UN: Even after the Security Council resolution, Iraqis will still not have themost basic attribute of sovereignty - control over their own territory, writes Michael Jansen.
The resolution on Iraq adopted by the UN Security Council on Tuesday states that on June 30th, "the occupation will end", and the interim government formed on June 1st will "assume full responsibility and authority" and the country will regain "full sovereignty."
One of the factors which led to its adoption was the appeal for an early acceptance to Security Council members by senior members of the interim government who are close to the US. The fact that Iraqis were urging adoption of the text made it all the more difficult for hold-outs to reject it.
However, it is clear from the provisions of this resolution that the interim government, chosen by the dissolved US-appointed governing council, will enjoy limited rather than full authority, and that Iraq's sovereignty will remain compromised.
While Iraqi forces will come under Iraqi command, foreign forces, in the country "at the request" of the interim government, will remain under US command and have the right to "take all necessary measures" to provide security and stability.
The interim government can tell foreign forces to depart but the Prime Minister, Mr Iyad Allawi, a former operative of the US Central Intelligence Agency, has already said that he will not do so. This means that the US remains in charge of the security of the country and that Iraqis do not have control over their own territory, a basic attribute of sovereignty.
Although the interim government is supposed to be in charge of the oil sector, proceeds from sales will continue to be deposited into the account of the Development Fund for Iraq, which is monitored by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board.
According to a provision carried over from Resolution 183 (2003), oil revenues are not meant to be disbursed until an "internationally recognised and representative government is properly constituted", presumably after the 2005 election. This could mean that the bulk of monies in the Development Fund cannot be spent by the interim government.
The interim government is barred from passing legislation affecting Iraq's "destiny".
Therefore it will not be able to abrogate the laws passed or decrees issued by the occupation regime. Thus the rush of measures adopted before the US dissolves the occupation administration will remain in force until a permanent government is formed.
One decree bans the rebel Shia cleric, Hajatolislam Muqtada al-Sadr, from participating in the political process, spurring him to escalate his insurgency.
The interim government cannot cancel commercial contracts concluded during the rule of the occupation regime. This means Bush administration favourites will continue to have an advantage over competitors, including local Iraqi firms.
The resolution is unlikely to resolve any of Iraq's urgent problems - insecurity, lack of electricity and massive unemployment.
Some analysts argue that the resolution was primarily designed to create the illusion amongst US voters that the President, Mr Bush, has the council's support for his policies in Iraq in order to halt his slide in popularity ahead of the November elections.