Transferring sovereignty: what's different?

[Diceman]

OK, so we transferred sovereignty over to the Iraqis. And we did it two days early, presumably so that everyone involved won't get shot or blown up by the insurgents.

What are the practical effects of this transfer? Are the Iraqis really in charge, or did we just add another layer of management? And please note which forum I posted this in. I'm really hoping that I can get some factual information on what signficance, if any, the transfer of power had.

[Reeder]

Just a bit of a nitpick. They didn't transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis, they transferred limited sovereignty.

IMHO that means the Iraqi govt can do whatever the US military says they can do.

[Squink]

What has changed? The big change is that Allawi now controls the Iraqi government's $20 billion a year in income. About $10 bn. of that is oil revenues, and those may be hurt this year by extensive sabotage. http://www.juancole.com/2004_06_01_juancole_archive.html#108843853517271330

Even with Mr. Bremer's departure and the dissolution of the authority, the American government will retain enormous influence presence here, staffing an embassy that they say will be the world's largest and controlling the flow of more than $8 billion in American reconstruction aid. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/international/28CND-IRAQ.html?pagewanted=2&hp

On the other hand, if someone declares martial law, it'll be the sovereign government of the new Iraq. The US will just enforce the decree.

[Reeder]

You might compare it to Vichy France.

[Diceman]

So basically, they're a puppet government? Ostensibly sovereign, but all the real decisions get made in Washington?

[Reeder]

IMHO..as long as there are 130k US troops in their country that they have no control over whatsoever..yes it's a puppet government.

[Squink]

Prisoner 27075 learns limits of sovereignty (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373324911&p=1031119383196) Iyad Akmush Kanum, 23, learnt the limits of sovereignty on Monday when US prosecutors refused to uphold an Iraqi judges' order acquitting him of attempted murder of coalition troops.

US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.

"Iraqis who have been detained as a security threat can still be detained until firstly the coalition leaves or secondly they are considered to be no longer a threat," said Michael Frank, deputy special prosecutor for Multinational Force-Iraq (MNFI), who oversaw the case dressed in military fatigues.

[rjung]

So basically, they're a puppet government? Ostensibly sovereign, but all the real decisions get made in Washington?
Yes, though I don't expect the Bush Administration will play up this fact.

[Brutus]

You might compare it to Vichy France.

Golly, why not compare it to post-war Germany or Japan? Why pick Vichy France? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Diceman]

Golly, why not compare it to post-war Germany or Japan? Why pick Vichy France? Inquiring minds want to know!
That raises an interesting point. When did Japan and (West) Germany become fully independant of the US and England?

[UncleBill]

West Germany was occupied by a "coalition government" until 1949, Democracy was begun at the local government level and grew upwards. The REAL occupation ended with German reunification, though, in the 90's. It may have happened faster but there was an attempt to keep Germany together, but the Ruskies and US/UK could not agree on everything. A year and a half after the West decided not to continue the USSR route, the handover occurred. But it is important to understand the lower governments (up to "state" level) were FAIRLY autonomous and democratic already.

Referece (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/may03/middleEast6.asp)