April 27, 2004

Colin Powell explains Iraqi sovereignty.

And the US secretary of state came up with a definition of Iraqi that Alice in Wonderland's Red Queen would surely understand:

But in an interview with Reuters news agency, Mr Powell said that while the new government would take full sovereignty over the country, it would have to give some of it back to the Americans so that the US would still be in command of its own troops.

"I hope they [the post-June 30 'sovereign' Iraqi government] will understand that in order for this government to get up and running - to be effective - some of its sovereignty will have to be given back, if I can put it that way, or limited by them," Mr Powell said.

"It's sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they are going to allow us to exercise on their behalf and with their permission."

[That was one of the of the finest examples of doubletalk we've seen recently.]

Speaking in Washington, Mr Powell said the coalition did not mean to "seize anything away" from the planned caretaker government.

"It is with the understanding that they need our help and for us to provide that help we have to be able to operate freely, which in some ways infringes on what some would call full sovereignty," he said.

We have some questions for Powell: Since the US will be exercising powers with the permission of the new Iraqi government, and isn't 'seizing' anything away,' what if the new government decideds it doesn't want the US to be in charge of military operations? What if they want to give it over to a UN force run by, say, Spain? Would the US just step aside?

We didn't think so. Some sovereignty, huh?

Via BBC.

Posted by Magpie at April 27, 2004 05:44 AM | Iraq | TrackBack(1) | Technorati links |