The secretive way in which formal sovereignty was transferred to Iraqis by the US-led occupation authorities in Baghdad yesterday starkly reveal the difficulties faced by the incoming interim government.
Holding the ceremony two days early was intended to thwart any attempt by resistance forces to stage a spectacular attack on the day. The new interim government's weakness and dependence on a continuing US presence is underlined either way. Its first action is expected to be a proclamation of martial law to enable it cope with such a deep and wide opposition. NATO's pledge yesterday to help train the new Iraqi police and troops will be of little immediate help in this task.
Iraq is in a real mess politically, administratively and in security terms 15 months on from the war. Progress made by the occupation forces in the economic and educational spheres is outweighed by the failure to restore elementary facilities such as water, electricity, roads and everyday security in many parts of the country. It is too easy to blame this on resistance by groups of Ba'athist loyalists, disaffected Sunnis and Shia Muslims and external movements like al-Qaeda, as has been done by President Bush and his allies. Fundamental policy mistakes have been made - quite aside from the decision to invade without express United Nations mandate - notably by dismantling the Saddamite state and military forces in their entirety last year without any real strategy for alternative nation-building. This has created popular resentment and caused much of the resistance, notwithstanding Iraqi relief about Saddam's overthrow and now this transfer.
Overcoming these problems will be all the more difficult for the new interim government as a result of these mistakes. It can ask the 160,000 US-led troops to leave in theory, but in practice won't do so. It cannot make long term policy changes pending general elections planned for January next. It cannot alter the contracts which awarded Iraqi resources to foreign companies, including those associated with members of the Bush administration. It lacks deep roots in the country and has scant time to garner legitimacy before then. But it does have more international support than its predecessors in the outgoing governing council - or, indeed, than the US-led occupation authorities who have now formally left. This is expressed in the unanimous Security Council resolution 1546 in support of the transition and explicitly backed in recent days by the European Union and NATO.
They are convinced a stable, united and - if possible - democratic Iraq must be created as an alternative to conflict and destabilisation in the Middle East. It is in their interests to do what they can to ensure such an outcome. This stops short of supplying NATO troops to supplement the existing multinational coalition there, which was once again the subject of objections by France and Germany yesterday at the NATO summit. Much will depend on how effectively the elections are prepared.