Divisions have begun to emerge between the US and Britain over how much sovereignty Iraq will have after the June 30 handover. On Tuesday British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the new Iraqi government will have “final political control” on military operations. He said “If there’s a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Falluja in a particular way, that has got to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government. That’s what the transfer of sovereignty means.”

But that does not appear to be the U.S. plan.

The US has put forth a new United Nations Resolution that mentions the word sovereignty 12 times but it also states that Iraq will have no say over military operations led by the US and its coalition partners.

The text of the resolution reads: “The multinational force shall have authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell reiterated this on Tuesday saying “US forces remain under US command and will do what is necessary to protect themselves”.

Today diplomats from the 15 Security Council nations plan to meet at the United Nations for informal talks on the resolution.

Members of the Iraqi Governing Council as well as Security Council nations France and Russia have already expressed reservations about the US resolution.

The Arab League ambassador to the United Nations, Yahya Mahmassani said the proposed resolution has too many “loopholes.”

He told CNN Tuesday “There is no precise definition for sovereignty, and there is no definition and clarity regarding the relationship between the multinational forces and the interim government. Who exercises the authority? Who has the upper hand?”

According to journalist and editor of the website Empire Notes, Rahul Mahajan, the upper hand will go to the US.

According to Mahajan, the resolution — if passed as written — would transfer legal authority to continue the occupation from the Security Council to the United States. The U.S. would essentially be given a mandate to continue the military occupation indefinitely subject to review only in the Security Council on which the US has a veto.

Mahajan writes “In the future, if the United States decides to scale back its presence and just leave garrisons on several military bases, it will have leverage to exact any kind of 'status of forces' agreement it wants. It will be able to tell any future Iraqi government that its forces have the perpetual right to occupy the country and don’t need the permission of the government.”