Thread: Iraq/Dinar News until 5/23/07 Midnight CST

Saad Alberzenji role of the Kurdistan Alliance in the House

(صوت العراق) - 16-05-2007

(Voice of Iraq) - 16-05-2007

ارسل هذا الموضوع لصديق

Send this topic to a friend

Saad Alberzenji member of the House of Representatives from the Kurdistan Alliance bloc : the role of the Kurdistan Alliance in the House of Representatives and the political process as positive and committed to an Iraq bloc democratic, and federal, pluralistic and unified Iraq

16/05/2007 15:29

(GMT)

MP Saad Alberzenji member bloc, the Kurdistan Alliance in the House insisted the Iraqi bloc, Article 140, on the settlement of the situation in Kirkuk, emphasizing the need to apply on time without any delay or modify.
The Alberzenji in an interview with "Radio Sawa" The role of the Kurdistan Alliance in the parliament and the political process as positive, pointing out his bloc's commitment to an Iraq democratic, pluralist and unified federation.

In the following text of the interview conducted with him on May 14, 2007 :

O-there views on the make Karkuk territories or postpone the implementation of Article 140 of the Constitution, on the settlement of the situation in this province, what is your response to that?

C-can not pass in the committee assigned to review the constitution, we will not agree to any such proposal. We must keep article 140 as is and apply on time, we do not accept any postponement or amendment because that would lead to the complexity of the problem and not to facilitate the solution.
This issue is rejected in toto by the Kurdistan Alliance.

O - where you were in the steps to amend the constitution?

C-there were compatibility issues and the other is still in contention. The points that have been agreed upon Many, it must be noted that the Constitution contains some of the shortcomings that have been addressed, such as organizing the Federation Council, in addition to the amendment of the judiciary in terms of cooperation between regions and the implementation of judicial decisions in all parts of Iraq from any court issued.

O-Is the Kurdistan Alliance with the emergence of a new parliamentary bloc?

C - has started talking about forming a front different from the existing political blocs in parliament. He got a debate on this issue without the lead to a result. Therefore, there is no talk of the emergence of such a new cluster among members of the House of Representatives.
Our alliance Kordestani positive in the House of Representatives in the political process.
We are committed to an Iraq democratic, federal, pluralistic and unified Iraq, as we are with orientations that respects human rights, and against sectarian fighting, and against the existence of lawless militias. These issues fixed for the Alliance of Kurdistan.

O-visiting Prime Minister of Kirkuk Baghdad soon to discuss the issue of oil under the news of the lifting of the draft to the House of Representatives?

C-there is an agreement between the government of Kurdistan and the federal government to submit a draft bill to the House oil together with the entire law of wills over the distribution of oil and prosecution.
We have many reservations on the supplements prepared by the Ministry of Oil because it considers the current situation in circumventing what has been agreed in the draft law.
Here comes the visit of the Federal Minister of Oil to Kurdistan, where he met with officials think they to reach understandings on these topics.

راديو سوا

Radio Sawa

Translated version of http://www.sotaliraq.com/

SO if IRAQ has completed the Requierments of the WTO, What is the Hold up of them Joining the WTO and bringing out an RV?

Final Steps to becoming a member!!!!

Bilateral negotiations
At the same time, the applicant government engages in bilateral negotiations with interested Working Party members on concessions and commitments on market access for goods and services. The results of these bilateral negotiations are consolidated into a document which is part of the final “accession package”.


The final “accession package”
The “accession package” consists of three documents which represent the results of both the multilateral and bilateral phases outlined above. These are:

• a Report of the Working Party containing a summary of proceedings and conditions of entry and a Protocol of Accession.

• Schedules of market access commitments in goods and services agreed between the acceding government and WTO Members.

Approval of the “accession package”
Once both the Working Party's Draft Report and Protocol of Accession and the market access commitments in goods and services are completed to the satisfaction of members of the Working Party, the “accession package” is adopted at a final formal meeting of the Working Party.
The documents are then presented to the General Council or the Ministerial Conference for adoption. Once approved by the General Council or the Ministerial Conference, the accessions package is redistributed as a non-restricted document.
Two final documents will be issued:

• The Decision of the General Council
• The Protocol of Accession of the new entrant a Protocol of Accession annexed to the Report which states that the country accedes to the WTO Agreement, defines the Schedules and outlines final provisions for timing of acceptance of the Protocol and full membership of the WTO.

Becoming a full member
Once approved by the General Council of Ministerial Conference, the applicant is then free to sign the Protocol of Accession stating that it accepts the approved “accessions package” subject to ratification in its national parliament. Normally three months is given from signature of the Protocol of Accession for this to take place.
Thirty days after the applicant government notifies the WTO Secretariat that it has completed its ratification procedures, the applicant government becomes a full Member of the WTO.

WTO | accession | member

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 3 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - The Senate, spending the spring mired in divisive debate on Iraq, sharply rejected legislation Wednesday to cut off money for combat operations after March 2008.
ADVERTISEMENT
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();window.yzq_d['SPj_rELEYrA-']='&U=13bitl57l%2fN%3dSPj_rELEYrA-%2fC%3d586478.10458869.11295686.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4573848';
The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold and other liberal Democrats who support taking the drastic step to end the war. But the effort picked up new support from members previously reluctant to limit war funding — an indication of the conflict's unpopularity among voters.
The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance.
"It was considered absolute heresy four months ago," Feingold, D-Wis., said of any legislative move to simply stop funding the war.
"Well, today a majority of the Democratic senators said it is time to end the mission as we have it, and to bring this mistake to an end," he later added. "That is a huge change."
The vote came as Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) planned to begin negotiating a war spending bill with the House. Unable to pass the House version of the bill — which funds the war in two-month installments — Reid staged a series of test votes Wednesday to determine how far senators are willing to go on war legislation.
"We have to make certain that (troops) do receive the funds that they need," said Reid, D-Nev. "But we need to do it in the context of changing this policy. And I think our votes today are an indication that that sentiment is growing."
In addition to rejecting Feingold's proposal, the Senate opposed a Republican proposal intended to restrict U.S. aid for Iraq if Baghdad failed to implement certain political and security reforms. The proposal was the strongest GOP challenge yet to Bush's Iraq policy, but Democratic leaders railed against it as too weak.
The 52-44 vote fell eight votes shy of the required 60 votes needed.
The Senate agreed only on a nonbinding resolution expressing the need to pass a war spending bill by Memorial Day. That proposal passed by an 87-9 vote.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) said the votes proved that GOP members want to signal their impatience with the Iraqi government but do not want to set timetables on the war.
"The Iraqi government, it strikes me, needs to understand that they're running out of time to get their part of the job done," said McConnell, R-Ky.
While Feingold claimed victory, his proposal, cosponsored by Reid and Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., proved divisive for Democrats. On the final vote, 19 Democrats joined 47 Republicans and Connecticut Independent Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record) in opposing the measure. Of the 29 supporting were 28 Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders (news, bio, voting record).
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he opposes any measure that cuts off money for the war.
"We don't want to send the message to the troops" that Congress does not support them, said Levin, D-Mich. "We're going to support those troops."
But other Democrats said the move was necessary.
"I'm not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment, but I am crazy about the idea that we have to keep the pressure on," said Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., who also wants the Democratic presidential nomination.

The second measure, drafted by Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), would have threatened billions of dollars in U.S. aid to Iraq if Baghdad failed to implement certain political and security reforms. But in a last-minute change to the proposal to gain White House acceptance, Warner added a provision allowing the president to waive the restriction.
While the legislation would have challenged Bush's Iraq policy, Democrats feared its passage would have weakened their hand when negotiating with the White House and House on a final war spending bill.
It "is really very tepid, very weak," said Reid, who supports cutting off funding for combat next year. "A cup of tea that's been sitting on the counter for a few weeks. ... You wouldn't want to drink that tea. You wouldn't want to vote for this amendment."
Warner, R-Va., defended the measure as carefully negotiated and "a good-faith effort to do my very best."
Ultimately, his proposal won support of 44 GOP members, seven Democrats and Lieberman. Opposing the legislation were Sanders, 40 Democrats and three Republicans.
The Senate plans to vote Thursday on a resolution expressing support for the troops — a procedural step needed to trigger three-way negotiations involving the House, Senate and Bush administration on a final compromise.
Negotiations on the final compromise are expected to take days.
Levin pulled from the floor his proposal to set an Oct. 1 date to begin troop withdrawals, but allow the president to waive that requirement. He had pitched the idea with the expectation that the president would accept it because of the waiver; but, Levin said Wednesday he had been advised by the White House that the president would veto the measure regardless. Levin also said he worried that its passage would weaken the Senate's position in negotiations on the final war bill.

DAROCK0116, thanks for that explaination. SO in actuallity we still Have at least 30 more days before the iraqi's would be able to join the WTO, Or am i reading this wrong?
So if I am reading this Right The RV of the DINAR, and the Possibility of being able to exchange Dinar for USD, Is still at least 30 days down the line. CORRECT? So it will be "soon in JUNE" , and partay in July> Right?????
Just trying to get this straight for Myself , and others who are off to the side lines scratching their heads! LOL BOB1940

The U.S. Senate has rejected a measure that would end funding for U.S. combat operations in Iraq by April 1 of next year. The White House praised the vote, but some Senate Democrats say support is building for the effort to limit funding for the unpopular war. VOA's Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.
In a procedural vote, the Senate voted 67-29 to reject the measure to cut off funds for the Iraq war by April 1, 2008.



VOA News - US Senate Rejects Measure to Cut Off Funds for Iraq War

Originally Posted by bob1940

DAROCK0116, thanks for that explaination. SO in actuallity we still Have at least 30 more days before the iraqi's would be able to join the WTO, Or am i reading this wrong?
So if I am reading this Right The RV of the DINAR, and the Possibility of being able to exchange Dinar for USD, Is still at least 30 days down the line. CORRECT? So it will be "soon in JUNE" , and partay in July> Right?????
Just trying to get this straight for Myself , and others who are off to the side lines scratching their heads! LOL BOB1940

IMHO the WTO isn't going to change the value of the Dinar. The CBI is and when they are darn ready.

Originally Posted by bob1940

DAROCK0116, thanks for that explaination. SO in actuallity we still Have at least 30 more days before the iraqi's would be able to join the WTO, Or am i reading this wrong?
So if I am reading this Right The RV of the DINAR, and the Possibility of being able to exchange Dinar for USD, Is still at least 30 days down the line. CORRECT? So it will be "soon in JUNE" , and partay in July> Right?????
Just trying to get this straight for Myself , and others who are off to the side lines scratching their heads! LOL BOB1940

Accession to the WTO is not the trigger for the RV. RV could occur before or after Iraq joins. I would keep my eye on the ISX opening to foreign investment more than the WTO membership. The HCL is not necessarily even a trigger. Watch and wait. Could be anytime really.

Originally Posted by crave681

Accession to the WTO is not the trigger for the RV. RV could occur before or after Iraq joins. I would keep my eye on the ISX opening to foreign investment more than the WTO membership. The HCL is not necessarily even a trigger. Watch and wait. Could be anytime really.

Thought I read that WTO members' currency value could only raise 4% at a time...that's why it is believed that a revalue will occur before Iraq's entry.

I've been wrong before though, just thought that's what I read.

Originally Posted by tiffany

Thought I read that WTO members' currency value could only raise 4% at a time...that's why it is believed that a revalue will occur before Iraq's entry.

I've been wrong before though, just thought that's what I read.

That sounds good. Wonder how long this will take? I am so anxious about this all happening. I almost cant wait!