With the headline "Disguising the occupation with a convention," the editorial said the five Iraqi political groups involved in the agreement are the two Shiite parties, the Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq; the two Kurdish parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party; and the Sunni groups called the Iraqi Islamic Party.

The editorial said these political parties represent only themselves and, as they did not take into consideration Iraq's civilization or history when they assisted the U.S. occupier in invading Iraq, they are inconsiderate of the future of Iraq today.

"The wished-for agreement is no more than a means of guaranteeing the politicians' interests and their existence in the illusion of power under the occupier's umbrella," it said.

It also said that despite the rejection by a large slice of the Iraqi society and the national powers that resist the occupier and represent the will of the people, the lies that the political parties promote -- such as democracy, development and the public interests -- support and embrace the occupier's will.

The editorial added the Iraqi-U.S. convention is unlikely to be passed by the people of Iraq because they realize that the so-called Iraqi governments try only to apply the invader's agenda.

"Passing the constitution, supporting the (regional autonomy) plan (that will) divide Iraq, facilitating the theft of Iraq's oil through the oil and gas law that is said to develop Iraq and improve the lives of the Iraqi people and their interests, are all allegations that added more ugliness to the face of the occupier and his tails," al-Basaer commented.

The editorial said of the articles of the long-term convention between Iraq and the United States that they aim to chain Iraq politically, military and economically for decades due to the fact that it is an agreement between two unequal sides in terms of both qualifications and sufficiency.

"The first side is an occupying force that violated international law by invading a sovereign country, and the second side is a fabricated government that relies on the occupier to exist and operate," it explained of the parties involved in the agreement.

Such an equation is unrealistic and lacks legitimacy, the newspaper said, and a government that decides the occupier secures them is not authorized to sign such agreements.

The claim there will be a referendum to vote for the agreement is rejected for two reasons; firstly because the Parliament is dominated by the five parties that are helping the occupier achieve their goals -- specifically passing the agreement -- and secondly because people don't vote for selling their countries or sovereignty, the newspaper said.

It added that the people of Iraq, by using their own tools to resist the occupier and confront their projects, have taught people around the world a true lesson on how to behave in times of catastrophes.

The editorial said U.S. officials referenced the security convention when raising the possibility the U.S. occupation of Iraq would last 100 more years and this makes it clear that the hoped-for agreement is designed only to turn the U.S. occupation into an official presence through permanent military bases.

"This agreement is a disguised plan for a long-term occupation pushed forcibly as a way to justify Bush's failure in Iraq and the escalation of the number of U.S. soldiers killed on the ground," the Saudi-based Al Basaer concluded.

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.