With fewer than 100 days to go before Iraq resumes its sovereignty, American officials say they believe they have found a legal basis for American troops to continue their military control over the security situation in Iraq.so, to summarize: on june 30, 2004 iraq will become a sovereign independent country again, not an occupied territory, even though its entire government will be appointed by the american military and the iraqi armed forces will be "under operational control" (i.e. actual command) of an american general. the above quoted u.n. official calls american domination to be a "practical reality," but he really should go further. it simply won't be sovereignty, at least not in any manner that the term is normally defined. instead, it sounds like iraq will still be occupied power with some more iraqi faces in mid-level positions than there are now.
...
Showing his confidence that the approach was grounded in international law, L. Paul Bremer III, the chief of the occupation authority, issued an executive order this week specifying that the newly formed Iraqi armed forces be placed under the operational control of the American commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who has been named to lead American and allied forces after the transfer of political authority to the Iraqis.
Mr. Bremer and other top American officials say they believe Security Council Resolution 1511, which conferred the mandate for the American-led alliance, can be used to provide legal justification for the American military command to operate until Dec. 31, 2005. That is when a timetable agreed on by Iraqi leaders envisages the final transition to an elected Iraqi government.
...
The United Nations official said that while it would be a "practical reality" for American domination to continue despite Iraqi self-rule, "it has to be done in a way that's not offensive to Iraqis and the international community, which emphasizes Iraqi sovereignty rather than Iraqi impotence."
the administration, however, badly wants whatever happens on june 30th to be seen as a handover of sovereignty. but the arguments they offer against the common-sense notion of sovereignty are pretty weak. like this one from the end of the above-quoted article:
Another official said Iraqis could hardly claim that Iraq's sovereignty was compromised by having its troops under American command when nations like Britain and Poland had placed military contingents here under an American general. "There's no sovereignty issue for them," the official said.of course there's no sovereignty issue for britain and poland when they place command of a small number of their total armed forces under u.s. command in iraq. but there would clearly be an issue if britain placed all of its armed forces under u.s. command in britain. can we really image britain or poland standing for that?
how stupid do they think we are?
