Doubts Remain Over Iraq’s Path to Sovereignty

At the Zitouna internet café, near Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, electrical engineering students huddle to read the latest reports on their beleaguered country.

That the pleasure of freely surfing the internet was made possible by the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime seems to have been long forgotten. The joy of freedom, suggest the students, has been overshadowed by anxieties over Iraq's slide into turmoil.

The doubts extend to the planned handover of power to a sovereign government on June 30, a move on which the Bush administration is pinning high hopes of saving its faltering Iraq project. "The Americans won't give us real sovereignty," insists 20-year-old Mohamed Nadim. "Their troops are here and they will stay." The next "caretaker" government, say the students, will not fare better than the current US-appointed Governing Council - unpopular and, in the eyes of Iraqis, ineffectual.

"The Council didn't do anything for us - all they do is talk and nothing changes," charges Younis Qais, 21. "There's no reason that the new government will be better since it too will be chosen by the US."

By removing the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad and forming a new government that prepares the country for elections, set for January, the US - with the help of the United Nations - wants to convince Iraqis that real change is at hand. President George W. Bush said in a speech on Monday that the US would hand over authority to a sovereign government, and that his goal was to make Iraqis "free, not to make them American". Earlier the same day, the US and UK presented a draft resolution to the UN Security Council, which they argued would achieve that goal.

Meanwhile Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN envoy, is "crunching names" as Ahmad Fawzi, his spokesman, puts it, and searching for a consensus on the new government among Iraq's religious and ethnic communities.

But the profound scepticism of the students, echoed in conversations with other Baghdad residents, underlines the uphill struggle facing the US. The handover in Iraq will also prove a challenge for the UN - where discussion of the resolution continues in the Security Council today. According to Sergey Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, the world must avoid Iraq's becoming a "bleeding wound" of the international political scene.

The escalation in violence over the past two months has made an already problematical transition more difficult. The stand-off between US forces and Muqtada al-Sadr, the young firebrand Shia cleric, has raised tensions with the Shia community that, until recently, had been docile. The killing of hundreds of Iraqis in the Sunni town of Falluja has reinforced the resentment of the Sunni Arab community, which dominated the former regime but found itself marginalised. The Abu Ghraib prisoners scandal has further eroded US credibility in Iraq.

Some Iraqis fear that a US retreat from Iraq risks sparking sectarian conflict and provoking a fragmentation into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parts. But Saadoun al-Duleimi, head of the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, says a recent poll shows Iraqis increasingly view the US military presence as contributing to the turmoil rather than fostering stability.

Coalition officials in Baghdad acknowledge enormous challenges lie ahead. "We have to do everything we can to make sure Iraqis are in control," says one.

Members of the UN Security Council say the coalition's draft resolution, while a welcome start, has raised as many questions as it answered. "We don't know if it's a boy or a girl; whether it will walk or not," says Abdallah Baali, Algeria's UN ambassador. "It is still unclear who is going to do what, and with whom."

Leaders from Kofi Annan to Jacques Chirac of France insist that a real transfer of power and a genuine end to the occupation of Iraq are the only way in which the daily cycle of Iraqi violence will be broken.

Emyr Jones Parry, the UK ambassador to the UN, says the resolution's essence is clear. "The interim Iraqi government will assume total responsibility for its own sovereignty," he says. According to James Cunningham, the deputy US ambassador, it marks "a new beginning for Iraq".

But UN ambassadors warn that lofty announcements are not enough. There is no point in declaring a handover of sovereignty if the reality on the ground shows otherwise, they say.

If the Security Council is to endorse the June 30 handover, they argue, it has to know that what the resolution says is true and has support. France says it cannot give the US a blank cheque and warns that the very credibility of the UN is at stake.

Towards sovereignty?

Main points of the UN draft resolution put forward by the US and UK

•Endorses formation of a sovereign interim government of Iraq to take office by June 30, 2004

•Welcomes an end to US-led occupation by that date, when the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist and the interim government will assume 'the responsibility and authority for governing a sovereign Iraq'

•Endorses direct democratic elections no later than January 31, 2005

•Envisages that the UN will assist in convening a national conference to select a consultative council and advise on Iraqi elections

•Vests a multinational force (MNF) with authority to take 'all necessary measures' to maintain Iraqi security and stability; its mandate will be reviewed in 12 months

•A distinct UN security force will be created, under the MNF's command

•Invites UN member states and security organisations to contribute assistance to the MNF

•Tells UN members to take immediate action to freeze funds of terrorists in Iraq, prevent their transit and the supply of arms to them

•Lifts the arms embargo on Iraq

•Envisages that funds in the Development Fund for Iraq will be disbursed by the Iraqi government; oil receipts will continue to be put in the fund which will be monitored by an international audit board

•Gives Iraqi government responsibility for the remaining arrangements for the oil-for-food programme

•Welcomes creditors' commitment to reduce Iraqi debt, urges international financial institutions to provide loans and other assistance, and gives Iraqi government authority to conclude agreements

This week's text, diplomats say, needs a good deal more work before they are convinced.

The draft hands over control of oil revenues to Baghdad, albeit with international supervision, and allows Iraqis to deal with international financial institutions. It charts a role for the UN in writing a constitution and preparing for elections. It ends the arms embargo.

But the most contentious issue is the question of international security. The text contains what looks to many like a paradox. On the one hand, it welcomes "the commitment of the occupying powers to end the occupation by 30 June 2004". On the other hand, it grants a US-led multinational force (MNF) the authority to take "all necessary measures" to maintain security.

The US and the UK insist there is no contradiction. They say the force will act with the consent of the sovereign government. "If there's a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Falluja in a particular way, that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government," says Tony Blair, the UK prime minister. "The final political control remains with the Iraqi government. That's what the transfer of sovereignty means."

But the text of the draft resolution is vague on details. It outlines a procedure whereby the new Iraqi government will liaise with the multinational force commander, who will then send a letter to the Security Council.

That has left some UN members ill at ease. "The most important issues are going to be dealt with outside the council," notes one diplomat. Whingeing, retort coalition officials. The point is that Iraqis should decide what they want and it is not up to the Security Council to micro-manage the process.

France and Russia argue they have no idea what the Iraqi people want and whether the new government, to be named shortly by Mr Brahimi, will represent them.

France has called for an Iraqi "round table" before June 30 to determine whether the caretaker government has real support. Russia says it will discuss the resolution only after a new "legitimate" interim government has been chosen. But with only five weeks before the handover, time is running short.

Even with his experience as a trouble-shooter in the factional wars of Afghanistan and Lebanon, Mr Brahimi faces a significant challenge in Iraq. His first task has been to select suitable candidates for a government run by a prime minister and a ceremonial president with two deputy presidents.

A consultative council that will be an enlarged version of the Governing Council will advise the government. But Mr Brahimi has to agree his list with the US, which has an interest in picking those it sees as most loyal, and with the Governing Council, where the priority of many members is to secure a seat in the next administration.

His challenge in Baghdad also has been to avoid the mistakes the US made when it formed the Governing Council, staffing it largely with former exiled politicians, in many cases with no power base inside the country.

He has been holding meetings with politicians, trades unions, women's groups and movements that openly oppose the American occupation as he tries to balance the aspirations of Iraq's three main communities - the majority Shias and the Sunni Arab and Kurdish minorities - and ensure that each finds adequate representation in the new structures.

But the process has been controversial. He first suggested that professionals with a reputation for honesty should lead the caretaker government, an institution that will, in theory, last only six months. But the Governing Council balked at the idea.

Over the past week, it has emerged that the next government will include a Shia prime minister and a Sunni president. But these suggestions have already provoked prote sts from the Kurds, who have until now been loyal US allies. Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the Governing Council, warns that Kurds deserve a top post and that his community's close relations with the US should not mean the Kurds can be taken for granted.

Perhaps most difficult has been the attempt to convince the disgruntled Sunni minority, some of whom say they will stay away from the next government.

Ahmad al-Wattari, spokesman for a Sunni-based party that was not represented on the Governing Council, sums up the dilemma: "It's dangerous for us to burn ourselves just to be part of the government. But if Brahimi managed to bring new people on board and he can give credibility to the new government, then we would take part."

In Baghdad, there are banners telling Iraqis that full sovereignty equals full independence. The message is reinforced by coalition officials in almost daily televised briefings. But the suspicion remains that the US will be the real power operating behind the scenes. The CPA is to be replaced with the biggest embassy in the world, Washington will be funding much of the reconstruction of the country and its companies will be the main players in the economy. The US embassy will still offer advisers to Iraq's ministries.

Hamed al-Bayati, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, insists "major military operations would need the consent of the Iraqi government". Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar, the head of the governing council, says: "We see the necessity of the presence of [coalition] forces, but in the period to come want to have the right to ask that these forces leave."

But Iraqis themselves agree that an unelected caretaker government should not take decisions with long term implications for the country. To help allay concerns, France has argued that a timetable for withdrawal should be included in the UN resolution.

Few expect the discussions at the UN to be easy but most diplomats suspect that the resolution will win support in a grudging acceptance that saving Iraq has become everyone's business. And Mr Lavrov of Russia, says there is no desire to see the US defeated. "This is not in our interest because it will destabilise the whole region."

As Mr Brahimi warned earlier this year, a country does not suddenly decide to plunge into civil war, it slowly slides into it. Paralysis at the UN will help no-one. "Realistically, how can you vote against this?" says one non-coalition diplomat.