Only one month left for the power transfer in Iraq on June 30, but situation in Iraq still remains a mess. Will US-British coalition armies deliver the power smoothly? What power to be delivered and to whom? What a role the United Nations (UN) will play? What will be Iraq's future? A stream of question marks is disturbing the international community concerned over Iraq.

On May 24, the US President Bush said in a TV speech in Pennsylvania that the coalition armies will hand the power over to Iraq on June 30 as planed. On the same day, US and Britain formally delivered a new draft of resolution on Iraq issue, which was aimed to urge the UN's further participation in Iraqi affairs and to put on a legal mask in disguise of a real occupation.

Why Bush administration sticks so well to the commitment of power transfer?

US and Britain were bogged down in two crises: credit and security

Analyst said, to observe commitment is due to the two crises.

First is the credit crisis. As known to all, US brazenly violated UN Charter on the 20th of last March by taking an preemptive attack to launch a war in Iraq, a country with sovereignty. The high-sounding excuse was that Iraq developed and concealed weapons of mass destruction (WMD); supported "terrorist" activities. The purpose of the war on Iraq is to crackdown on Saddam's autocracy, "liberate" Iraqi people, and grant them democracy, freedom and human rights. However, the year passed with no evidence of WMD found nor any conspiracy on the part of Iraq with al-Qaeda. Then, the war launched by US and Britain turned out groundless: people of the two countries shout for being cheated, criticize the cheating, pushing Bush and Blair down to "intelligence gate". Iraqi people clearly found out that the real intention of the US and UK was neither to "liberate" the Iraqi people, nor for the freedom and human rights there but a long-term occupation. It is to turn Iraq into a strategic base for the coalition army, a bridge to expansion into other countries and overall control on Iraq's strategic oil resources.

Second is the security crisis. The wrong war naturally got opposition and condemnation from peace-loving people the world over as well as intensified resistance by Iraqi armed forces. Over the year, US occupying forces, in the name of fighting terrorists, went so far as to indiscriminately kill Iraqi civilians. Till now over ten thousand Iraqi people have been subjugated to an unnatural death. Today's Iraq, fragmented and riddled with gaping wounds the lawless are getting rampant. After the US prisoner abuse was uncovered, the US lost all credit among the Iraqi people who are now calling louder and louder for coalition forces to quit. Survey by a British newspaper recently showed, around 88 percent Iraqi people think, coalition armies are not "liberators" nor peacekeepers but occupiers; and more than half of the questioned demanded the forces to leave Iraq. Meanwhile, the anti-US Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr has been receiving surging support among Iraqis to 68 percent. People generally think, Muqtada al-Sadr's influence in Iraq loss only to Shiite leader? What is worth of attention is, the survey was done before the unearthing of the prisoner abuse scandal. If done now, the survey would have imaginably different results. Presently, US armies are locked in a fierce war with Sadr's militia in Kufa, Najaf and Sadr city. But the US attack on Sadr is most likely to run counter to their desire.

"Terrorist activities" more rampant through US paid hell's lot for "anti-terrorism"

As for the US, almost 800 US soldiers have lost their lives up till now and over US$ 100 billion spent on wars and reconstruction. US armies paid high price for "anti-terrorism" in Iraq, yet the "terrorist activities" ran more rampant, suicidal car bombings and missile attacks occurred one after another. What is worthwhile for you to chew upon is that the coalition forces can not even protect the UN peace envoy for Iraq's reconstruction or Izzedin Salim, president of Iraq's Governing Council, let alone Iraqi civilians.

In order to win more votes in the coming presidential election or ease domestic pressure, Bush administration is asking for UN assistance, and actively negotiating with special envoy of UN Secretary-General and Iraqi Interim Governing Council etc. various sides on affairs related to power transfer in planned schedule. As reported, US assigned former UN representative John Negroponte to be Ambassador to Iraq, replacing Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq. He will be the top official of US in Iraq after power delivery on June 30. Meanwhile, US also reached agreement on establishing a 26-member Iraqi new government, composed of one president, two vice presidents and a premier. Among the members, 14 will be from Shiite, 12 Kurdish, Sunni and other ethnic minorities. US-British coalition authorities also held the interim government clearly stipulated several tasks such as to be in charge of security and fight terrorist activities; to make preparation for the presidential election. However, it is also pointed out, the function of the government does not include agreement signing, to declare war or to accept cease-fire, or change the form of the system. People have noticed, most of the members to be discussed are from the present interim government council or interim government according to the original proportions, not out of direct election but buy way of consultation and recommendation. US has noted, US armies will still be free to operate after the power transfer and with regard to significant issues, US has the last voice. So the newly established interim government is granted only a "limited authorization", which remains the same as ever before.

US-British power delivery probably "more in form rather than in content"

As analyst held, coalition forces' power transfer is more in form than in content, then US doing this is intending to give the domestic US and international community a saying, improve the US image as an occupier. Under the condition of controlling the situation in Iraq, the drafted 260, 000-soldier security forces (75, 000 policemen, 40, 000-member military forces, 40, 000 civilian defense soldiers, 35, 000 border forces and aided force, 70, 000 guards for important facilities) to take the assignment of safeguarding national security. US-British occupation forces will withdraw from face-to-face conflicts with Iraqis backward to reduce casualty and avoid risk.

With 30 days to go, a series of questions raised at the beginning pop up. To this, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld started to give some precautionary hint: during the power transfer, there is probably various resistance and blocks. Power delivery is not magic so don't take it for granted that all things will be OK. Afterwards, there will be turbulence and terrorist activities, therefore US armies will still stay in Iraq for security safeguarding.

Arab countries were dissatisfied with the coalition armies' "obscure limited power delivery" without mentioning the complete withdrawal. Arab leaders, in their declaration issued on League of Arab States (LAS) summit just ended, called on the occupying forces to withdraw from Iraq, resume Iraq's sovereignty and let the UN play the core role in the post-war reconstruction there. However, US will not take the advice. Predictably, for Iraqis peace will be impossible so long as the US continues to stay in Iraq without budging after the power delivery.

By People's Daily Online