handover of what?

June 24, 2004 8:47 PM

Order 17--sovereignty sure, but... The Bush administration has decided to take the unusual step of bestowing on its own troops and personnel immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for killing Iraqis or destroying local property after the occupation ends and political power is transferred to an interim Iraqi government, U.S. officials said. (including contractors, btw.) Apparently US immunity was used by Khomeini in Iran as a rallying cry in the 60s. Are Sadr and Sistani listening?
posted by amberglow (32 comments total)

I would suggest that looking up the Hague conventions pertaining to the constitutions of occupied countries would be appropriate. The US administration has already shown that it's not reticent about violating the Iraqi constitution (see the relevant sections about privatizing state properties), so why should this be a surprise?
posted by Dipsomaniac at 10:28 PM on June 24, 2004

I fail to see how this is substantially different than the arrangements in place in South Korea, Germany or elsewhere in the world where the US has troops stationed.

In South Korea, "The Status of Forces Agreement, which governs the conduct of U.S. soldiers stationed in South Korea, gives South Korea jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers accused of crimes while off duty. South Korea can waive that right." (From here.)

"Most SOFAs recognize the right of the host government to "primary jurisdiction," which is to say the host country exercises jurisdiction for all cases in which U.S. military personnel violate the host country's laws. There are two exceptions, however, which generally apply only in criminal cases involving U.S. forces personnel: When the offense is committed by Americans against Americans ("inter se" cases), and when the offense is committed by Americans in carrying out official duty. In these situations, the United States has primary jurisdiction over the accused American." (From here.)

So without reading the full text of order 17, it doesn't seem to be very different than a standard military jurisdiction agreement. US troops worldwide are immune from charges related to on-duty activities. Presumably, as with the Abu Ghraib accused, the US will take action against their own when there are problems. Unless this agreement specifically states that off-duty crimes are subject to the same immunity, there's no story here. Even then, I very much doubt that troops spend any off-duty time outside the bases and compounds anyways. And frankly, given the uncertainty of Iraq's own judicial institutions at the moment, I don't blame the Americans or any government for trying to protect the rights of its citizens within Iraq. For that matter, has the new Iraqi government codified any laws that foreigners can break?

And, as the article linked states, the order will only apply until the Iraqi elections, at which point the US will either be asked to leave or they will negotiate a new SOFA with the elected Iraqi government.
posted by loquax at 10:34 PM on June 24, 2004

I should have added that the "U.S. has agreements with 46 percent of the more than 190 nation-states comprising the world community." Iraq is not alone. If Messers Sadr or Sistani have a problem with it, let them win the elections and renegotiate the terms that are currently being negotiated with the interim PM and national security advisor of Iraq.
posted by loquax at 10:40 PM on June 24, 2004

I love the sound of Agendafilter deflating.
posted by David Dark at 11:13 PM on June 24, 2004

What? No one had a counter-argument to loquax ?

You people are letting me down.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:23 PM on June 24, 2004

From the BBC
US troops have had immunity from prosecution under a deal struck two years ago. It runs out on 30 June.

Washington withdrew a resolution to extend it after a lack of support.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:30 PM on June 24, 2004

Wow. The mutual masturbation in here was so loud in here I could hear it in other threads!
posted by eyeballkid at 11:49 PM on June 24, 2004

One day people will look back.
posted by Keyser Soze at 1:28 AM on June 25, 2004

"You people are letting me down"

you, on the other hand, never disappoint us.

anyway, I suggest youy take some time off this summer, far from MeFi's agendas -- just visit Mesopotamia, bask in the sun and enjoy the cheering of the grateful, liberated Iraqis.

oh, Steve -- please, wear a "Bush 2004" t-shirt when you go there
so when you come back you'll have something more to post other than Michael Moore AgendaFilter fpp's
;)
posted by matteo at 2:14 AM on June 25, 2004

but of course our righties main point still stands -- US personnel is famously immune from prosecution abroad -- noli me tangere: imperial priviliges after all are more than 2,000 years old

whether GI's rape Japanese children in Okinawa or murder 20 tourists in Italy, they're famously home free. sometimes literally -- often a slap on the wrist is more than enough

one wonders why the USA is currently so popular abroad, in fact
_________

bah.
anyway, Steve, loquax et al:

enjoy your cakewalk

Slaughter, chaos in Iraq: 100 are killed in six-city blitz


Bush to seek more world help for Iraq

Bush Looks to Europe for Help in Iraq


one hopes President Bush has better manners than you guys. since he needs to collect a few favors, right now.
posted by matteo at 2:26 AM on June 25, 2004

Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no SOFA in Iraq. What the US administration decided to do is to grant immunity to its troops without consulting the Iraqis. Furthermore, the immunity applies even after the June 30th transition. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to negotiate a SOFA on or after June 30th?

The underlying message to Iraqis is that US troops are beyond their laws and there is nothing they can do about it, which was exactly the point that Khomeini used to rally his supporters.
posted by miguelbar at 5:11 AM on June 25, 2004

"...one hopes President Bush has better manners than you guys.

—matteoWhat the fuck, Matteo? Loquax was right to point out that this is not exceptional. It doesn't invalidate amberglow's point that the Iraqis will likely be very resentful of it.

But while I am in no way sympathetic to David Dark' and Steve_at_Linwood's politics, and am quite sympathetic to amberglow's (and I like amberglow a lot), it seems to me that the post a) was agendafilter; and b) was missing an important piece of information that puts the situation in different context. If the politics and participants had been switched, I have little doubt that you'd have expressed a very similar sarcastic opinion on the quality of the post, and so would many others.

This is what drives me crazy about partisanfilter: the rampant double-standards. And how damn partisan it is. Speaking up to defend Loquax and Dark automatically calls my leftist credentials into question, even though I can assure you that I hate Bush and this administration at least as much as you, and probably more so, and at this point would be willing to...well, you get the idea.

On preview: miguelbar, good point. But can you doubt that the US will use its influence to produce a similar agreement? But I think this is somewhat moot, as I believe that the US will somehow manage to figure out a way to withdraw most of its troops within the next year or so. Although everyone who wants a good outcome in Iraq recognizes that a vastly different occupation, still heavy, would be necessary, there is no political will in Washington or the US for such a thing. It's not like Vietnam where the conservatives really wanted an escalation. The conservatives in the US now just want out. Hussein is gone, they don't believe in nation-building, and they have an election they're likely to lose (or a presidency to regain).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:17 AM on June 25, 2004

...as I believe that the US will somehow manage to figure out a way to withdraw most of its troops within the next year or so.

Central Command seeks 25,000 more U.S. troops:
Until now, Pentagon planners expected to maintain the current level of 138,000 American troops through 2005 and an overall force of 160,000, including the troops deployed by coalition partners. Adding five brigades would increase the coalition force to 185,000, far more than originally envisioned.
Pentagon planners had once hoped to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 105,000 by this summer.

And this is not at all a SOFA--it was done (and is being extended) entirely without consultation or agreement from any Iraqis. What miguelbar said.
posted by amberglow at 5:34 AM on June 25, 2004

oh, and Wolfowitz just said this week that it'll be years and that there aren't any deadlines for withdrawal.
posted by amberglow at 5:37 AM on June 25, 2004

loquax is correct as others point out. I think what concerns some people is unlike Korea, Japan, and Germany, Iraq is still "hot" and the justification for the war and more recent scandals fear such immunity could be more easily abused. I don't mean to speak for anybody specific and realize jurisdiction is important in cases of transfer or sovereignty, but given the recent track record in Iraq I'm sure you can understand the concerns.
posted by infowar at 5:41 AM on June 25, 2004

I can assure you that I hate Bush and this administration at least as much as you, and probably more so

I don't hate anybody. it's silly. I just disagree strongly with many people -- like I disagree with Steve when he of all people complains about AgendaFilter (he made the front page his personal toilet so many times now that he has forfeited the right to complain at this point. but I guess he'll soon sulk to another of his many self-imposed hiatuses, unless of course Bush is elected in November, then he'll be back with NeenerFilter).
and EB, don't think that I'm calling in question your "credentials" -- I simply don't care about your "let's not be partisan" routine, that's all.
posted by matteo at 5:50 AM on June 25, 2004

Wolfowitz doesn't count. The neocons are still in denial. Bush, Rove and the politicos in the admin, and probably the Pentagon all would like nothing better than the get out. Well, the Pentagon is probably divided, a la Vietnam. But they sure as hell don't want to stay under the terms they are now, or will likely to in the future.

"Pentagon planners" could mean the civilian leadership, i.e, the neocons, or it could mean career military folk. Both almost certainly are forced to come to the conclusion that an increased presence will be necessary.

But that's all assuming that we don't basically write the whole thing off, essentially. And there's a whole lot of pressure to do so.

I keep butting heads with people here because, in my studied opinion, many don't realize that the neocon rationale for the war neither represents the admin's true policy or motives, nor are the neocons the true voice of power in the admin. If the neocons really were in charge, if Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were all truly neocons, then, yeah, they'd be fighting tooth-and-nail to realize the neocon vision for Iraq, regardless of the troop commitment or political cost. But Bush has never been a neocon, and Cheney and Rummy are in name only. I think Bush mostly cared about Hussein, and so now that Hussein is gone, and Bush has a bias against nation building, his instincts are to get out. The politicos want out, that's what Rove wants, I promise. Cheney's interests are various, but I think they're satisfied regardless. Rumsfeld never wanted a big troop presence in Iraq in the first place.

The popular sentiment greatly wants a withdrawal from Iraq. The admin sold the war on the basis of the danger of Hussein. Now's he gone. Troops are dying. People want their friends and family to come home. The liberals hate this war, and the conservatives are generally isolationist when it comes to things like nation building and continued presence (unless it's to protect against communism, as in SK). There just isn't any will to stay.

I think it's already a disaster, and would only get worse if we withdrew. Ideally, we'd already have a huge multinational peacekeeping force, and investment and...well, all the things that should have been done and weren't. There are other people all across the political spectrum who, like me, would still be willing to support a comprehensive restructuring of the occupation, with a major commitment, done right. But we're the distinct minority and there is no popular political backing for this position. It's a loser.

Expect that we won't get out as quickly as everyone wants, but that we'll get out more quickly than we should, and it will be a descent into worse and worse chaos.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:51 AM on June 25, 2004

[amberglow-]

That 25,000 are all gonna be members of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. [/amberglow]

A *sovereign* puppet government, property of the CPA, a branch of the Young Republicans, and enforced by your local friendly mercenary companies. We own you, Iraq. Get over it.

If so many people weren't dying this whole thing would be immensely funnier than the Three Stooges.
posted by nofundy at 6:45 AM on June 25, 2004

With all respect, Ethereal Bligh, I think the idea that we're pulling out of Iraq is ludicrous. The current administration gives not a shit what "popular sentiment" wants. If anything, the number of troops in Iraq will go up over the next year.

Look at how forcefully the GOP came down on Senator Kennedy's proposed amendment to the military funding bill the other day. (Kennedy proposed that, before it got any more money for the war, the administration estimate how many troops they'd need in the coming year.) The administration just wants to get though the election before they increase the number of troops in Iraq. If not by draft, they'll at least pull troops from other US outposts around the world--as they've started to do with troops stationed in S. Korea.
posted by jpoulos at 6:56 AM on June 25, 2004

Besides, how does Wolfowitz "not count"? He's deputy Secretary of Defense, and if Rummy is forced to resign, Wolfowitz will probably get his job. They're the ones who call the shots. I see no evidence that any substantive changes have been made in their policy due to outside pressure--either from other nations or our own congress or citizenry. The neocons may be in denial, but they're still the ones signing the orders.
posted by jpoulos at 7:02 AM on June 25, 2004

I think the issues here are not the various CPA orders or bilateral "agreements". If you opposed the war, you will oppose pretty much any US action as a result. Which is consistent, but it leads to the same arguments with the same logic and the same talking points being had over and over again.

Beyond that, it's absurd to argue against this type of agreement in principle. Yes, it is not a SOFA yet, but that's because there's no real government yet in Iraq. The CPA has been issuing unilateral orders for the theoretical benefit of both Americans and Iraqis since this started. Again, if you have a problem with this, you have a problem with the war to begin with. When a non-interim government takes over, they will negotiate all kinds of treaties, a SOFA being one of them. And no matter what Wolfowitz or anyone says now, Iraqi sovereignty is gaining momentum, and will only continue to do so after June 30th. This order 17 does nothing to hinder that.

The US must protect its citizens abroad, especially in a country as unstable as Iraq. This is true even if the US was the country that de-stabilized it in the first place. What would you propose? Arresting US soldiers if they kill or injure Iraqis on officially sanctioned missions? Fine, the Americans would accept and leave instantly under those conditions, as they don't accept those conditions anywhere else in the world. Or how about hanging a US soldier in the public square if they were found guilty of rape? Well, I'm admittedly no expert on the laws of Iraq, but something tells me that a fair trial would be pretty much impossible.

As for Iraqis interpreting this as the Americans believing they are better than them, or whatever Khomeni went on about, it would really be too bad. But completely unavoidable if that is the way people want to look at it. The key is obviously to structure this order and the following SOFA in a way that makes clear that Americans violating orders or breaking laws will be dealt with, but dealt with by American officials. This is what American and Iraqi leaders should be stressing to Iraqis. The alternative is, again, that American troops will leave, and Sadr or Sistani or whoever can take over, and create another Iran. Which is, of course, the very outcome that the US and most Iraqis would like to avoid.

So be against the war if you like, that's a perfectly valid opinion and position to take, but don't treat the normal and logical results of a war and occupation as crimes in and of themselves. There's no story here, but there are certainly others elsewhere in Iraq.
posted by loquax at 7:23 AM on June 25, 2004

There's zero chance Wolfie would be nominated for SecDef. Acting, yes; nominated, no. The confirmation battle would be horrible for the admin. Unless something pretty huge comes down the pike, which it could, Rumsfeld isn't going to resign or be fired. If it hasn't happened already, it probably isn't going to happen. Because of the nomination process for a new Secretary, it's a losing proposition for Bush, besides the implicit admission of incompetency. But, if it does happen, or if Bush is reelected and Rummie subsequently resigns, his replacement would be someone from Bush 41's cadre, very much not a neocon. The neocons are politically dead within this administration, I don't understand why people can't recognize that. None of their policies are being implemented, their whole INC and Chalabi chumminess is biting them in the ass. Cheney is their de facto advocate within the high-and-mighty, but I don't believe he's sticking by them out of loyalty or ideology. He's sticking by them because he's staked out the extreme position on Iraq and he's stuck with it and believes that the Big Lie will see him through. But they're marginalized otherwise. Wolfowitz is especially vulnerable without Rummie's patronage. There is absolutely no upside for this admin for a long-term commitment (much less a troop increase) in Iraq. They're stubborn and this is a tar baby, and that's why their stuck with it. But make no mistake, they wish they weren't. In my opinion, the biggest reason Bush et al were willing to believe the fairy tales about children throwing flowers and whatnot was because political consideration played a big part in the decision making process for this war. They wanted and expected a happy ending by now, with a big success, little casualties, and a Happy Democratic Iraq to trumpet to the American public going into the campaign season. They are hugely dismayed that it didn't work out that way.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:23 AM on June 25, 2004

Matteo (and others): without access to the facts and figures about penalties imposed on US soldiers convicted by the military of foreign offenses, I would tend to agree that those sentences are more lenient, certainly than the ones they would likely get in the host country, but also the ones they would get in the US. Given that fact, I would say your problem (and mine) is with the effectiveness of US military justice, not with SOFA or SOFA-type agreements per se. Which is certainly a topic for conversation, just not in this thread.
posted by loquax at 7:45 AM on June 25, 2004

But Bush has never been a neocon, and Cheney and Rummy are in name only. I think Bush mostly cared about Hussein, and so now that Hussein is gone, and Bush has a bias against nation building, his instincts are to get out

To me as a Canadian this is even worse. The US was obviously not there because of the WMD or Humanitarian reasons. If they weren't there for the oil or strategic reasons, which pulling out now that Saddam is gone regardless of what they leave behind would seem to indicate, this whole thing has been a big pissing match between Saddam and Bush.

Not good for stability when the world super power gets into that kind of dust up.
posted by Mitheral at 8:04 AM on June 25, 2004

I don't think it's possible to overstate how much of a fuck-up this whole thing has been. These are venal, incompetent, short-sighted fools. The thing that I think the left doesn't recognize is how incredibly lucky we are that we got this particular batch of folks as the right-wing revolutionaries. They're bumbling idiots. If it weren't for 9/11, this admin would be very unpopular and even with a Republican Congress would have had trouble enacting its extreme agenda. As it is, they shoehorned everything into 9/11, except they did it badly. Their luck has run out, it's bad news and more bad news for them every day and all their previous spin tactics don't seem to work for them anymore. The best part is watching them be really confused as to why their golden touch has turned to shit. It's because they mistook luck for skill. And they still haven't figured it out! Hooray! Let's not tell them, shall we?

As Brad DeLong writes practically every day now, the "grownup Republicans" are not in charge of this administration. It's astonishing, really, that they haven't stepped in and taken control. Because of all the press about the necons and the Straussians, the popular leftist imagination has come to see in this admin something coherent, thoughtful-though-evil, and farsighted in this admin. Not so. Everything you need to know about this admin can be summarized in the steel tarriff fiasco, for example. It's a possibly-well-meaning but shallow and thoughtless President being led around primarily by Cheney and by whichever faction in his admin has his ear for the moment. I think that he thinks all his people are his people and have mostly the same goals. He's an idiot. They don't.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:16 AM on June 25, 2004

If you opposed the war, you will oppose pretty much any US action as a result.

Yes, and those who oppose handguns refuse to drive gunshot victims to the hospital or call an ambulance. Can we start acknowledging that there are very few actual politicians who think that we can magically turn back the clock, withdraw all troops, and everything will be fine?

I tend to believe that those who oppose many of the actions of the current US administration think that someone else may be better at handling the situation, not that there's someone who is going to make everything sunshine and rainbows.

That said, the immunity may make sense in some cases. I don't think any soldiers should just get a slap on the wrist for rape or murder, but it's just as likely that a vindictive government could pull a number of troops into lengthy local prosecution where officials see sentencing soldiers to disproportionate punishments for what they view to be the crimes of the army at large.

Once a legitimate Iraqi government is in place, they can decide the boundaries of law. Until then, we're going to keep seeing decisions that look like a foreign power pushing their will on a smaller nation, because to an extent, that is what it is.
posted by mikeh at 9:11 AM on June 25, 2004

Until then, we're going to keep seeing decisions that look like a foreign power pushing their will on a smaller nation, because to an extent, that is what it is.

If that's what it is, then all the incessant lying about sovereignty, and handover, and the Iraqis being in charge come June 30, etc, should stop.
posted by amberglow at 12:05 PM on June 25, 2004

amberglow, I understand many of the reasons why you and others oppose American involvement and actions in Iraq. I agree with some, and disagree with others. But I don't understand why you believe anyone is lying about sovereignty and handover. Unless I'm mistaken, the CPA will cease to exist come June 30th, replaced by a UN contingent/whatever you want to call it and American soldiers left to combat resistance to the Iraqi government and the international coalition, as well as to protect vital Iraqi/American vital interests. Already, as I understand it, most non-security issues and ministries are fully autonomous of American control, if not funds. Then, within a year, Iraqis will go to the polls and elect a new, legitimate, democratic government, which can then negotiate with the Americans and the UN any sort of pact they like.

Maybe this is a question of what sovereignty means, and if any country is truly sovereign. Canada is not, for example, sovereign of the US in the true sense of the word. We can't go and do anything we want because we depend on your protection, economy, etc. All countries are responsible to external organizations, be they the UN, NATO, OAS, WTO, IMF, or any number of bi- and multi-lateral treaties.

More specifically, in terms of US military presence in sovereign countries, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Romania, Uzbekistan, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the UK all house American soldiers in varying numbers, some comparable to the numbers that will remain in Iraq. Of course, the relationship between the US army and the Iraqi government won't be the same after a year or two as it is between the Japanese and the Americans, but with time it will be. Or won't be if they're booted at some point. But just the presence of American troops does not infringe upon the sovereignty of Iraq by default, unless the 130+ countries where US troops are located have seceded their sovereignty to the Americans as well.

So if sovereignty is taken to mean that a country is not responsible to any external party in terms of its internal function, then no, Iraq, will not be sovereign, and neither will any country on Earth, save maybe North Korea.

If, on the other hand, the more realistic meaning of sovereignty is accepted, then Iraq like all countries will be free to do as it likes as long as it doesn't piss off the world at large and, for the time being, specifically the Americans. Don't confuse displeasure with the current world order with particular malfeasance on the part of the US in Iraq.
posted by loquax at 12:38 PM on June 25, 2004

sovereignty to me means the ability to make and enforce your own laws and policy, to have a system of laws and government that bestow rights and punish offenders, to run your own country--from supplying electricity, to educating your young without outside dictates. The Iraqis have, and will have after June 30, none of those things, nor the ability to create those things.

They're not going to be allowed to make law, to punish wrongdoers, to make policy, to stop anything we do there if they desire, to create employment programs, to rebuild their infrastructure, to freely travel within the borders of Iraq, etc...
posted by amberglow at 4:58 PM on June 25, 2004

amberglow, I don't know why you say that. Check out the UN resolution brought forward by the UK and US.

The Security Council,

Welcoming the beginning of a new phase in Iraq’s transition to a democratically elected government, and looking forward to the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004,

Recalling all of its previous relevant resolutions on Iraq,

Reaffirming the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Iraq,

Reaffirming also the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine their own political future and control their own natural resources,

And so on and so on...

Mr. Bush also says the following:

In preparation for sovereignty, many functions of government have already been transferred. Twelve government ministries are currently under the direct control of Iraqis. The Ministry of Education, for example, is out of the propaganda business, and is now concerned with educating Iraqi children. Under the direction of Dr. Ala'din al-Alwan, the Ministry has trained more than 30,000 teachers and supervisors for the schools of a new Iraq.

All along, some have questioned whether the Iraqi people are ready for self-government, or even want it. And all along, the Iraqi people have given their answer. In settings where Iraqis have met to discuss their country's future, they have endorsed representative government. And they are practicing representative government. Many of Iraq's cities and towns now have elected town councils or city governments - and beyond the violence, a civil society is emerging.

The June 30th transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs, just as we would. After decades under the tyrant, they are also reluctant to trust authority. By keeping our promise on June 30th, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government. Iraqis will know that when they build a school or repair a bridge, they're not working for the Coalition Provisional Authority, they are working for themselves. And when they patrol the streets of Baghdad, or engage radical militias, they will be fighting for their own country.

And so on and so on. It's certainly possible that the UN, the US, and most of the world including many who did not support the war in Iraq are lying, and they will collectively manipulate a puppet regime in Iraq for decades, but I have seen no evidence of this action or intention so far. Until I do, I have no idea why you believe that Iraq will not have the same measure of self-determination that any country has once they elect a government, and certainly more than they could have ever hoped for under Hussein.
posted by loquax at 5:44 PM on June 25, 2004

Sorry, the link to the resolution can be found on this page.
posted by loquax at 5:47 PM on June 25, 2004

Behind the Scenes, US Tightens Grip on Iraq's Future:
In many cases, these U.S. and Iraqi proxies will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens. The new Iraqi government will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials and others familiar with the plan.

and:

A bigger concern for many Iraqis is how "real" the post June 30 sovereignty will be, particularly with the US making it clear that it will retain control over all security forces, and a current draft law on the table for the Ministry of Defense that seeks to give the US the power to appoint the minister, and hopefully keep him in for a five-year term.
"A key question here is how constraining can the US be in determining the choices [the leaders of an interim government] have to make," says Stephen Krasner, who left President Bush's National Security Council in 2002 and is now director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Stanford Institute for International Studies in California.
Krasner says it has to look like a turnover to local authorities even as the US, with its military presence and funds, retains some leverage over the transition. "You want to offer a recognition of authority, while not granting full freedom of action. It's just that you don't want to say it out loud."--from CSN
posted by amberglow at 9:28 AM on June 26, 2004