Comments (0)

By Nick, January 27, 2013 6:05 pm

BAGHDAD — In the bloody aftermath of street protests that turned violent on Friday in Falluja, Iraq’s Parliament passed a law on Saturday intended to prevent Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki from seeking a third term.

The parliamentary move was the latest threat to Mr. Maliki’s hold on power and reflected rising anger among rivals over his leadership, but it appeared unlikely that the law, which would need to approved by Iraq’s president, would ever go into effect.

Mr. Maliki’s coalition in Parliament boycotted the vote, and an official close to the prime minister called it unconstitutional and vowed to appeal to the federal courts, which on paper are independent but in practice bend to Mr. Maliki’s will.

Sami al-Askari, a lawmaker from Mr. Maliki’s coalition, said the law would “not see the light of day” because, he said, it is unconstitutional. “We are not worried about the vote on this law,” Mr. Askari said.

The vote came after weeks of protests in the Sunni-dominated province of Anbar resulted in violence on Friday, when the Shiite-led government’s security forces opened fire, leaving at least seven protesters in Falluja dead.

Dueling scenes that played out on Saturday — the hundreds of mourners who hoisted the coffins of dead protesters in the streets of Falluja and the lawmakers in Baghdad who cast votes in an attempt to limit the power of the prime minister — encapsulated the prevailing features of Iraqi public life after the long and costly American war: sectarianism, violence and political dysfunction.

Both events nudged Iraq further along the path of political instability before provincial elections in April, which will be the first test of Iraq’s fragile democracy at the voting booth since the departure of American forces at the end of 2011.

On Saturday, a curfew that had gone into effect on Friday in Falluja was lifted and, as the army withdrew from the city, one soldier was killed by sniper fire and another was wounded, according to a security official in Anbar. As mourners in Falluja shouted, “The blood of our people will not be lost in vain,” protesters set fire to an army checkpoint.

During the clashes on Friday, two soldiers were killed, and later three off-duty soldiers were kidnapped by gunmen and remained missing on Saturday, according to The Associated Press.

Mr. Maliki earned his second term as prime minister after a divisive political struggle and inconclusive elections in 2010, and it is not clear if he intends to seek a third term in 2014, when the next parliamentary elections are scheduled.

Last year, rivals unsuccessfully sought to oust Mr. Maliki from power through a vote of no confidence in Parliament.

By Yasir Ghazi and Tim Arango
New York Times

Yasir Ghazi reported from Baghdad, and Tim Arango from Istanbul.

Assyrian International News Agency

Comments (0)

By Nick, January 27, 2013 6:05 pm

BAGHDAD — In the bloody aftermath of street protests that turned violent on Friday in Falluja, Iraq’s Parliament passed a law on Saturday intended to prevent Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki from seeking a third term.

The parliamentary move was the latest threat to Mr. Maliki’s hold on power and reflected rising anger among rivals over his leadership, but it appeared unlikely that the law, which would need to approved by Iraq’s president, would ever go into effect.

Mr. Maliki’s coalition in Parliament boycotted the vote, and an official close to the prime minister called it unconstitutional and vowed to appeal to the federal courts, which on paper are independent but in practice bend to Mr. Maliki’s will.

Sami al-Askari, a lawmaker from Mr. Maliki’s coalition, said the law would “not see the light of day” because, he said, it is unconstitutional. “We are not worried about the vote on this law,” Mr. Askari said.

The vote came after weeks of protests in the Sunni-dominated province of Anbar resulted in violence on Friday, when the Shiite-led government’s security forces opened fire, leaving at least seven protesters in Falluja dead.

Dueling scenes that played out on Saturday — the hundreds of mourners who hoisted the coffins of dead protesters in the streets of Falluja and the lawmakers in Baghdad who cast votes in an attempt to limit the power of the prime minister — encapsulated the prevailing features of Iraqi public life after the long and costly American war: sectarianism, violence and political dysfunction.

Both events nudged Iraq further along the path of political instability before provincial elections in April, which will be the first test of Iraq’s fragile democracy at the voting booth since the departure of American forces at the end of 2011.

On Saturday, a curfew that had gone into effect on Friday in Falluja was lifted and, as the army withdrew from the city, one soldier was killed by sniper fire and another was wounded, according to a security official in Anbar. As mourners in Falluja shouted, “The blood of our people will not be lost in vain,” protesters set fire to an army checkpoint.

During the clashes on Friday, two soldiers were killed, and later three off-duty soldiers were kidnapped by gunmen and remained missing on Saturday, according to The Associated Press.

Mr. Maliki earned his second term as prime minister after a divisive political struggle and inconclusive elections in 2010, and it is not clear if he intends to seek a third term in 2014, when the next parliamentary elections are scheduled.

Last year, rivals unsuccessfully sought to oust Mr. Maliki from power through a vote of no confidence in Parliament.

By Yasir Ghazi and Tim Arango
New York Times

Yasir Ghazi reported from Baghdad, and Tim Arango from Istanbul.

Assyrian International News Agency

Comments (0)

By Nick, January 27, 2013 6:05 pm

BAGHDAD — In the bloody aftermath of street protests that turned violent on Friday in Falluja, Iraq’s Parliament passed a law on Saturday intended to prevent Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki from seeking a third term.

The parliamentary move was the latest threat to Mr. Maliki’s hold on power and reflected rising anger among rivals over his leadership, but it appeared unlikely that the law, which would need to approved by Iraq’s president, would ever go into effect.

Mr. Maliki’s coalition in Parliament boycotted the vote, and an official close to the prime minister called it unconstitutional and vowed to appeal to the federal courts, which on paper are independent but in practice bend to Mr. Maliki’s will.

Sami al-Askari, a lawmaker from Mr. Maliki’s coalition, said the law would “not see the light of day” because, he said, it is unconstitutional. “We are not worried about the vote on this law,” Mr. Askari said.

The vote came after weeks of protests in the Sunni-dominated province of Anbar resulted in violence on Friday, when the Shiite-led government’s security forces opened fire, leaving at least seven protesters in Falluja dead.

Dueling scenes that played out on Saturday — the hundreds of mourners who hoisted the coffins of dead protesters in the streets of Falluja and the lawmakers in Baghdad who cast votes in an attempt to limit the power of the prime minister — encapsulated the prevailing features of Iraqi public life after the long and costly American war: sectarianism, violence and political dysfunction.

Both events nudged Iraq further along the path of political instability before provincial elections in April, which will be the first test of Iraq’s fragile democracy at the voting booth since the departure of American forces at the end of 2011.

On Saturday, a curfew that had gone into effect on Friday in Falluja was lifted and, as the army withdrew from the city, one soldier was killed by sniper fire and another was wounded, according to a security official in Anbar. As mourners in Falluja shouted, “The blood of our people will not be lost in vain,” protesters set fire to an army checkpoint.

During the clashes on Friday, two soldiers were killed, and later three off-duty soldiers were kidnapped by gunmen and remained missing on Saturday, according to The Associated Press.

Mr. Maliki earned his second term as prime minister after a divisive political struggle and inconclusive elections in 2010, and it is not clear if he intends to seek a third term in 2014, when the next parliamentary elections are scheduled.

Last year, rivals unsuccessfully sought to oust Mr. Maliki from power through a vote of no confidence in Parliament.

By Yasir Ghazi and Tim Arango
New York Times

Yasir Ghazi reported from Baghdad, and Tim Arango from Istanbul.

Assyrian International News Agency

Comments (0)

By Nick, January 27, 2013 9:57 am

Iraq Parliament Votes to Keep Maliki From Seeking New Term
By: reuters on: 27.01.2013 [08:18 ] (70 reads)

www.iraq-war.ru (en) RSS feed for articles and news

Comments (0)

By Nick, November 19, 2012 3:16 pm

Barack Obama has won a second term as U.S. president. Voters have decisively rejected the Republican version of economic reform, and Obama has already used this mandate to address the debt crisis through higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The implications of the elections for foreign policy, however, are not so clear. To the extent that the presidential candidates talked about global affairs, which they did rarely and in no great depth, they didn’t really find much disagreement on the major issues, whether Iran and Israel or Asia-Pacific affairs and counter-terrorism.  Nor has President Obama given any indication that his recent win will result in a bold new U.S. approach to foreign affairs.

That hasn’t prevented foreign policy pundits from engaging in their favorite post-election game: pumping up the legacy.

“For any reelected president, the notion of a foreign policy legacy has a certain allure,” writes Josh Gerstein in Politico. “It offers a chance to leave a lasting global imprint — and an alternative to the daily interference of Congress on domestic issues.”

The editorial writers in The New York Times provide a short list of options for the president to choose from over the next two years – nuclear arms cuts, an accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan, negotiations with Iran, a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine – before the next election season turns even the boldest president into a play-it-safe standard-bearer for his party.

I’m sure that Barack Obama would like to have a foreign policy legacy. He would surely appreciate being known as the President Who Ended the Arab-Israeli Conflict or the President Who Froze Global Warming in Its Tracks. But let me inject a dose of realism into this debate on legacy (and the president is nothing if not a realist).

First of all, the idea that the president can chart a foreign policy path without Republican interference is wishful thinking. On day one of his first term, the president tried to close the Guantanamo facility only to come up against a Republican wall of resistance. He pledged to reduce nuclear weapons but Republican lawmakers made an arms control agreement with Moscow contingent on an extravagant modernization of the very nuclear weapons complex that should have been going on the chopping block.  House committees controlled by the Republicans – Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources – tie the president’s hands when it comes to addressing global warming. And just this year, President Obama tried to negotiate a prisoner exchange with the Taliban – the first step in what might have been more wide-ranging negotiations – but the Republican Congress balked.

The president can, of course, travel wherever he pleases and talk to whomever he wants. But if the discussions result in a treaty, then the Senate has to approve it by a two-thirds vote (and the Democrats don’t have that margin of control). If the discussions result in an agreement that costs any money, then the House Appropriations committee has to weigh in, and that brings the Republicans back into the loop.

But let’s assume for a moment that Obama can overcome these political obstacles. Is he willing to invest the political capital to do so?

The record so far suggests that the president likes to make important game-changing speeches – on re-engaging the Muslim world, on nuclear abolition – but is not willing to put in the monumental effort to implement these visions. For instance, he rhetorically distanced his counter-terrorism policies from his predecessor’s. But he then went on to expand drone warfare both in scale (in Pakistan) and scope (Yemen and Somalia). Despite his much-vaunted willingness to negotiate with America’s adversaries should they show a willingness of their own, the president demonstrated considerable skittishness once in office. Early opportunities to engage with North Korea, Iran, and the Taliban were squandered.

Of course, the failure to transform U.S. foreign policy is not due solely to Republican resistance and administration reticence. A major impediment to legacy-making is the world out there. The lack of a powerful treaty on global warming has as much to do with the failures of U.S. leadership as it does the sizable disagreements among countries like China and India. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the key reason why an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is currently so difficult to achieve. And neither the Iranian nor the North Korean leadership is suddenly going to go all soft just so that Obama can claim a presidential legacy all his own with a landmark agreement.

In part because of the world out there, President Obama has charted a more modest global role for the United States. The Obama administration prefers to “lead from behind” rather than step boldly in front of everyone else. It is attempting to put the U.S. house in order – with health care reform, with financial sector reform – instead of constantly proclaiming its exceptional status. It more or less respects international institutions. It will finally start reducing the massive U.S. military budget – though not nearly enough – and give greater authority to the State Department. The one major diplomatic accomplishment of the first term – the rapprochement with Burma – is emblematic of this more modest approach to global affairs. The negotiations with a junta making a slow transition away from authoritarianism have taken place rather quietly, in close coordination with allies, and away from the main stage of global affairs.

The United States, under Obama, is finally coming to terms with the fact that the world is multipolar.  The notion that one man – or one country – can change this multipolar world is fast becoming antiquated. Accustoming Americans to this power shift may ultimately be Obama’s chief legacy.

FPIF Latest Content

Comments (0)

By Nick, November 14, 2012 9:49 am

Assyrian International News Agency

Comments (0)

By Nick, August 30, 2012 3:10 pm

Outgoing Consul General Joo Joong-Chul met on Monday with the Head of the KRG’s Department of Foreign Relations, Minister Falah Mustafa, as he prepares to depart for his next assignment at the Republic of Korea’s embassy in Baghdad.

Minister Mustafa thanked Mr Joong-Chul for his nation’s continued support and for his personal contribution during his service in Kurdistan. Citing the deep and long-lasting relationship between the Republic of Korea and the Kurdistan Region, Minister Mustafa highlighted the continued importance of their mutual relations.

“We appreciate the continued work of the Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) and other Korean institutions and businesses, and we must ensure that our relationship is not only focused on politics, but also on working together to enhance and support the substantial commercial and economic ties that have grown between us,” Minister Mustafa said.

Consul General Joong-Chul expressed his appreciation for the support of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and said that he was very happy with his time in Kurdistan. “This is a great place to work as a diplomat,” he said. He referenced the great progress that has been achieved and said that he will take many great memories with him from his time in the Region.

Iraq Business News

Comments (0)

By Nick, August 21, 2012 9:50 pm

Obama Regime extends ex-marine’s Facebook psych-ward term. They will let him go after he is medicated by way of Chemical-Straight Jacket and Electroshocks!
By: Bulov on: 21.08.2012 [20:29 ] (68 reads)

www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru (en) RSS feed for articles and news

Comments (0)

By Nick, August 21, 2012 4:23 pm

Obama Regime extends ex-marine’s Facebook psych-ward term. They will let him go after he is medicated by way of Chemical-Straight Jacket and Electroshocks!
By: Bulov on: 21.08.2012 [20:29 ] (38 reads)

www.iraq-war.ru (en) RSS feed for articles and news

Comments (0)

By Nick, August 2, 2012 9:00 am

Does it mean protecting nuclear plants or using nuclear weapons for national security?

From the long-prevailing Japanese perspective, it’s foolhardy for the state to consider developing nuclear weapons.

Twice victimized by their use, Japan is uniquely positioned to know how engaging in nuclear war inevitably results in attacks like the ones it experienced in World War II. It’s also able to empathize with the prospect of another state struck by nuclear weapons and envision the negative karma (or gou in Japanese) their use generates.

Alas, many Japanese have focused on their victimization and, especially with North Korea nearby, bow down to the gods of deterrence in hopes of preventing another nuclear attack on Japan. In fact, as Yuri Kageyama reports for the Associated Press, arming Japan with nuclear weapons has long been part of the national and internal debate.

Historical documents released in the past two years show that the idea of a nuclear-armed Japan was long talked about behind-the-scenes, despite repeated denials by the government. …

In a once-classified 1966 document, the government outlined how the threat of China going nuclear made it necessary for Japan to consider it too, though it concluded that the U.S. nuclear umbrella made doing so unnecessary at the time.

In meeting minutes from 1964, 1966 and 1967, Japanese officials weigh the pros and cons of signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which would mean foregoing the nuclear option. Japan signed the treaty in 1970.

The government denials continued, even after former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone wrote in his 2004 memoirs that, as defense chief, he had ordered a secret study of Japan’s nuclear arms capability in 1970. The study concluded it would take five years to develop nuclear weapons, but Nakasone said he decided they weren’t needed, again because of U.S. protection.

Lately confusion arose when

… parliament amended the 1955 Atomic Energy Basic Law in June, adding “national security” to people’s health and wealth as reasons for Japan’s use of [nuclear-energy] technology.  Given the secretive past, former diplomat Tetsuya Endo and others are suspicious about the June amendment adding “national security” to the atomic energy law. Backers of the amendment say it refers to protecting nuclear plants from terrorists. Opponents ask why the words aren’t then “nuclear security,” instead of “national security.”

As you can see, much more than semantics, the term “nuclear security” may be obfuscation intended to throw up a smokescreen behind which to advance the development of nuclear weapons. In any event, the phrase is a riddle. But, unlike a koan,* which can lead to enlightenment, this phrase has the potential to help usher Japan into a post-apocalyptic world of darkness.

*koan A paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment.

FPIF Latest Content