The current U.S. Administration is sidelining the United Nations into a purely “humanitarian” organisation – as if the prevention of war were not THE “humanitarian task.
At the same time, however, the Bush Administration would like to reactivate the Oil-for-Food Programme which was interrupted when many U.N. staff fled Iraq before the invasion. This will probably be heralded as a great “humanitarian” gesture.
The reality of the Oil-for-Food Programme has been obscured by nearly everyone – including the United Nations. While the title connotes a “humanitarian” objective, the end result is “Gulf War Profiteering”.
When the Security Council first imposed sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War – in order to force Iraq to comply with requirements to disarm – it was necessary to provide some sort of mechanism to allow Iraq to purchase certain basic necessities. After lengthy discussions, the U.N. Office of the Iraq Oil-for-Food Programme was born in April 1995; Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding in May 1996; the first Iraqi oil was exported in December 1996 and the first food shipments arrived in Iraq in March 1997.
Since then, the Oil-for Food Programme has managed Iraqi oil exports.
Every war causes damage. The killing, wounding and maiming of humans and animals plus other environmental destruction is sometimes measured in financial terms. Those who lose wars are usually made to pay these costs and Iraq is no exception.
Since the sanctions did not allow Iraq to export oil, except under the Oil-for Food Programe, these costs were paid through this “humanitarian” agency – after being validated by the U.N. Compensation Commission (UNCC), which had been established in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War.
Although the UNCC preceded the Oil-for-Food Programme, it is funded – retroactively – by its “humanitarian” offshoot.
The United Nations has been managing Iraqi oil for over a decade.
This past Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Colin Powell, when asked if the U.N.would be in charge of a post-invasion Iraq, told a U.S. Congressional sub-committee, “I don’t even see a possibiity of that right now.” He later qualified this statement by saying that “the United Nations will have a role to play.”
He had earlier stated: “We didn’t take on this huge burden (the invasion) with our coaltion partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future.” *
Of course not! Why have the U.N. do it for you, when you can do it yourself ?
For a previous and more detailed analysis, please see “Gulf War Profiteering” in our International Law section or
Gulf War Profiteering – Victors and Victims, by Christiane Martens and Paul V. Rafferty:
http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=313&blz=1
*
"Bush says forces will fight for 'however long it takes'"
by Joel Brinkley/NYT The New York Times
http://www.iht.com/articles/91364.html
At the same time, however, the Bush Administration would like to reactivate the Oil-for-Food Programme which was interrupted when many U.N. staff fled Iraq before the invasion. This will probably be heralded as a great “humanitarian” gesture.
The reality of the Oil-for-Food Programme has been obscured by nearly everyone – including the United Nations. While the title connotes a “humanitarian” objective, the end result is “Gulf War Profiteering”.
When the Security Council first imposed sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War – in order to force Iraq to comply with requirements to disarm – it was necessary to provide some sort of mechanism to allow Iraq to purchase certain basic necessities. After lengthy discussions, the U.N. Office of the Iraq Oil-for-Food Programme was born in April 1995; Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding in May 1996; the first Iraqi oil was exported in December 1996 and the first food shipments arrived in Iraq in March 1997.
Since then, the Oil-for Food Programme has managed Iraqi oil exports.
Every war causes damage. The killing, wounding and maiming of humans and animals plus other environmental destruction is sometimes measured in financial terms. Those who lose wars are usually made to pay these costs and Iraq is no exception.
Since the sanctions did not allow Iraq to export oil, except under the Oil-for Food Programe, these costs were paid through this “humanitarian” agency – after being validated by the U.N. Compensation Commission (UNCC), which had been established in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War.
Although the UNCC preceded the Oil-for-Food Programme, it is funded – retroactively – by its “humanitarian” offshoot.
The United Nations has been managing Iraqi oil for over a decade.
This past Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Colin Powell, when asked if the U.N.would be in charge of a post-invasion Iraq, told a U.S. Congressional sub-committee, “I don’t even see a possibiity of that right now.” He later qualified this statement by saying that “the United Nations will have a role to play.”
He had earlier stated: “We didn’t take on this huge burden (the invasion) with our coaltion partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future.” *
Of course not! Why have the U.N. do it for you, when you can do it yourself ?
For a previous and more detailed analysis, please see “Gulf War Profiteering” in our International Law section or
Gulf War Profiteering – Victors and Victims, by Christiane Martens and Paul V. Rafferty:
http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=313&blz=1
*
"Bush says forces will fight for 'however long it takes'"
by Joel Brinkley/NYT The New York Times
http://www.iht.com/articles/91364.html