments were his first revelation of the sticking points in the negotiation process.
He said Iraq rejected the U.S. demands, including arresting Iraqis or running anti-terror operations without the permission of the Iraqi side, and granting immunity to U.S. troops and contractors.
Ibrahim al-Ameri, a politics professor of Baghdad University, said Maliki was under pressure after the British newspaper Independence and other media reports began disclosing part of the secret deal.
“What the reports said was embarrassing to Maliki as they were telling Iraqis that the situation in Iraq will remain as it has been since the invasion, that any American employed by the U.S. government can kill any Iraqi without having to explain and justify his or her action to Iraqis,” he said.
Saad al-Hadithi, also a politics professor of Baghdad University said, “I think this speech from Maliki came to improve the situation of the Iraqi negotiations, or it could be an attempt from the Iraqi government to tell the U.S. that the Iraqi side is facing pressures from parties inside the Iraqi parliament.”
Objection to clauses which would undermine Iraq’s interest has been boiling among Iraqi political parties.
Hardline Shiite cleric and militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr has condemned the negotiations and urged his followers to hold weekly protests.
However, analysts said the deal will come out. It’s just a matter of time.
“Maliki will accept the long-term agreement with the U.S., because he knows that his government would not survive a week without the U.S. military support,” Ameri said.
“Also, the Shiite religious authorities will not issue a fatwa (religious order by Muslim leaders) against it, because their first priority is to preserve the Shiites’ newfound domination of Iraq,” he said, adding “I wouldn’t say how long it will take but I am sure it would be beyond the schedule.”
Hadithi said Maliki “has no other choice than signing this agreement, particularly because the withdrawal of U.S.-led troops would create a security vacuum in Iraq.”
Even Maliki himself seemed to be toning down his remarks. He told Iraqi community leaders in Jordan later that negotiations would continue until a common ground was found and both sides were looking at “new ideas.”
U.S. President George W. Bush told a press conference Saturday in Paris that he expects a security pact to be reached with Iraq. “If I were a betting man, we’ll reach an agreement with the Iraqis.”
“We’re going to work hard to accommodate their desires,” Bush said, adding “It’s their country.”
The negotiations came months before Iraq’s planned local elections in fall. Analysts said a misstep by any party would have its popular support dented.
Sabah al-Ubiedi, an Iraqi analyst and a retired assistant professor of the Mustansiriya University, said that Maliki can choose either to resist the American demands and show patriotic trend to help his party and alliances to gain support, or to succumb to the U.S. demand, which would result in negative impact.
“I think Maliki took the first option and hopes his U.S. ally would understand his sensitive stance,” Ubiedi added.
Such a deal will not only bond Iraq and the U.S., but is certain to upset Iran, who has been at odds with Washington and under saber-rattling rhetorics from the Bush administration.
During Maliki’s latest trip to Iran this week, he was told by Tehran that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq was a primary problem.
The fall of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime helped to drew ever closer the cross border relations.
Political, religious and economic exchanges are growing between the two countries.
Yet, the U.S. has been arguing that Iran backs Iraqi Shiite militias to create unrest. Iran denies the accusation.
Maliki does not want his key allies to settle a score in his territory.
Ubiedi said the pact with the United States is a hard test for Maliki who for a long time has been trying to balance the ties with his U.S. and Iranian allies.
“I believe that despite Maliki’s strong words about the pact, his speech was in line with the U.S. demands that Iraq should be open to the Arab world to confront the Iranian interference in Iraq.”
Ubiedi also considered that “Maliki’s speech was a letter of assurance for his Iranian allies that Iraq would keep its relations balanced with both U.S. and Iran.”
“The game is not over and I have to admit that, so far, Maliki was a very good survivor in leading a country like Iraq in such circumstances, and he is also good at playing a double game between the two foes: the U.S. and Iran,” Ubiedi concluded.