On Monday, US Civil Administrator Paul Bremer handed over "sovereignty" to the Interim Government of Iraq in a furtive ceremony, two days ahead of schedule. Not the stuff that independence days are made of. How sovereign is Iraq; what kind of future does the ongoing process offer for that shattered nation; and most significantly, how can a genuinely free, democratic and prosperous Iraq be created? Al-Ahram Weekly, in these special pages, invited Iraqi journalists and intellectuals to provide some answers

Wrong perceptions

Ibrahim Al-Marashi* looks at how the Iraqi media reacted to the scheduled transfer of power

---

Upon asking a relative in Iraq to send me over 20 different Iraqi newspapers from this week, I was astonished to learn that the Iraqi media was voicing relatively few opinions about the transition of power. While in the international media, the transfer of power which was speedied up on June 28th, was heralded as a turning point in Iraqi history, it seems that the Iraqis themselves feel that little will change.

It should come as no surprise that violence in Iraq has increased as the power transfer deadline approached. This is the result of parties responsible for violence acting upon their announced intentions. For example, on 21 June, a group called, "the National Army for the Liberation of Iraq", posted a statement on the website, www.nahawand.net, claiming that they are preparing to takeover Baghdad and other Iraqi cities after the transfer of power. The militia claims that it would create turmoil in the cities and attempt to target military officers and politicians "collaborating" with the US, as well as both Shia and Sunni clerics, members of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), as well as the Al-Daawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Also in June, a statement on www.alezah.com, urged that those who are incapable of taking part in resistance activities against the US should at least send financial support to the resistance fighters in Falluja. The website of the Ansar Al- Sunnah Army www.ansar-sonnah.8m.com will be releasing a videotape before the 30 June handover. The tape, called "Signs of Victory", demonstrates the group's operations conducted in the past, and will foreshadow the types of attacks that will be expected within the next couple of weeks. Another website, www.albasrah.net, has posted communications of a group referring to itself as the Iraqi National Alliance. Their online issue, titled "The Appeal for Resistance", specifically attacks the heads of the new interim government, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and President Ghazi Al-Yawer. What remains in question is if all these groups will match their words for violence. The common theme in most of their discourse, however, is that they will try to force the occupying powers out. Some elements will strive for this goal in order to prepare the grounds to seize political power.

What do such threats mean for the average Iraqi? On the streets of Baghdad, Iraqis reportedly stocked up on food and water, in preparation for the handover of power. Rather than optimism, one could sense an atmosphere of fear and tension as the date approached. Not only are there fears from terrorists, but a fear of the prospects of the imposition of martial law. The Iraqis have been under martial law for extended periods of time since the monarchy was overthrown in 1958.

An organisation calling itself the Iraqi Renewal Movement, said on 25 June, "We also denounce the imposition of martial law and emergency laws, even though only in certain areas, because this will pave the way for dictatorship and repression and will subjugate the Iraqi citizens through the suppression of freedom, free movement, inter-popular connections, and reconstruction."

Iraqis are apprehensive about the spectre of increased violence and are also weary of what martial law might bring, such as daily arrests, raids, checkpoints and searches of homes that characterised previous repressive regimes in Iraq.

The question remains as to how the Iraqi political factions envision their political future after the handover of power? Different views are expressed by Iraq's Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. While Iraq's political scene is convoluted and should not be examined by simple sectarian or ethnic divisions, these communities show common tendencies with regards to Iraq's future after handover.

Ironically, it is from the Shia clerics, who the US feared would try to engineer an Iranian-style theocracy, that the most optimistic views are expressed after the handover of power. As long as their demands for direct elections are met, many will be content with the current system. Mohamed Taqi Al-Din Mudarassi, a Shia cleric and head of the Islamic Amal Movement stated, "We are seeing fumbling in the decisions taken by the occupation forces, especially related to the transfer of sovereignty and the abrogation of the Debaathification law. On one hand, they have decided to transfer sovereignty to the people and on the other, they are beginning to talk about sharing it with them?" Mudarassi's view touches upon a sensitive issue. If the Iraqis feel that the US is controlling the interim government behind the scenes, such a government will be perceived as illegitimate. Such perceptions would only give strength to those elements in Iraqi society who have called for resistance to overthrow an illegitimate government.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq doubts that the 30 June handover will bring democracy to Iraq. In one of their radio programmes entitled the Voice of the Mujahidin said of the US, "They have not and will not convince anyone that it will make Iraq a bastion of democracy in the region. Instead of turning it into an oasis of democracy, freedom and security, this ancient country has been drowned in a sea of blood." This statement echoes the fact that as long as bloodshed continues in Iraq the 28 June handover will produce very little tangible change for the average Iraqi.

Even the Kurds, who the US counts on as its most staunch allies have expressed doubts as the handover approaches. In the Kurdish newspaper Howalati it was said the transfer really means that the US will leave in place "a repressive singular authority" which is dependent on the Americans: "It would not hesitate, if it can assign this job to the former Baathists, because in the end the US wants a democracy in Iraq that is more pro-American than pro-people's choice and the outcome of the ballot boxes." Such discontent among the Kurds is fuelled by the fear that after power handover, the new powers will not be willing to deliver a form of a federal state.

Other independent Iraqi media, such as the newspaper Al-Dustur is sceptical of Iraq's future after 28 June. In an editorial it said, "Iraq may become one of the best new US colonies governed indirectly by the US administration. All political and economic decisions made by the governments that will rule Iraq in the future will be bound to US political and economic interests. The new model of Iraq is a US national park." The editorial states that the establishment of US military bases in Iraq would only prove this assertion.

While these comments do not reflect the entire spectrum of Iraqi anticipation and fears before the 28 June handover, they are nonetheless indicative of some of the prevalent anxieties the nation faces. The transfer of power seeks to formally end the US occupation of Iraq, but it does just that. It formally ends the occupation but what will this mean for the Iraqi on the ground? As long as the everyday Iraqi sees American troops patrolling their streets, as the every day Iraqi has to wait in long lines for gasoline, suffering in the Iraqi summer due to a lack of electricity for the air-conditioning, while failing to find work and witnessing car bombs on a weekly if not daily basis, a new handover of power will mean little. While international observers of the Iraqi situation may believe that elections in January will lead to more legitimacy, can elections be held in the face of a growing insurgency?

The handover of power is directed towards the wrong constituencies. It was directed so that the world community and American public opinion would accept the occupation of Iraq has ended, but many Iraqis perceive it as a continuation of the US presence under a different guise, while perpetuating the violence already plaguing their nation.

* The writer is an American researcher of Iraqi origin.