It would last two to three years at most, must provide immediate benefits to the people of Iraq, would hold municipal elections within six months and regional elections within another six months after that and begin immediate criminal prosecutions. The other duties must be to fulfill obligations to the U.N. regarding weapons of mass destruction, he said, and human rights agreements must be adhered to. "It's critical to me that the transitional period not be seen as a final status," he said. "I don?t think the transitional government should be the government that signs a peace treaty with Israel. That should be the permanent government." And most important, he said, the United Nations should not _lift_ the sanctions. Instead they should be _suspended_ so that the transitional government doesn?t gain control of the country?s treasury and the permanent lifting of sanctions is an incentive to democratize. "If you want to ensure the transitional figures do not become transitional in the Iraqi sense of the word -- by that I mean lasting 40 years -- you cannot hand over the purse strings of Iraq," he said. "Saddam did not immediately rule by fear. He co-opted the elite during the 1960s and '70s by drowning them in cash."
Taking control of the oil industry, while looking really, _really_ bad to the rest of the world, is probably the best that can be made of a bad situation. Istrabadi's right; if a transitional government took control of Iraq's oil revenue, there likely result would be wholesale robbing that would make the looters in the closing days of the war look like pikers. Granted, this will not help the United States' image in Iraq or in the Arab world. They're already convinced the U.S. was making an oil grab. The only way to combat this impression is to manage the oil industry in an enlightened and benevolent manner with no favortism given to corrupted Iraqis or American companies. Handing out crony contracts to Halliburton subsidiaries and other, well-connected American corporations ain't the way do this. There really don't seem to be many good solutions to this mess.
… and what a lovely mess it is. But only if one does not focus on the REAL reason for this war, which was NOT about oil. It was about bringing freedom and light to a dark corner of the world, which we have done and therefore have wrought a complete success. Everything else is just niggling details, silly folks.
Well, it’s only “niggling details” if no one else cares either. But diplomacy and foreign relations rely very much on perceptions. If the Middle East percieves that we invaded/liberated for oil, then we’ll have problems.
I’m not saying what the reason was. I’m only saying that it doesn’t matter what the real reason was if no one else believes us.
neurostar
Another paradox is the fact that the Government has always had a public relations problem. It has always sucked at getting its side of the story out in a positive, non-condescending manner as evidenced by the horrendous reporting by the Arab media.
One defense that was made about Halliburton, et al getting the initial contracts was the fact that there just aren’t that many companies that can do what they do and do it well.
Any reinforcement or truth of that philosophy available?
I hadn’t really considered the difference between lifting and suspending the sanctions, that makes much sense when put that way.
Excellent article.
Cheers,
Don B.
The real reasons for the war are undoubtedly many-fold, oil access being just one. Perceptions are all-important in diplomatic affairs and those perceptions, once formed are extremely difficult to alter. Those perceptions are being formed right now. News of this kind will only serve to cement the perception that the US wanted oil, it’s more corrupt than originally believed, and the Iraqi people don’t matter a dot in the grand scheme.
The simplest way to administer the oil incomes is to leave that function in the hands of the UN, where it belongs. Presenting a draft agreement to the UN which says, basically, “Hey, we won, we reserve the right to recover costs while appearing to be being even handed and fair to the conquered” will only inflame the tensions already existing between Security Council members.
Leave the fiscal administration to a completely impartial body, which is the UN’s purpose. Get on with the much vaunted democratisation of a tired and defeated people, if indeed that was the real aim in the first place.
“The simplest way to administer the oil incomes is to leave that function in the hands of the UN, where it belongs.”
Doing the simple thing isn’t right. I don’t argue that the UN should have the function. The problem is the UN is broken on a scale that prevents it from retaining this particular function.
Look how the “Oil-For-Palace” program has divided once close Allies. This program was simply a ‘feeding trough’ and didn’t do squat to benefit anyone but the member countries, and the Iraqis weren’t included.
Some serious overhaul at the UN needs to be done before the system can begin functioning constructively. This leaves the US, et al having to make some really crappy decisions.
Cheers,
Don B.
Germany has indicated it will probably vote for the resolution, but viewing its actions in context see a long-term policy of counteracting the US in the works:
http://diplomatica.blogspot.com/20030504diplomaticaarchive.html#94117847 (about midway through the article)
Particularly interesting are the comments of a member of the European Commission stating that the US move is intended to gain a foothold in OPEC.
“Some serious overhaul at the UN needs to be done before the system can begin functioning constructively. This leaves the US, et al having to make some really crappy decisions,” Niall says.
True.
But the last people to embark on any such overhaul, especially when it comes down to perceptions, are in Washington or London.
Resentment of the so-called “coalition’s” actions became serious anger among even ordinary folk in France and some other European countries (let alone in the Arab world) once Blair was stupid enough to say that the war became inevitable because of Jacques Chirac. I’m no supporter of the French president, but I admire his foreign minister.
It scarcely needs saying that the US and British governments paid very little but lip-service to the United Nations throughout this whole mess, and had no intention of doing otherwise from the outset.
When this became patently obvious to the French public at large, it fuelled the first real street and corner café fury over “US imperialism” I’ve witnessed in my 23 years living in and around Paris.
Chris, just another “niggling detail” about a habitually interesting entry.
Don’t use that word “tabled”. Say “presented”. While in context it’s quite clear what you mean, in many parts of the English-speaking world “tabled” means the opposite of what it does in the States. It means “shelved” or “withdrawn”. ;)
“Some serious overhaul at the UN needs to be done before the system can begin functioning constructively. This leaves the US, et al having to make some really crappy decisions,” Niall says.
Some of us might say the same about Washington or London.
‘There are weapons of mass destruction so we need to invade. The UN doesn’t support us, so we bypass the UN’
No weapons of mass destruction yet found? ‘Never mind. Trust us. We are responsible people and best placed to control oil assets on behalf of the Iraqi people.’
Bullshit. Arrogant. Misguided. No weasel words about UN competence justifies theft.
Nice comment Chan. Too bad there still is people who truly believe the war was only about “bringing light to a dark side of the world”.
I really have pity for the nahive minds.
There are always creative answers to a problem. But your statement that we can’t just hand the money over to a transitional government brings up some thorny questions in and of itself. With all of Chalabi’s record of fraud and such, how paternalistic should we be?
The fact remains that if we were really just going in after WMD or to rid the world of a cruel dictator, then we really, truly wouldn’t be worried about how those poor Iraqis are going to handle all that money…
There are always creative answers to a problem. But your statement that we can’t just hand the money over to a transitional government brings up some thorny questions in and of itself. With all of Chalabi’s record of fraud and such, how paternalistic should we be?
The fact remains that if we were really just going in after WMD or to rid the world of a cruel dictator, then we really, truly wouldn’t be worried about how those poor Iraqis are going to handle all that money…
I have only a couple things to say:
The war in iraq IS NOT about freeing the people from their bondage to an insane dictator. Just as religion has been used to justify the majority of the worlds atrocities (i.e. crusades, the killing and forced conversions of the native peoples of the Americas etc), so too is the “removing of a dictator” an excuse for the United States to execute their agenda. While it may or may not be about oil, the fact of the matter is that the war was not to free the people of iraq. If that were so, then the U.S. would have invaded the congo long ago.
Sorry for the double post but i just read something about the U.N.
The U.N. is a weak and impotent body that is supposed to represent international justice not? Iraq has been breaking the resolutions that the U.N. has signed for years. No weapons of mass destruction? Very true although the mobile labs that contained biochemical equipment that were moved around so as to not be spotted by satelite are very supicious. Regardless: Iraq broke the WMD treaties signed with the U.N. by having the Samoud 2 missiles. They didin’t have WMD but the treaty is specific and includes say that the delivery systems for WMD are also banned. Iraq broke this U.N. resolution and the U.N. gave authority to its members to carry out all of its “mandates” with whatever force nessicary. The U.S. is just the beast that the U.N. can’t control anymore.