Iraqi, American critics speak up on security pact

Sunnis, Sadrists forge an unlikely association

BAGHDAD - Iraqi and American critics of a security agreement governing US troops in Iraq voiced their objections yesterday, a day after the Iraqi Cabinet approved the pact and sent it to Parliament for ratification.

In Iraq, opposition has created an unlikely association between the followers of anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who rejected the agreement out of hand, and some Sunni politicians, including ones who support the deal but are trying to wrest concessions from the Iraqi government.

Ghufran al-Saadi, a Sadrist lawmaker, said opponents had collected 115 signatures, primarily from Sadr supporters and members of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party, demanding that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and several Cabinet members appear in Parliament to answer questions about the agreement, which governs the presence of US troops in Iraq through 2011. Parliament has 275 members.

The Sadrists argued that the ratification process was unconstitutional and threatened to take the issue to federal court. They also said the public reading of the agreement in Parliament yesterday was not legitimate because the legislative session was too noisy for anyone to hear what was being said.

Among the principal Sunni demands are amnesty for many Sunni detainees in US custody and a national referendum on the agreement.

But while the two groups may oppose the pact, leaders of Tawafiq, the largest Sunni bloc in Parliament, said they would be open to supporting it if some of their demands were met.

"We have our own concerns, mainly because of what is not in there," said Ayad al-Sammarai, a Tawafiq leader. "If we get a positive response, then things will change."

A signing ceremony yesterday morning attended by Ryan C. Crocker, the US ambassador, and Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, marked the end of the negotiations, which took almost a year; members of Parliament cannot make further changes to what is now an international agreement.

The vote is scheduled for Monday. If the agreement passes, it will go to the three-member presidency council for approval.

In Washington, officials acknowledged yesterday that the agreement left some contentious issues vaguely worded, including the extent of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over crimes against Iraqi civilians in which US soldiers are accused.

Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, warned that the agreement could subject US soldiers to Iraqi prosecution, and complained that parts of the agreement would be left for joint committees to resolve in the future.

That, Skelton said, could set the stage for disputes between Iraq's increasingly assertive government and US diplomats and commanders.

"I do not believe it was wise to push off major decisions about the legal protections US troops would have in such cases or the crimes for which they could be charged," Skelton said. "I am also troubled by vague language in the agreement that will likely cause misunderstandings and conflict between the US and Iraq in the future."

Representative William D. Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has challenged the legality of the agreement, has scheduled another hearing this week on the need for ratification by Congress and Iraq's Parliament. Delahunt is chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on international organizations, human rights, and oversight.

Dana M. Perino, the White House press secretary, said that the United States had made concessions but that doing so validated Iraq’s progress as a government. "The Iraqis are now able to see a path where they can govern, sustain, and defend themselves," she said.

The concessions included establishing deadlines for withdrawing combat forces from Iraqi cities by June, and from the country by the end of 2011, though officials said the text of the agreement included language that made those dates less than rigid deadlines.

Although some lawmakers expressed concern about the agreement, the response in Washington was largely muted. The document was not widely circulated.

Obama's transition office released a statement that did not directly address specific parts of the agreement, but welcomed an extension of the legal authorization for US troops in Iraq beyond the end of the year, when the UN Security Council resolution covering the US-led military operation expires.