Let’s get one thing straight: I am thrilled to see progress when it comes to Iraqis gaining control of their own country. Any transfer of power from the U.S. to Iraq is a positive step in my book. For goodness’s sake, the U.S. military has been the sole power in charge of their country for over a year now. But what is this I read in the paper and hear on the news, quotes from Paul Bremer and Donald Rumsfeld: that the recent transfer of power means “sovereignty” for Iraq? Huh?

So……If Iraq gets a temporary government, complete with a Prime Minister who was not elected by the people of that country, does that suddenly amount to a sovereign nation? And when the U.S. retains a veto power over any decisions made by the “sovereign” Iraq, is it sovereign? Just because we have transferred the U.S.’s control of Iraq from the Pentagon to the State Department, does NOT mean that it is suddenly a sovereign nation.

Then there is the fact that the U.S. has allocated several billions of dollars to the reconstruction of Iraq, yet much of it has been held back thus far: yet another great way for the U.S. to influence Iraq’s decisions, don’t you think?

Sovereignty means a government is completely independent from outside control. Iraq may now have some autonomy when it comes to minor decision-making, but to declare this nation suddenly “sovereign” is a ridiculous claim. Once again the Bush administration misinforms us. (And once again, the media reports the misinformation across the nation.)

As someone said to me the other day, “Being sovereign is like being pregnant - you can’t be just a little pregnant. You’re either pregnant or you’re not.” So even though the U.S. has handed over some power to Iraq, let’s not pretend it’s suddenly a sovereign nation.

Meanwhile, I’ll just work hard to make sure that a “transfer of power” happens in our own nation on November 2nd, so that the U.S., Iraq, and everyone on the planet are better off.

Back to Hannah's Index
Bank to Voices Index