The latest UN draft resolution, put forward by the US and UK on the transition of Iraq to sovereign status, is once again placing a question mark behind the intentions of the Coalition. While the general aims of the resolution are receiving acceptance by the other members of the United Nations, many countries are raising concerns about the content of the proposal. The main point of contention is the issue of power and control. The proposal does not definitively state who will be in control of Iraq after June, and couches this vital aspect in open-ended and vague terms.

As many critics have pointed out, the separation of political and military power is not a tenable solution to the present crisis. While both Blair and Bush persist in claiming that, if adopted, the resolution will mean full and unequivocal sovereignty for Iraqis, other countries in the Security Council correctly point out that there are important aspects that are not being addressed.

Even mainstream journalists are openly dubious about aspects of the proposal. In a recent CNN interview, this failure to address the most crucial aspect of Iraq’s transfer of power was emphasized by CNN’s Cairo bureau chief, Ben Wedeman. He states quite categorically that “… it’s very dubious about how much power will be handed to the Iraqis after June 30th”.¹ He continues, “The United States has made it clear that it will maintain a large military force there.” The bottom line is, as Wedeman states, “whoever has the forces on the ground controls the country.” This simply means that whatever formula or proposal is suggested by the US and UK, no matter how elegantly phrased and outwardly acceptable, this still leaves the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, in de facto control of the country.

Of course, the situation might change with a number of events still awaiting finalization, particularly the report by UN envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi.

Four key nations in the UN Security Council - China, Germany, France and Russia - have already proposed amendments to the draft proposal. These changes are aimed at providing the new Iraqi government with control over the police and army; and they also “require the multinational force to consult on military actions except for self-defense.”² One diplomat stressed that he doubted whether “the draft [in its present form] would give the Iraqi people any sense of ownership over their government.” A French diplomat said the draft would provide carte blanche for the United States³.

It is unclear from the present state of the proposal who exactly will control what in terms of the economy. It proposes giving Iraqis control of their oil and gas riches and the $10.2 billion Development Fund for Iraq run by occupying powers. However, there would also be significant international supervision of the funds.

According the draft resolution, on the 30th of June the US will hand over authority for almost every aspect of government, except security, to a newly-appointed interim government of Iraq. Special UN envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is working in conjunction with the White House to select the members of the interim government. On the crucial issue of security, however, the draft does not give the Iraqi government any formal say.

That a cautious and somewhat cynical response should be the general response to the proposal should not come as a surprise. This is particularly true in the larger Middle East where the recent prison abuse scandal has further eroded American plausibility and, when combined with the lies about WMD, has doused hope of easy acceptance of any US policy on Iraq. There is also the suspicion that the present draft is little more than a well-timed political move on the part of a beleaguered President Bush as he faces increasing criticism on the Iraq occupation from his public. What even further deepens the present confusion and skepticism of the coalition’s intentions is another aspect that underlies the overall complexity of the present draft proposal. This is the apparent lack of planning on the part of the Bush Administration for the proposed handover of power. A British opposition MP, Crispin Blunt, recently characterized the state of planning for the handover of Iraq as a “shambles” and a “disgrace.”⁴

This raises other speculations: Why has the situation been allowed to become so untenable? Is this just a case of US incompetence and bad planning, or is this a somewhat naïve and disingenuous reason? Another point of view that few seem to be prepared to entertain is that there is another agenda that underlies the present situation and that the US has other ulterior motives, which may possibly include chaos and the continuance of dissatisfaction in the region.

Of concern are reports that the handover of power is little more than a pretense with the actual power already firmly in US hands.

As Washington prepares to hand over power, US administrator L. Paul Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that will give the United States powerful levers for influencing nearly every important decision the interim government will make. In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, Mr. Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several ministries. The CPA also established an important new security-adviser position, which will be in charge of training and organizing Iraq’s new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and allow for continued US oversight. Meanwhile, the CPA reiterated that coalition advisers will remain in virtually all remaining ministries after the handover.⁵

As more than one journalist have stated, the Iraq situation and the present draft proposal are part of a larger political game - a political game in which ordinary Iraqis are the pawns and victims. To suggest that on June 30th the Iraqis will magically become the main players in their own future is something that many commentators are extremely suspicious about. The following days and weeks and the decisions made by the United Nations will hopefully unravel the threads of this crisis.