Is US power transfer to Iraq real?

On June 28 the US-led coalition troops in Iraq secretly held a brief ceremony in Baghdad and completed the procedures of power transfer to the Iraqi interim government in a special way two days ahead of schedule, which was originally set for June 30.

After experiencing more than 14 months of occupation and turbulence, ordinary Iraqi people are eagerly hoping that the US and UK authorities would transfer sovereign power to the Iraqi interim government as scheduled, and under the leadership of the new government, they could regain security, reconstruct their country, rejuvenate the economy, increase employment, improve their livelihood, and develop democracy as soon as possible, so as to make necessary and sufficient preparation for the national election to be held next year. The severe security-related situation in Iraq, however, is heartrending, making them worry that the situation would further deteriorate. On the eve of the power transfer, many people are purchasing and storing daily necessities in large quantities. Local governments, the police and hospitals have begun to make necessary precautious and emergency preparedness against more violent armed attacks that may possibly occur around the time of the "power transfer ceremony". People can't set their minds at ease.

Easy to attack a country, but hard to guard it
For days anti-US forces have started a nationwide wave of armed attacks of an unprecedented scale since the launch of the Iraq war, which directly threatens the holding of the power transfer ceremony. The new round of bombings by anti-US forces reached a climax on June 24. They mounted a series of attacks on the US troops, the Iraqi police and paramilitary force in five important cities including Baghdad, resulting in casualties of more than 400 people, including 14 US soldiers. The anti-US forces also kidnapped foreigners as hostages to create a terror atmosphere. Following the beheading of a S. Korean hostage Kim Sun-il on June 22, the armed forces took three Turkish hostages on June 26 and threatened to behead them. Recently another US soldier is facing the same fate. The US-UK coalition troops could invade a country with ultra-strong military forces but could not truly occupy it. The worsening security-related situation in Iraq over the last 15 months has, to some extent, shed light on this matter.

Busy power transfer with an ax to grind
For some time the United States has made a great deal of preparation for the handover ceremony. The US ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte has officially taken office. Army Deputy Chief of Staff General George Casey will go to Iraq to replace lieutenant general Sanchez as the supreme commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. In the meantime, in order to win the support of its allies for the power transfer, President Bush recently went to Ireland to attend the US-European Union Summit. By June 24 the coalitions had handed the power of the last 11 departments to the interim government. Paul Bremer, the American civil administrator in Iraq, lost no time in planting 20-plus trusted followers in different departments of the Iraqi interim government before the handover, a move designed to exert continued influence on Iraq's political development and control this country.

Sources say, the fact that the United States hurriedly held a low-key power transfer ceremony ahead of schedule just before the NATO Summit involves its consideration of preventing guerilla attacks and helps President Bush to induce the allies at the NATO Summit to share responsibilities for the chaotic situation in Iraq.

Try to get away and change image
There are many reasons for the United States to adamantly stand for power transfer to the Iraqi interim government. On the one hand, since the US-UK coalition troops occupied Iraq, the costs they paid have been mounting with each passing day. Various expenses have amounted to nearly twice as much as that in the last Gulf War, and the United States does not want to bear them all on its own. Hundreds of soldiers of US-UK coalition forces have died in various attacks they suffered since their occupation of Iraq. Faced with the guerrilla attacks, the US troops realized that their ways of occupation and control must be changed. The New York Times once carried an article that laid bare the secret with one remark; for the US generals currently the most important task is to train Iraqis to deal with Iraqis. On the other hand, this year is the election year of the United States that is filled with the smoke of domestic election war. Recent polls on the war in Iraq, anti-terrorism and the president's administrative ability all reveal that the result is disadvantageous to President Bush. As the electoral day is drawing near, President Bush is urgently required to put an end to the Iraqi problem, and make a clear account on this issue to the voters at home. Besides, the prisoner abuse event dealt a blow to America's "soft strength" and adversely affected its international image, especially its image in the Arab world.

Faced with such domestic and international situations, the United States obviously wants to get rid of its status as "occupation troops" by means of UN authorization and seek support from the international community, share out the heavy burden of Iraqi reconstruction, lessen military pressure and provide a legitimate foundation for the US troops' stay in Iraq.

The US controls the military, finance and judicial systems
President Bush has promised to "transfer full sovereignty" to Iraq. However, analysts believe it is impossible that the United States would hand over all powers. With regard to important issues concerning Iraq Washington would still have the final say.

The new resolution, which the US-UK coalition troops put to the UN Security Council and got it pass only after much effort, also illustrates this. According to the resolution, the United States would transfer to the interim government the command of the Iraqi security forces. Nevertheless, on the most crucial questions, such as the relationship between the US troops and the interim government, the new resolution failed to provide specific provisions. As to when the US troops would withdraw from Iraq, the new resolution also says vaguely that it depends on "the extent of the Iraqi political progress". Paul Wolfowitz, US Deputy Defense Secretary, recently said: "US troops may stay in Iraq for many years". As to the limits of judicial powers and finance particularly the management of oil sales funds, the United States also has many reservations. Some analysts pointed out that America has stipulated that the Iraqi interim government cannot issue new laws or change the legal mode implemented by the Coalition Provisional Authority. After the handover those Americans who control various departments of Iraq would become "advisors". These "advisors" would still be controlling the real power in Iraq.

Marina Ottaway, a senior researcher at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and expert on the Middle East, said during a telephone interview that what the US government hands over to Iraq is mainly administrative power. Since the US troops are still stationed in Iraq, this power transfer is "obviously very incomplete".

Numerous factions and difficult power allocation
When the coalition troops hand over powers, it is also a complicated question as to whom the powers should be transferred, since the formation of the Iraqi interim government itself is not simple.

The Iraqi religion and population distribution can be divided into three blocks, that is, the Shiite in the south, the Sunnite in the middle and the Kurd in the north. The Shiites make up 60 percent of the Moslems and Sunnite 37 percent. Meanwhile, Kurd account for 21.6 percent of the county's population. The allocation of power within the new government is mainly made according to this ratio, with consideration given to the interests of different factions. It reflects the current situation of Iraqi politics and religious powers.

There are one Prime Minister and one Vice-Prime Minister in the new government.

Thirty-one cabinet ministers are allocated according to the population proportion of each sect, roughly retaining and continuing the power allocation pattern of the provisional governing council.

However, the religious and political powers in Iraq are complicated and extremely complex. Therefore there is no lack of clashes and conflicts among the various sects and groups in the new government as their interests join together, and this will affect political stability. The Muslim leader of Shiite in Iraq issued a statement the moment the interim government was established, accusing the new government of lack of legitimacy.

Whether the new Iraqi government can achieve success depends on one key factor, that is, whether it can win domestic and overseas support. Currently, although the new Iraqi government is given a cold reception by some Arab countries with a "wait-and-see" attitude, others such as the League of Arab States, Egypt and Kuwait have expressed their support for the new government. It is only a matter of time before other Arab countries will have dealings with the new Iraqi government. It is also a reality that must be accepted.

Worries over the prospect
The violent attack wave and perilous security situation in Iraq is no doubt the most thorny question facing the Iraqi interim government.

Prime Minister of the Iraqi interim government Iyad Allawi said the primary task for the interim government is to maintain domestic security. Therefore it is speeding up the reconstruction of Iraq's new army, police, frontier defense force and intelligence institutions and reinforcing public security patrols and checks in the cities. Allawi also vowed to severely suppress any anti-government armed forces aimed at destroying the democratic process. In the meantime, in order to break up and disintegrate resistance camps, Allawi published an article in the British newspaper Independent on June 27 saying that in order to isolate terrorists, the interim government would differentiate those Iraqis who oppose the occupation by the coalition troops out of indignation from those core terrorists who plot to create chaos. The former would not be prosecuted.

Will the Iraqi situation become stabilized immediately after the power transfer as the Bush administration wishes? Many analysts gave a negative answer. Marina Ottaway said to the reporter: "As long as Iraqi people think their government is only puppets of the US government, Iraqi attacks on the US troops won't stop and the Iraqi situation is hard to stabilize". Dr. Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior research fellow at the Brookings Institution and a well-known military analyst, also holds that the US troops should pull themselves out immediately. During an interview by People's Daily he said the greatest danger facing the United States in Iraq is the surging anti-America sentiment. One of the best ways to assuage the anti-America mood is to truly hand over sovereignty to Iraq. In his word: "The more complete the power transfer is the better, the sooner the better!".

This article was carried on the third page of People's Daily on June 29 and translated by People's Daily Online



People's Daily Online --- http://english.people.com.cn/