Hmm (again)
Posted by peegee on Wed, 06/30/2004 - 2:14am.
Now, I'm confused. I see three varying definitions of sovereignity there: (1) when your calling your own shots (2) if the rest of the world says so and (3) if the big boys say so.

I'm not sure I would say Iraq is sovereign by any of these standards. (3) is certainly the easiest, since the US are the biggest boy around and they can just choose to say Iraq is sovereign, as they have indeed done. Some other big boys are US allies so it doesn't surprise me they follow the lead.

As for the Iraq administration calling its own shots (I must label them unelected despots, as they have been appointed by the US, rather than elected by anyone) I think no. After all the dominant militant force in Iraq is still the US. And one of the last acts of the US administration was to grant legal immunity to the US troops and everyone they employ. The Iraqi government might change that of course but given the amount of US soldiers still around, given who they were appointed by, how likely is it they will bite the hand that feeds them.

As for the rest of the world, I have heard too much doubting voices with regard to the sovereignity of Iraq. I'm just not convinced. But I wasn't thinking of just that anyway, when I suggested I thought the handover farcical. Whatever.
Your name:
Anne Onymous
Allowed HTML tags: <a> <b> <dd> <dl> <dt> <i> <li> <ol> <u> <ul> <em> <blockquote> <br> <hr> <br/>