TEHRAN, July 29 (MNA) -- Yesterday, as the world awaited the scheduled timetable for the transfer of sovereignty from Paul Bremer to Iraq’s “interim government”, the transfer of power was carried out and the U.S. administrator in Iraq left the country.

Although the U.S. officially announced the transfer of power to Iraq yesterday, political observers hold a skeptical view regarding Iraqi affairs, for Iraq’s interim government still faces numerous problems that prevent it from realizing complete national sovereignty and operational authority.

 

(1) The key to the enforcement of national sovereignty is lasting security.

 

It’s obvious that the reason the United States carried out the transfer of power two days ahead of schedule was the occupiers’ failure to establish security in the country.

 

Around 150,000 troops from the U.S. and other Western countries are currently occupying Iraq from its borders to its very center. The question arises: Will these forces be under the supervision of the Iraqi interim government or the U.S. administration?

 

Meanwhile, Washington’s unbalanced policies in Iraq compelled the U.S. to seek help from extremist Baathists in order to establish security in the city of Fallujah.

 

The brutal massacre of Shia youth in Fallujah over the past few days indicates that the U.S. has turned the city into a potential hotbed of dissension.

 

(2) Control over the national wealth and economy is the second most significant factor required for the demonstration of national sovereignty.

 

However, Iraq’s interim government will certainly not have complete access to the country’s wealth.

 

The British daily the Independent recently published a documented report indicating that 20 billion dollars of Iraq’s national assets had disappeared during Bremer’s tenure.

 

In addition, U.S. and Zionist regime companies have gained complete control over Iraqi oil exports and participate in the country’s industrial activities. According to the report, the companies have at times acquired windfall profits through oil exports.

 

If you add to this amount the assets of the Iraqi nation that were frozen in Western banks during the rule of former dictator Saddam Hussein, one will come to the conclusion that the Iraqis have lost their wealth for the next few decades.

 

(3) National unity in Iraq is currently as varied as the ethnic and sectarian diversity of the country. Any attempt to sideline one of the groups would destroy Iraqi national sovereignty.

 

A review of events over the past few months in Iraq indicates that the U.S. has persuasively pursued its policy to foment ethnic and sectarian strife in order to resolve its temporary crises.

 

(4) Undoubtedly, if 14 months ago some considered the U.S. a liberating force in Iraq, today, due to the United States’ unacceptable behavior toward the Iraqi people, it is considered an occupational force. According to a recent U.S. opinion poll, 80% of all Iraqis hold this view.

 

Yesterday, immediately after Bremer’s departure, when the Western media announced that John Negroponte, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had moved to Baghdad to head the 3000-member U.S. embassy in Iraq, many pundits noted the transfer of power was from Bremer to Negroponte rather than from the U.S. to the Iraqi nation.

 

One should reflect on which of the two powers has the upper hand: Negroponte and his 3000-member staff that are attempting to stabilize Washington’s domination of Iraq or Iyad Allawi and his 33-member cabinet that are trying to gain national sovereignty.

 

(5) Despite Washington’s motivations, this step can also be considered positive, since the interim government is an Iraqi government. However, continued insecurity in Iraq will lead to insecurity in the region.

 

Yet, we should not forget that security will only become firmly established in Iraq when the will of a “powerful nation” administers the country instead of the will of “powerful men”.

 

Will the Iraqi people finally gain national sovereignty after enduring the heavy burden of internal and foreign dictatorships?  

 

(6) Iraq’s interim government and all the effective forces on the political scene in Iraq should realize that the Iraqi nation can only attain national sovereignty by maintaining national and ethnic unity; otherwise, if the country accepts foreign influence that is meant to create dissension and insecurity, the U.S. will find the opportunity to establish its new dictatorship in Iraq.

 

However, this is not the first time the U.S. has trampled upon human rights, liberty, and democracy in order to realize its own interests.

 

Fallujah is the latest and the most tangible example in this regard.

 

(7) Over the 14 months since the yoke of Saddam’s dictatorship was lifted in Iraq, the country has witnessed all kinds of extremism and bias from various groups.

 

Today, even the occupiers have come to the conclusion that no movement will lead to peace and stability in Iraq without a national and religious foundation based on ijtihad.

 

HL/IS/HG

End

 

MNA

News Code 6518

Your Comment

You are replying to: .
  • 5 + 11 =