Monday, former head of the Iraq occupation Paul Bremer relinquished power to Iraq’s temporary government two days ahead of schedule in a private ceremony. He left for the United States four hours later. The administration has labeled this transfer of power “sovereignty,” despite the fact that the United States retains a veto power over the Iraqi government.

Although this move is certainly a step in the right direction, it is nonetheless important to apply proper labels to our actions. This “transfer of power” did not grant sovereignty to Iraq’s temporary government. Rather, it gives the Iraqi people more — not complete — say in how their country is to be run.

Sovereignty is a government’s complete independence from outside control. Some examples of non-sovereign nations are Puerto Rico, Tibet and Hong Kong. For different reasons, these countries lack autonomy. In the case of Iraq, its government has been granted privileges and not rights, because the United States retains a veto power over any decisions made by the “sovereign” government of Iraq.

The transfer gives the Iraqi government basic control over day-to-day decision making. In terms of political power, the Iraqi government has graduated to a level resembling adolescence. With its newly acquired “driver’s license,” it will be able to drive to school and around town.

It will be able to handle more responsibility and make more decisions on its own. However, at the end of the day, the Iraqi government will still be treated as a minor by the United States, which has retained the right to tell Iraq to “eat its peas” and whatever else it likes. In effect, Iraq will gain only limited control, thus falling far short of sovereignty.

Therefore, to call Iraq’s government “sovereign” is uninformed at best and dishonest at worst. The Iraqi people are in a transitional phase between the former Ba’athist dictatorship, and hopefully, a functional democracy.

This in-between point is designed to gradually bring Iraqi self-governance closer to “adulthood” without skipping the lessons of adolescence. It is not designed to grant sovereignty.

It is important to apply proper terms to whatever we do — especially now. War is the most serious endeavor into which human beings can enter and as such, it must be approached at all levels with utmost seriousness.

The lack of seriousness given to Iraq is a contributing factor to the human disaster currently growing there. This careless approach is seen especially in the administration’s linguistic trickery applied to virtually all areas of war planning.

We must recognize that all administrations use political euphemisms in war, but that shouldn’t let President Bush off the hook. Moreover, the administration’s linguistic chicanery has soared to new heights — from before the war up until the present day.

Leading up to the war, the constant, verbal linking of Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11 — without exploring that connection — left citizens under the impression Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 tragedy.

When no weapons of mass destruction were found, bold assertions of “the most lethal weapons ever devised” became WMD, then WMD programs, WMD-related programs, weapons programs, and finally, weapons-related program activities. Ignorance is strength: the old assertions were phased out, and the new meaningless terms were introduced carrying all the bark without the bite.

What nations on Earth don’t possess “weapons?” The assertion was legally safe and fooled war apologists, but it clearly lacked substance and was motivated by political agenda.

The Iraqi people will without doubt take their own well-being more seriously. Monday’s “handover” is a step in the right direction that will hopefully help lead to a free Iraq, but we must recognize Iraqis’ newfound responsibilities for what they are — lest we affirm international sentiment of our careless approach to war.

We must congratulate the Iraqi people on this important step. To their democratic future we say, “Bring it on.”