President Bush repeated his commitment to transfer "full sovereignty" to the people of Iraq on July 1. At the same time, he stated that American military forces would remain in the country for at least a year after that date. Would we think our own sovereignty was "full" if there were present within our land a foreign military force under foreign command, that declared that it was only here to "help"?
I do not object to the fact that our military will stay after the alleged "handover" of power. But President Bush plays loose with the language when he describes the event of July 1 as marking the restoration of "full sovereignty" to Iraqi people.
Does Bush understand the word "sovereignty" or is he willing to twist it to suit his own purposes? Is this is the same convenient usage of the language of "sovereignty" that marks our own abuse of international law and domestic law in Guantanamo Bay? There we have relied on a colonial era lease with Cuba that declares "ultimate sovereignty" for Guantanamo to remain with Cuba . We have said that, despite our full military control of that area, our own law cannot apply because Cuba is sovereign. (For explanation, see my piece in Findlaw.com.)
Bush:
"After June 30th, American and other forces will still have important duties. American military forces in Iraq will operate under American command as a part of a multinational force authorized by the United Nations. Iraq's new sovereign government will still face enormous security challenges, and our forces will be there to help."