Sovereign how?

Iraqi concerns about the transfer of power have to be seriously addressed during discussions of the draft US-British resolution, writes Omayma Abdel-Latif

---

Click to view caption

An Iraqi Shia cries on the gate of Imam Ali's shrine in Najaf, damaged on Tuesday by a rocket or mortar, according to witnesses

Iraqi officials are unhappy with the draft US-British resolution detailing the transfer of power to an Iraqi interim government, saying that it has failed to address key issues at the heart of Iraqi sovereignty. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly shortly after the draft resolution was submitted on Monday, one member of the Interim Governing Council (IGC) described it as "no more than a move to legitimise the occupation of Iraq".

"This draft falls short of the Iraqi people's expectations, particularly with regard to the transfer of full sovereignty," said Ammar Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) in a telephone interview from Baghdad. "The worst aspect of the draft is that it casts doubts on the Iraqi people's ability to run their own country as it renders the future interim government ineffective," Al-Hakim explained.

The draft US-British resolution, which outlines the powers of an interim Iraqi government, came shortly before US President George W Bush gave a speech on what was described as a strategy "to turn Iraq's violence and chaos into stability". Iraqi observers believe the speech was no more than a publicity stunt in an election year. "Iraq has become an election issue and Bush has to be seen to be doing something about a situation which is worsening by the day," said one Iraqi analyst.

Discussions on the draft resolution have come at a time when IGC members and the UN special envoy to Iraq Lakhdar Brahimi are still struggling to come up with candidates for the interim government. Mahdi Al-Hafez, the Iraqi planning minister, who is also the strongest candidate for post of prime minister, believes that the new UN Security Council resolution will have to settle key issues or the task of the new government will be extremely difficult. "Of course the new government will have to negotiate with the occupying forces on many issues, but some ground rules have to be set by the international community," he said.

Perhaps one of the most contentious issues -- which both the draft resolution and Bush's so-called new-Iraq strategy failed to address -- is the status of the occupying forces in Iraq after the 30 June power handover. According to the draft resolution, the interim government will be granted sovereignty but will have limited control over the operations of coalition troops. The draft does not, however, specify how this "limited control" will be exercised, nor does it specify a timetable for a withdrawal of US and other foreign troops from Iraq.

"The most important question," says IGC member Jawad Al-Maliki, "is who will command whom in the new Iraq and how much responsibility will be given to the Iraqi security forces". Al- Maliki pointed out that almost all Iraqis, regardless of political affiliation, feel that they should have "the right, the power and the obligation to decide on issues of security, Iraq's oil and financial resources and foreign policy".

But these are precisely the issues that sparked heated debates on Tuesday. The most important issue, however, was whether or not the interim government will maintain the right to veto military operations conducted by foreign troops in Iraq if it deems them inappropriate. This was further complicated by the fact Britain and the US are also divided on this issue.

Signs of a rift emerged when British Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters on Tuesday that after the handover of power, ''final political control" of coalition forces will rest with the new Iraqi government. "If there is a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Falluja in a particular way, that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government, and the final political control remains with the Iraqi government," he said. "That is what the transfer of sovereignty means." Not quite, says US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who insisted in press statements on Tuesday that, "US forces in Iraq will remain under American control after the June handover." Powell said that while the Americans would consult the Iraqi authorities, US military units would do whatever was necessary to protect themselves.

Responding to Powell's statements, Iraqi officials said such a policy would further complicate matters for the new government which, they said, would be viewed as dependent on the presence of foreign troops for its survival.

"We should draw some lessons from the past year," said Akbar Al-Saadi, spokesperson of the SCIRI. "The occupation forces have failed to bring stability to Iraq for a whole year. They have even failed to protect themselves against attacks. So it makes no sense for them to retain control of the security issue," Al- Saadi said. This coming period, he added, would require that "full powers" be transferred to the Iraqi police and army to restore stability to the country.

In a statement issued by the IGC on Tuesday, they called for the interim government to have "full control over the activities of its armed and security forces, as well as its ports, airports and other symbols of sovereignty". But as Iraqi observers pointed out, the most important issue is that the government retains power to request foreign troops to depart completely. While Iraqis acknowledge that in the short term a multinational force will still be needed, they nonetheless point out that they should not "outstay their welcome".

But what could be considered an appropriate time frame for withdrawal? Iraqi Defence Minister Ali Alawi said he expected the multinational force to depart in "months and not years". British Prime Minister Blair, however, said they would stay for "as long as it is necessary" to assist the Iraqi people with "the transition to democracy". The same line was echoed by the US president in his speech on Monday.

Vague statements like these, however, provoke the ire of the Iraqis. Al-Hakim's fear is that in the absence of a timetable for withdrawal, any request by the new government for troops to pull out will require a UN resolution, which may be vetoed by the US.

Al-Hakim believes that unless the Iraqi concerns are seriously addressed during the discussions of the draft resolution, the 30 June deadline will be rendered irrelevant. "If these issues are not settled in a way the Iraqis believe are good for their interests, the US and other foreign troops will continue to be viewed as occupying forces and the whole issue about transferring sovereignty to Iraqis will be viewed as no more than a hoax," he said.