Thursday, May 29, 2008

Sunni resistance spokesman: Let us all stand against this, each in his own way

The Association of Muslim Scholars of Iraq, headed by Harith al-Dhari, the most important single spokesman for the Sunni resistance, issued a statement today that it introduced as follows: "The long-term agreement with the American occupation will have no weight with the Iraqi people, and the nationalist forces will take it upon themselves to reply to those responsible, and to hold to account those who are involved in it, and without a doubt there will be a new price to pay in the blood of pious martyrs"--but that ends with a call to every anti-occupation segment of Iraqi society to participate in resisting this move, each in whatever way they can.

The statement opens with a description of those who are negotiating this agreement as "the five-party pact", referring to the two main Kurdish parties, the Supreme Council, Dawa, and the Islamic Party of Iraq--
whom the occupation has polished and presented to the world as the representatives of Iraq, but they represent no one but themselves, and that small group that is with them and with the occupation, pressing ever forward to carry out these agreements, to the extent that the ambassador Crocker goes to Najaf and boasts, announcing in his sly and scummy way, that it is the government of Iraq that is requesting the forming of this agreement. But their efforts are already exposed and widely understood, as a presentation of Iraq to the enemy on a plate of gold, just so that they can retain their positions and their privileges...

The two sides have put up a cordon of secrecy and silence around these talks, so that they can arrive at the document they want without any particular effort.
With that as factual background--the narrowness of the group that is involved in this, the secrecy, and the lack of any popular input or support--the statement turns to the question of legitimacy.
Now everyone knows that Iraq in its current condition is not able to be a counterparty capable of negotiating with any other country in the world, and so it is natural that this will be to the benefit of the United States of America, and that Iraq will lose much of its sovereignty, and its independence, and its wealth.

This agreement, inevitably, will mean the military, economic, and cultural hegemony of the American occupation, which it aims to impose through a long remaining period of occupying the land of the two rivers, under a variety of names, and using a various phony legal pretexts, taking the appearance of this long-term agreement between two countries, but whose essence is: American protectorate over Iraq.

But in any event this agreement will have no weight [or importance] for the people of Iraq, and the nationalist forces will see to the reply delivered to the owners of this process, and will hold to account those who are implicated in it. This will undoubtedly involve a new price in the blood of pious martyrs. And those who sign this agreement will bear their burden, and they will pay their price.
Clearly the uncompromising argument and the menacing tone are a little different from what Sadr's statements convey by way of demonstrations, explanations and softer force. But this AMSI statement concludes with a unifying call:
Our Iraqi people, and all of the political and social and tribal forces that stand up to the occupation and resist its presence--all are urged--today-- to express their anger and their disgust in all the ways that are available to them, and to send messages of denunciation and clear statements of opposition and refusal of the taking such a step, because "the arrow does not return to the bow", and "oppression is the worst pasture (?)"


Anonymous Anonymous said...

takes my breath away


4:56 PM  
Blogger Archimedes39 said...

Some weeks ago I asked whither al-Sistani, and Badger reckoned that he was effectively out of the picture. So now, re: his call for a referendum on a US-Iraq "treaty", is al-Sistani running with the tide, or ahead of it?

11:21 AM  
Blogger badger said...

Not ahead of the tide, maybe a little behind the tide, if I understand your question right. There's no clear statement from him yet on this. And for instance, today a SupremeCouncil site quotes one of his people having said in a Najaf sermon today that the agreement should be presented to "Parliament, the people, and the Marja'iyya". Kind of ambiguous-sounding. Sometimes in a heated-up environment, you just answer a question and people say you issued a fatwa.

12:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home