The future of Iraq and US policy

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The future of Iraq and US policy

Post  Admin on Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:05 pm

23/7/2017 12:00 am

Dr.. Ahmed Abrehi Ali
The report of the Iraq Future Working Group was published in May 2017. The group consists of the Atlantic Council and the latter is an American expert house in the field of international affairs. It runs regional centers, including the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, which is the subject of this article. The working group includes 20 experts, 41 as advisors to the president, Ambassador in Iraq Ryan Crocker, and Executive Director Dr. Nusseibeh Younis.

The report cited reasons for optimism about a "very promising future" for Iraq that justified America's "strategic patience" in the challenges facing the country. One reason for this optimism is that Iraq enjoys unprecedented freedom of expression, In the Middle East; a vibrant and vibrant civil society; diversity and ambition among young people; a higher education system; central bank reserves and independence; a vast wealth of oil and gas; and the ability to become a positive force for stability in the region.

When the report referred to the elections, his position was based on what he called the reform of the government. He referred to the situation of concern to the population after their return to their areas and the importance of free choice in voting and other related items. And because the parliamentary elections in Iraq is an irreplaceable basis for the legitimacy of the government, it is a grave mistake to underestimate the importance of conducting them at the appointed time constitutionally.

I see that the state's performance of its functions in safeguarding people's security and rights, and an appropriate regulation of economic life for prosperity and social justice.

The sub-headline of the report was "Long-term stability to ensure a defeat," meaning that the Iraqi government's restoration of the territory captured by the organization does not guarantee its salvation from violence and terrorism.

Because oil is often used as a pretext for Western policy in the region, the report also linked the guarantee of oil flow, gas expansion and export in the future, Iraq's stability as a major producer with large reserves, oil and gas, discovered and potential.

  The report linked the US military withdrawal to the end of 2011, the curtailment of its security-related activities and its political engagement with the government.

The United States, according to the report, wants an independent, stable and prosperous Iraq along with its close cooperation with the United States in the Middle East. This is the problem. The influential political forces of the present and potential future do not mind, but want, bilateral cooperation with the United States, but they can not be included in the policies of the US coalition and its obligations at the regional and global levels.

The report focused on the government's reality and its objectivity in dealing with the corruption that has added to the difficulties of eradicating it. He made recommendations to tackle corruption and improve the effectiveness of the state, focusing especially on what he called government procurement, And presented proposals to ensure transparency and the like, in addition to pressure to prevent interference in the course of contracting and implementation, and not to contract subcontractor, ie the contractor or secondary supplier.

While restructuring the formations responsible for project management and processing contracts, the development of new control units, and the development of the construction sector, in the context of building national capacity for reconstruction and infrastructure development.

  Addressing the budget deficit and the need to diversify its revenues, while ignoring the need to diversify Iraq's resources from foreign currency. The treatment offered by the group in this area is clouded and questionable. It exaggerates the role of the international financial institutions and external support, and relies heavily on market mechanisms and attracting foreign investment, an old recipe Iraq has been full of since 2003.

   Their call to move from service agreements, in the oil sector, to participation in production, is problematic, and their justifications are not correct, at least arithmetically, and this is a sensitive issue that is not politically rational to intervene in. The report could refer to the implementation of oil development contracts and operation management and not the service agreements themselves.

  Another mistake when he says, what it means, the government funded the budget deficit from the reserves of the central bank, and this is not true. The central bank and government banks have actually financed the deficit but not by lending to the government's international reserves, but are loans in Iraqi dinars. Of course, the reserves of the Central Bank another role in strengthening the economic situation as it facilitated, ie reserves, the sustainability of funding private sector imports in foreign currency. The relationship between central bank operations, the budget and the national economy can be identified from available reports and research.

On the Kurdish question and the relation of the region to the center, the report only described the situation.

 Although the report left the transfer of powers from the ministries to the provinces to convince Iraqis, and believes that the management at the local level is more efficient in the disposal of resources and achievement, and I have doubt, based on the facts, in this thesis. The report argues that the defeat of violence requires gaining the confidence and support of large sectors of the nation so that the state institutions are not seen as without the ambition and the need to shift the focus of parties and political awareness on the performance of the state itself and its responsiveness to the needs of Iraqi people and the future of generations in security and welfare.

The conflict, which has been exacerbated by severe violence and terrorism, was expected.

The countries of the region and the West dealt with Iraq as an open geography and encouraged, and still are, many entities and leaders to parallel the state and its rival. These unfair policies are one of the most dangerous factors of the Iraqi crisis, as I see, and the report neglected this issue, despite the fact that it is not


Her keenness. In the context of the regional instability related to the Iraqi issue, and apart from pointing out that Jordan's economy has been affected by the instability of Iraq, attention has been focused on the complaint from Iran, and it has succeeded in inculcating its influence in Iraq and saying that it threatens the interests of the United States in its Middle East policy.

But the United States, in their view, can offer much to Iraq, which does not allow Iran's capabilities. It is understood from this language that the peaceful, technical, economic, and other means are a substitute for war, but it is a shame to view Iraq as an arena for external influence and interests. In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which bears the United States' primary responsibility for protecting it, Iraq is an independent state for its people and despite its great sacrifices in wars, siege, violence and terrorism, it will defend its right to independence and insist on the principle of sovereign equality in its international relations. 

 How does any political entity accept a group of people to choose between domination and acceptance or to accept the end of a policy that will place its security and stability in a delicate balance of the interests of foreign countries in their homeland? The report relies on America's international partners, especially the Middle East, to reduce the costs of the US role in Iraq, because the United States does not want comprehensive, detailed and unilateral intervention in all areas and does not have a heavy military presence, but operates through a collective effort.

 The facts do not support such a perception because the partnership will collide with the strategy of hegemony and is the basis of US international policy. The report described an important aspect of the suffering of Iraqis in the areas seized by the organization "Daash" after its restoration.

 It was objective in stating the need to ensure security and justice, and to listen in a spirit of justice, fairness and tolerance to complaints and demands. In addition to its proposals to prevent wrongdoing and possibly retaliation, and to help local communities overcome the remnants of the previous phase, it is certainly necessary to actively reform, improve or develop law enforcement agencies in general, police working methods, judicial investigation and litigation.

 Also, work to create and allocate resources carefully to provide a reasonable standard of living, services and incentives for economic recovery. For reconstruction in liberated areas, the report may, inadvertently, be in the role of international institutions and States.

 In fact, it is not in Iraq's hands, as the previous experience has shown, according to my understanding, only to move firmly to raise its national capacities in the reconstruction and the development of the infrastructure on the basis of different and different bases dealt with by the author of this intervention in studies and articles on several occasions.

http://www.alsabaah.iq/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=141121

Admin
Admin

Posts : 24594
Join date : 2012-04-30
Location : Arizona

http://iraqidinar.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum