I agree with you. One should not give up. Probably there is at least some
hope that one could put on enough pressure to force the US to agree that the
UN should administer oil revenues but administration of Iraq by the UN is
not even a remote possibility. However even this is something that should be
advocated. US refusal to go along again will shows its contempt for the
international community. It is crucial to bring the oil revenue issue into
the public arena for discussion.
Important matters such as this are at present drowned out by the continuing
war coverage. There is a great danger they will be settled out of public
view with no public discussion.
Maybe Perle et al will just advise the US to sell the oil without
bothering to remove the sanctions arguing that obviously the sanctions were
directed at the dictatorial Hussein regime not Free Iraq! This would avoid
any troublesome negotiations with France, Russia, etc. at the UN!
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul_A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 8:32 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:35946] Re: Re: Politics of 'Oil for Food': First Shoe Drops
> Ken Hanely wrote:
>
> >Is there really any possibility that the US would allow the UN to be in
> >charge of post-Hussein Iraq? Of course they want a do-gooder role for
the
> >UN so that the cost of humanitarian aid and reconstruction can be
shifted
> >from the destroyers to critics of the war. But isnt it clear that
whatever
> >type of administration it is, the design will be primarily a product of
US
> >input. If the UN does not go along with this it will again be
"irrelevant".
> >The complete contempt the US has for the UN should have been evident long
> >ago. People like Pearle, Krauthammer, and Kristol simply express this
> >contempt in an unambiguous fashion. But it will be interesting to see to
> >what degree the US bothers with a UN resolution of the sort discussed
here.
> >Probably the US is content to let the UK push for this sort of thing on
the
> >ground that it will make Blair feel good if it passed.
> > The Hegelian Bush knows that the US and UK do not need UN
authorisation
> >to rule postwar Iraq. Their military might gives them that right. How
many
> >legions does the UN have parphrasing someone or other.
> >
> >Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
>
>
> I think you are right there will not be a UN Administration of Iraq a la
> Kosovo and that it will largely be a U.S. Military Administration, dressed
> as civilian and with some multilateral and Iraqi elements. BUT, that does
> not mean either that the U.S. can just have the Military Government start
> selling oil.
>
> There is a UN Sanctions ban on that oil (allowing exports only through the
> U.N. with certain provisions) and to lift the ban the U.S. HAS to have a
> new Security Council Resolution. Kofi Anon gave an opening bid: continue
> to give the future proceeds for the UN to administer. This will not be
> acceptable to the U.S. On the other hand, Chirac sharply said some
> (unspecified) terms will have to be met to get him to revise the rules on
> exports; Russia has said one will have to negotiate with them. Blair may
> try to repair some damage at home and in the EU by looking 'magnanimous'
on
> this issue.
>
> This may all degenerate into backroom commercial deals (no surprise
> there). But at this particular moment a lot of "public opinion" is in the
> streets and cares about the future of the Iraqi people and there are a few
> governments in the Security Council who want to look good in the eyes of
> that public - for the next few weeks.
>
> I am not naively arguing that what can emerge from such a process will be
> good; I am just saying that if there is public pressure it can be made
less
> bad in some extremely important ways. History has shown that the
immediate
> post-war arrangements are decisive - often with unexpectedly tragic
> consequences. It is not a given that post-war Iraq will be reduced to the
> *long term* status of Panama or Afganistan, it is a sophisticated country
> with vast resources.
>
> So, I think that giving up and failing to pay attention to this issue now
> will be a pity and will have important long term consequences. Fair(er)
> treatment for post-war Iraq is worth putting in front of people now.
>
> Paul
>
