by Steven R. Weisman
			
			
			WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The new caretaker government in Iraq was hailed Tuesday
			by President Bush as ready to assume "full sovereignty" after June 30. But
			its first job, according to American officials, will be to negotiate sharp
			limits on that sovereignty in many vital areas, particularly security
			matters.
			
			Less than a month before the scheduled transfer of power, it remains unclear
			exactly how much power will be transferred.
			
			The continued presence of nearly 140,000 American troops, and American
			diplomats in the ministries of the new government, virtually ensures that
			significant power will remain in American hands. To some, the limits that
			are emerging are so constraining that they make a mockery of the process.
			
			"It's a charade," said a diplomat at the United Nations, . . .
			
			As for "full sovereignty," American officials have said decision-making
			authority over security matters will be shared. But according to a second
			draft of an American and British resolution for the United Nations Security
			Council on Iraqi sovereignty, circulated among Council members on Tuesday
			night, the United States security mandate would extend to December 2005,
			after a constitution had been approved and a permanent government put in
			place. . . .
			
			Confusion over sovereignty extends beyond military matters to questions of
			legal immunity for Americans, accounting practices, treatment of prisoners
			and oversight of government ministries.
			
			Americans in the military and in private business now enjoy immunity from
			criminal prosecution and liability in Iraq. But some lawyers say the issue
			will have to be renegotiated once sovereignty is restored.
			
			In addition, American officials say from 110 to 160 American advisers will
			be layered through Iraq's ministries, in some cases on contracts signed by
			the occupation, extending into the period after June 30.
			
			. . . the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations
			and the Arab Development Bank supervise an "advisory and monitoring board"
			that is supposed to keep tabs on Iraq's revenues and expenditures. . . .
			
			Still another matter to be decided, administration officials acknowledge, is
			the status of thousands of Iraqis to be detained by American military
			authorities even though many of them have not been charged with any crimes.
			. . .
			
			FULL TEXT
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			Yochi J. Dreasen and Christopher Cooper, "U.S.
			Tightens Grip On Iraq's Future," The Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2004
			
			
			[The administration has yet to confront squarely the fact that the
			deteriorating situation both in Iraq and in the region will not improve
			without a politically comprehensive and coldly realistic revision of current
			policies that addresses four key points: (1) The transfer of "sovereignty"
			should increase, rather than discredit, the legitimacy of the emerging Iraqi
			government, and hence it should issue from the United Nations, not the
			United States; (2) Without a fixed and early date for U.S. troop withdrawal,
			the occupation will become an object of intensified Iraqi hostility; (3) The
			Iraqi government should reflect political reality, not doctrinaire American
			delusions; and (4) Without significant progress toward an
			Israeli-Palestinian peace, post-occupation Iraq will be both anti-American
			and anti-Israel.--Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Face Reality," The New Republic, May 28, 2004]
						
			
			"Interim
			Iraqi government named: U.S.-appointed council disbands," CNN.com, June
			1, 2004
			
			
			[In the end, hemmed in by hovering U.S. officials and their present and
			former Iraqi allies, Mr. Brahimi acquiesced to a cabinet led by the same
			former exiles and Kurdish politicians who populated the discredited Iraqi
			Governing Council.--Editorial: "In
			the Iraqi Interim," The Washington Post, June 2, 2004]
		
			
			[. . . outspoken war advocates in Washington are already proclaiming
			failure. . . . fear that the US might be left alone to cope with conflict in Iraq has
			driven significant policy shifts. Washington has come to realise it must
			confer real authority on the new government on June 30.--Guy Dinmore, "US starts to think
			the unthinkable about Iraq," Financial Times, June 3, 2004]
				
			
			[The United Nations special envoy has called on the incoming Iraqi
			government to broaden discussions to include Iraqis who oppose the US
			occupation. He also suggested his authority in shaping the new government
			had been severely limited by US officials.--Dexter Filkins, "Brahimi
			critical of heavy-handed US," Sydney Morning Herald, June 4, 2004]	
						
			
			[Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most powerful Shiite leader, said in
			a cautious statement Thursday that he hoped the new interim government would
			prove its "competence and decency," but he also noted that the body had not
			been formed through legitimate elections.
			
			Sistani also urged the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution
			that granted Iraqis full sovereignty and did not compromise the government's
			power in political, military and security matters. He insisted that the new
			government "seek the elimination of traces of occupation
			completely."--Edward Wong, "Cleric offers cautious hope
			for new Iraqi government," International Herald Tribune, June 4, 2004]
			
			
			[. . . the draft allows the multinational force to take "all necessary
			measures" to provide security and reserves the right to detain Iraqis viewed
			as a security threat.--Robin Wright and Dana Milbank, "U.
			S. Bends to France, Russia on U.N. Iraq Resolution," Washington Post,
			June 8, 2004]
			
	
	
	