Iraq Sovereignty Handover Seen as Largely Symbolic

In a few short weeks we will be turning over control of Iraq to the Iraqis...or will we? It appears the US will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq will have no control over its troops and very limited say over its immediate future when the United States formally hands over sovereignty in June, analysts said. ....

... James Dobbins, a Rand Corporation analyst who has served as U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia, said the main constraints on the new Iraqi authority would be its own capacity to govern.

"The government is going to be weak. It's going to be inexperienced. It's going to be divided. It's going to be reliant on a bureaucracy with quite limited capability," he said. "June 30 ... is a date that's important for symbolic reasons.

"But it doesn't mean the Iraqi political establishment is more united on July 1 than on June 30. It doesn't mean the Iraqi security forces are stronger on July 1 than on June 30. It simply means you've taken another step toward the day when Iraq is indeed capable of fully exercising its sovereignty."

Dobbins also said he expected "intensified violence" in Iraq after the handover as insurgents "test the new system, find its limits ... and see how far they can push."

Walker, now president of the Middle East Institute think tank, said the size of the planned U.S. embassy -- expected to be led by U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte -- hinted at Washington's role.

"What are all those people going to be doing? They are going to be all over the governing processes," he said.

When its plan for caucuses to choose the new government was killed by objections from a leading Shi'ite cleric, Washington turned to U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to devise an alternative.

While the shape of the new government is still undecided, Brahimi said he favored a president and two vice presidents to reflect the Iraq's basic Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish make-up alongside a Cabinet of ministers led by a prime minister.

Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University and a critic of the Bush administration, said the handover was illusory and that security was the most important issue and clearly would not be in Iraqi hands.

"Sovereign power will be in the hands of the only military force in the country, which is the United States," he said. "It is ludicrous ... to talk about a transfer of sovereignty."

compete story

well the only way we're gonna hand over power is if the iraqis get their heads out of their @sses and STOP BOMBING US! we said that we would hand over power once the security issue is settled! WTF IS UP WITH THEM!?!?!?!?!

SilQ, my sentiments exactly, are these people to dumb to realize whats being given to them on a silver platter at the cost of many lives?

I see the initial governments responsibility as one of bringing free elections to the Iraqi people so that they can choose what ultimate type of leadership and government they desire. June 30 just means that the troops stay and make sure that is what happens and that once choice is made, new government has a chance to get on its feet much like Afganistans government is being given the chance.

Originally posted by silQ
well the only way we're gonna hand over power is if the iraqis get their heads out of their @sses and STOP BOMBING US! we said that we would hand over power once the security issue is settled! WTF IS UP WITH THEM!?!?!?!?!

The power handover is being given to people selected by the coalition that invaded Iraq, not the people of Iraq. Thats the issue here. The people, especially the majority Shiites and the second largest sector of the population, the Sunnis want control over Iraq and not CPA handovers which make Iraq's government a puppet for the United States. If Iraq had real elections, they would gain true sovereign control over Iraq and the U.S. isn't going to allow that to happen. So the hostilities will continue.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by heelstone]

isn't this like a big joke....isn't the administration unsure of who exactly their giving control over to.. of course it is symbolic....some late night show had a blurb where Bush couldn't even answer the question about who exactly and how they would be giving the "power" over to.