[Siberian Fox]

I am sure if you asked the people of Iraq if they wished for thier nation to become a "carpetbaggers' free-for-all" they would say no, but what do they know? Tony and Bush always know best, 'cos might makes right

Iraq Inc: A joint venture built on broken promises
By David Usborne in New York, Rupert Cornwell in Washington and Phil Reeves in Baghdad
10 May 2003


America and Britain declared themselves yesterday to be the "occupying powers" in Iraq and produced a blueprint for the administration of the country that confined the United Nations to a co-ordinating role.

Although George Bush declared in Belfast last month that the UN would have "a vital role" in Iraq, there was great disappointment yesterday after the organisation was denied an operational role.

Britain acknowledged in a draft UN Security Council resolution that, with the United States, it intended to run Iraq for at least a year as a conquering power. Both countries urged the Council to agree to an instant lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq and accept that, as "occupying powers", they would have near-total control of the country's oil revenues for 12 months and maybe much longer.

Despite earlier promises that the UN should have an important role administering the delivery of humanitarian aid to the country, this task now goes to America and Britain, with the UN reduced to a co-ordinator. John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the UN, said yesterday that there would be no role for the team of UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix "for the foreseeable future".

Whatever the fate of the UN resolution, Washington has already started a secretive carve-up of the Iraq reconstruction pie in which all the slices thus far have gone to US companies – many of them with close connections to the Bush administration.

The impression that Iraq is becoming a carpetbaggers' free-for-all was reinforced at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Centre in Atlanta this week when lawyers, consultants and business people streamed in, all hoping for a piece of the action. They heard a presentation by the US Agency for International Development (USAid), which is handing out contracts worth $1.5bn (£0.9bn) to rebuild the healthcare system. The USAid contracts total about $70m. If America fulfils its sweeping promise to rebuild Iraq's entire infrastructure, the total may reach several hundred billion dollars. The contracts will be paid for from Iraqi oil revenues, controlled by America and Britain and audited by an international firm of accountants. Yesterday's appeal to the United Nations was contained in a baldly worded draft resolution tabled by Mr Negroponte. It was co-sponsored by Britain and Spain. The text, which makes clear that London and Washington would essentially run Iraq for at least a year, was expected to attract resistance from France and Russia. Controversially, the resolution relegates the UN to an advisory capacity on a board that will monitor the spending of Iraq's oil revenue on reconstruction. A "special co-ordinator", who would be appointed by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, would also orchestrate UN humanitarian efforts.

Observers believe America is calculating that the Security Council will be unwilling to allow a resurgence of the bitterness that characterised the weeks before the Allies' invasion of Iraq and will therefore, after wrangling, eventually acquiesce to the resolution. But those behind the resolution recognise it is controversial and are open to discussions on amendments. They expect a tough battle.

Sir Brian Urquhart, a veteran British diplomat and former UN under-secretary general, said: "Surely it would be better for everyone to push this through rather than reopen all the quarrels and instead do something to help the poor people of Iraq. I can't believe that they won't do that."

Yet France and Russia, the most vociferous opponents of the war may even vote for a redrafted resolution. President Jacques Chirac said his government would "undertake discussions on the future of [Iraq] in an open and constructive spirit". But a statement from the French Foreign Ministry said that a "strong involvement of the international community, through a central role of the UN, is indispensable to provide legitimacy" to any post-war Iraqi government.

At the resolution's core are provisions to lift the economic sanctions that were put in place in 1990 after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. America argues that, without the resumption of full trade, the economic reconstruction of Iraq cannot hope to get off the ground.

France and Russia have insisted, by contrast, that sanctions cannot be lifted until the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been verified by UN weapons inspectors, as stipulated under several existing UN resolutions. The Anglo-American draft omits all mention of UN weapons inspectors.

Separately, the text envisions taking away UN control of Iraq's oil sales. This also runs directly counter to the view of several of the nations opposed to war, who have argued for keeping a UN hand on the Iraqi oil industry. Last night, the Russian envoy to the UN, Sergei Lavrov, said he had "lots of questions" on the text. Washington is asking that the UN oil-for-food programme, which currently takes in all oil revenues and distributes them for the purchase of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies, be wound up within four months. Control of oil revenues would pass to the "Iraqi Assistance Fund" to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq, managed by US and UK officials. An advisory board with the UN co-ordinator and envoys from other international financial institutions would oversee the disbursement of the revenues, and make recommendations.

The immediate reaction to the plans in Baghdad was negative. "This is very, very bad. We are in the same situation as we were with Saddam," said Bassen al-Khoja, 31. "[They] stole the oil money from the people and we got nothing and now the Americans and British are doing exactly the same. We are not going to see any benefit from it."

Similar disgust was expressed by Fareed Ismail al-Qaisi, 42, who is unemployed. "The United Nations should control the oil money, not the Americans," he said.

This is the first time that Washington and London have formally acknowledged that they consider themselves "occupying powers" in Iraq. It is a status governed by the Geneva Conventions that also lays out strict responsibilities and obligations for those powers under international law.

In Brussels, Poul Nielson, the European Union commissioner for development, voiced dismay at the text. He said Washington was "on its way to becoming a member of Opec", adding: "They appropriate the oil. The unwillingness to give the UN a legal, well-defined role also speaks a language that is quite clear."

Originally published here: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/pol ... ory=404877

The allies' broken promises
10 May 2003

Oil

Tony Blair: 'We don't touch it, and the US doesn't touch it' MTV, 7 March

The reality: Yesterday's draft UN resolution gives total control of Iraq's oil revenues to the US and UK until an Iraqi government is established

The UN

George Bush: 'The UN will have a vital role to play' Belfast, 8 April

The reality: The UN is reduced to an advisory function on the ground in Iraq. All operational decisions will be taken by UK and US officials

Weapons

Jack Straw: 'Should the UN have a vital role to play in respect of weapons inspections? The answer to that is yes.' Interview, 25 April

The reality: No role for the UN inspectors 'for the foreseeable future'

Aid

Tony Blair: 'The UN should have a key role in administering the delivery of humanitarian aid' House of Commons, 18 March

The reality: US and UK to oversee aid effort with UN reduced to co-ordinating role

Government

Tony Blair: 'Military action is to uphold the authority of the UN and to make sure Saddam is disarmed' MTV, 7 March

The reality: A US and UK 'occupying power' will rule Iraq

Originally published here: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/pol ... ory=404878

[Noumenon]

If US oil companies don't buy Iraq's oil so that the Iraqi people can restart their economy, who will? Should we let France, Germany, and Russia's oil companies buy from them instead? I don't think they should gain when they sacrificed nothing in this war and blocked us every step of the way. Any other country besides those three that wanted a contract with Iraqi oil should get it though.

Theres nothing wrong with the US taking control for one year, it would help stabilize the country and prepare it for self-rule. We also can't allow the Iraqis to set up an Islamic dictatorship, so maybe that sentiment will die down in a year, after the Americans restore order.

As for the UN, I think they should play a more major part on the humanitarian aspect, but not governing or peacekeeping. Few Americans would trust the UN to do those things. I think its a mistake to not have UN inspectors though, any WMD the US finds will be dismissed as fake by the Arab world and the American left.

[Proctor]

This is terrible. It is going back on the trust that has been restored from the mess before the war began.

Bush promised at the Belfast talks that the UN would play a major role. Everyone was like "Yay! Peace in our time!", myself included. To go back on that now would be damaging, not only to international cooperation, but to his own personal image. I can't understand why he is doing this.

That said, it is ridiculous that France and Russia are dragging their feet on lifting sanctions. I don't know if they are doing it out of spite or not, but it certainly looks that way from where I'm sitting.

[blackbeard]

What we are going to do is lower the soldier count to 25 000 , special forces in the region and such . We need to get the Isrealis involved , I would say its time for Isreal to get out into the open and start playing war on terror with the rest of us . A 5000 man contigency in Iraq would be nice , soldiers from India could be a part of that as well .

We will suck the wells dry for a year and then pull out entireley from Iraq with local military groups helping control Iraq , there is lots of oil in da sand but the stuff in the wells there that is controlled by the US and Britian should be sucked dry and then we can end dis mess entirely .

[Boondock Saint]

The article and those points have rather large holes ...

Controversially, the resolution relegates the UN to an advisory capacity on a board that will monitor the spending of Iraq's oil revenue on reconstruction. A "special co-ordinator", who would be appointed by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, would also orchestrate UN humanitarian efforts.

Tony Blair: 'The UN should have a key role in administering the delivery of humanitarian aid' House of Commons, 18 March

The reality: US and UK to oversee aid effort with UN reduced to co-ordinating role

It would seem that a quote about the UN having advisory capacity in respect to Iraqi oil revenue is being applied also to 'humanitaria aid' ... well ... which is it? In one paragraph the UN humanitarian efforts are being controlled by the UN and in another it would seem they are being controlled by the US ... and both from the same source nontheless ...

If the UN is advisory on oil revenue I dont see what that has to do with the UN's ability to deliver humanitarian aid ... unless of course the UN wants money for the aid ...

Tony Blair: 'Military action is to uphold the authority of the UN and to make sure Saddam is disarmed' MTV, 7 March

The reality: A US and UK 'occupying power' will rule Iraq

Such a vague statement ... is there a point to this comparison? Of course the US is an occupying power ... how could it not be? There is currently no Iraqi gov't ... how does this 'reality' have anything to do with what Tony Blair said? The US and UK went in and toppled Saddam, hence he is disarmed ... he said nothing about restoring Saddams power post conflict ...

Jack Straw: 'Should the UN have a vital role to play in respect of weapons inspections? The answer to that is yes.' Interview, 25 April

The reality: No role for the UN inspectors 'for the foreseeable future'

The weapons inspectors were relavent when there was a state gov't called the Iraqi gov't ... which there is not. There is no one for the inspectors to inspect now, there is no gov't to prove it no longer has weapons ... there is no need for inspectors as the resolution that called for them is now null and void.

George Bush: 'The UN will have a vital role to play' Belfast, 8 April

The reality: The UN is reduced to an advisory function on the ground in Iraq. All operational decisions will be taken by UK and US officials

Does the UN have no power to send humanitarian aid? Is that not a vital role?

Tony Blair: 'We don't touch it, and the US doesn't touch it' MTV, 7 March

The reality: Yesterday's draft UN resolution gives total control of Iraq's oil revenues to the US and UK until an Iraqi government is established

And to whome should the power go? Two theives might take less then the house of theives known as the UN.

They] stole the oil money from the people and we got nothing and now the Americans and British are doing exactly the same. We are not going to see any benefit from it."

If America fulfils its sweeping promise to rebuild Iraq's entire infrastructure, the total may reach several hundred billion dollars.

They heard a presentation by the US Agency for International Development (USAid), which is handing out contracts worth $1.5bn (£0.9bn) to rebuild the healthcare system

Rebuilding the healthcare system and infrastructure and I am supposed to believe they will see no benefit from it?

France and Russia have insisted, by contrast, that sanctions cannot be lifted until the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been verified by UN weapons inspectors, as stipulated under several existing UN resolutions

Those sanctions applied to a gov't which is no longer in existance therefore they apply to nothing.

Control of oil revenues would pass to the "Iraqi Assistance Fund" to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq, managed by US and UK officials. An advisory board with the UN co-ordinator and envoys from other international financial institutions would oversee the disbursement of the revenues, and make recommendations.

So the US/UK manages it, international institutions oversee the disbursment and the UN has an advisory board in place yet ... I am supposed to believe the US is keeping everyone shut out?

Washington is asking that the UN oil-for-food programme, which currently takes in all oil revenues and distributes them for the purchase of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies, be wound up within four months.

Well if this isnt misleading I dont know what is ... the program was slated to end May of 2003 ... the last vote was in ... Dec, 5 2002 in which the security council unanimously voted to continue it till May/June of 2003 ...

At any rate, I think its time that humanitarian aid started going into Iraq freely and the oil can start being used to build Iraq's infrastructure and Healthcare systems ... which is of more use to the Iraqi people then using all their money on humanitarian aid which should be flowing freely ...

[Proctor]

I think it is good that the coalition have admitted that they are occupying powers. It means there is one less thing the whining nations can accuse them of.

The UN will still provide humanitarian aid, that hasn't changed. But it was expected to be in charge of rebuilding. That is one thing that the UN is very good at, whereas the US... This is the main sticking point, and I think we'll see some very vocal debate of this in the Security Council in coming days.

It is important to realise that weapons don't disappear when governments are changed. While it would be kind of sadistic for UN inspectors to return now, US inspectors will not achieve anything. Again, disarmament is a UN specialty, whereas the US sometimes have problems keeping to their own disarmament agreements...

There is no problem with the oil for food program ending. It is difficult to gauge just what the Iraqi people want at the moment, but I think that using oil money to rebuild isn't a bad idea, but I would rather the UN was doing the rebuilding.