Iraq
Inc: A Joint Venture
Built On Broken Promises
By David
Usborne in New York,
Rupert Cornwell in Washington and
Phil Reeves in Baghdad
The Independent
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."