UN Resolution on Iraq on Table

[PLATO]

Here is a link to the resolution:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86432,00.html

Seems to make sense to me. Provides for 1 year administration. All oil money to be deposited into an independently audited account to be used solely for benefit of Iraqi people.

edit: try the link this way

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86432,00.html

[Oerdin]

Now is when we find out if Chirac really meant it when he said he just wanted to lift sanctions to help the poor starving (insert bleeding heart discription of choice here) Iraqi people or if he really was just getting down on his knees to deep throat Saddam.

[loinburger]

The link isn't working for me.

Edit: Nevermind, copy-paste works with the URL, it's just that there's bizarro UBB code ****ing it up.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86432,00.html

[PLATO]

Sorry loinburger. Thanks for the fix. Should work in my edit also

[loinburger]

Oh wait, I forgot:

"Fox news is your only source? I'll believe that this proposal is real when it is independently confirmed by a news source that I like, and not a moment sooner."

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by loinburger
Oh wait, I forgot:

"Fox news is your only source? I'll believe that this proposal is real when it is independently confirmed by a news source that I like, and not a moment sooner."

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[PLATO]

Interestingly, The resolution seems to contain most of the things that the anti-war crowd swore would never happen because the US was so evil.

Is it possible that they were wrong??

[DanS]

Everybody's going to be dickering about:

1) the 5% to the compensation fund;

2) any impediments to selling the oil, such as garnishment by Lukoil for trade debts; and

3) the exact makeup and function of the advisory/oversight committee.

The amount of wordsmithing is very small, but you can be sure there will be a lot of negotiations.

[Arrian]

Is it possible that they were wrong??

Of course not, you fool. The United States is the root of all evil.



-Arrian

[Richelieu]

"13. Underlines that the Iraqi Assistance Fund should be used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of indigenous civilian administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq"

Here it is.

[DanS]

Are you saying that it's merely vague and needs rewording or that it's objectionable?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DanS
Everybody's going to be dickering about:
...
2) any impediments to selling the oil, such as garnishment by Lukoil for trade debts

...

Would this not be covered by:

Further decides that petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas originated in Iraq, and proceeds of sales thereof, shall be immune from judicial, administrative, arbitration or any other proceedings (including any prejudgment or post-judgement attachment, garnishment, or execution or other action to satisfy a judgement) arising in relation to claims, of whatever kind and whenever accrued, against Iraq or any instrumentality or agents thereof (or the Authority, or its participating states or their instrumentalities or agents), and that all Member States shall take any steps under their respective domestic legal systems necessary to give full effect to this paragraph;

??

Also 5% administrative costs is actually low for a program this size. It leaves little room for corruption and could even possibly force efficiency on the UN (if that is even possible)

The advisory commitee will be a major source of discussion and in-fighting.

[DanS]

The 5% isn't administrative costs. Rather, it's a compensation fund for Kuwait, et al. for GWI and Iran.

Re the garnishment, yes that's what covers it. But do you expect the Russkiis and French to roll over, when billions of their companies' dollars are at stake?

[PLATO]

Ah..yes, you are correct. I mis-read that somehow. That may be a source of argument. It will probably pass however since previous international agreement on the issue.

WRT garnishment. You make a great point. With national interest running the debates at the UN as opposed to the good of the Iraqi people, then this could well expose positions for what they truly are. It wouldn't suprise me to see some changes to this section to cover the French and Russians just to get them on board for the rest of the resolution.

[Ned]

Just as a reference, the 5% number for compensation down from a current 30%.

I see a compromise position at 10%.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's impossible to properly analyze it without the texts of the other letters and declarations, but two or three sticking points appear to me:

What exactly is the nature of the authority assumed by "the Authority" referred to in the May 8, letter? Essentially, the resolution states that the Authority will consult with the UN on various matters, but that can be like the way I consult with my two year old son in telling him this is the way things are.

Like many UNSCRs, the wording is rather fluffy, cf Paragraph 6: "Calls upon the Authority to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people" essentially says that you can do whatever you want, as long as you cloak it in the rhetoric of "promoting the welfare of the Iraqi people."

The mechanism is to some extent set up that the UN is endorsing in advance any Authority action which is claimed to be undertaken in the interests of the Iraqi people. Does anyone really doubt that the US lawyers and staffers who drafted this language intend anything else?

Paragraph 12 gives total control of disbursement to the Authority, with only consultation with the Iraqi interim authority being required. In effect, this means "we told you what we're doing, and that's all we need to do."

Paragraph 13 makes the Iraqis (or their oil) responsible for all rebuilding costs, and for supporting the costs of "continued disarmament." In other words, an open ended search, funded by the people being searched.

Paragraph 19 doesn't refer to administrative costs, as someone posted, but rather to compensation for enforcing UNSCR 687, which created UNSCOM, later replaced by UNMOVIC. I somehow doubt the US intends to compensate UN organizations for searching the country.

Paragraph 20 is a move to effectively repudiate all Iraqi pre-existing foreign debt, by making Iraq's main assets immune from any claims. That's rather dicey for the precedent it sets - it would be better to grant the Iraqi state a period of immunity, and then let the permanent government sort out foreign debt claims on it's own, when the government is off the ground and financially solvent.

Other than that, the UN is essentially being asked to grant it's legal authority to the occupying power "the Authority" with no accountablity other than financial accounting. "Yes, they spent the amount of money stated lining their pockets/nobly benefitting the Iraqi people."

The best move (not for the US, though) would be to divorce certain controversial elements from those that are totally benign, and have a separate resolution dealing strictly with the authority of "the Authority" and the manner of accountability to the UN, the Iraqi state and other international bodies to the extent appropriate.

[PLATO]

MTG, doesn't the resolution state that "The Authority" would have to operate within the confines of Geneva 1949 and The Hauge 1907? These treaties spell out the role of occupying powers fairly clearly.

Paragraph 12 negates UN control of funds and thus removes the inability of the UN to decide anything. It does open up The Authority to questions, but so what?

What is the problem of Paragraph 13? Are you suggesting a time limit on searching for WMD? I would prefer a periodic UNMOVIC certification with the Authority handling the search under the auspices of paragraph 13 (perhaps an addition?)

Paragraph 19...I corrected myself after DanS set me straight.

Paragraph 20. A good idea all around.

About the idea of 2 resolutions. I think one is sufficient. It would be to hard to get agreement if you spread it out.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
MTG, doesn't the resolution state that "The Authority" would have to operate within the confines of Geneva 1949 and The Hauge 1907? These treaties spell out the role of occupying powers fairly clearly.

Not directly - it only implies by reference that the Authority acknowledges the requirements of international law. However, the US is taking steps to violate both, in having USAID take bids to privatize the Iraqi oil industry, a structural and asset change that occupying powers have no authority to make.

Practically, Geneva 1949 and Hague 1907 have problems, in that they don't permit infrastructure changes - this was to prevent fundamental changes like water diversion projects that would benefit the conqueror/occupier, but the law also prevents necessary changes until such time as a lawful government is restored.

Paragraph 12 negates UN control of funds and thus removes the inability of the UN to decide anything. It does open up The Authority to questions, but so what?

The actions of the Authority should remain accountable to the UN and the future Iraqi government, to comply with international law, as well as for basic moral, ethical and PR reasons. The notion that "we can do whatever we want, as long as we inform you after the fact" isn't a real good promoter of the rule of law, it's a promoter of the rule of the US.

What is the problem of Paragraph 13? Are you suggesting a time limit on searching for WMD? I would prefer a periodic UNMOVIC certification with the Authority handling the search under the auspices of paragraph 13 (perhaps an addition?)

An indefinite physical occupation could be built on the premise of an open-ended search for WMD. If you can't find anything in X years, and you're seeing to installation of a new government that in theory won't crispy fry it's neighbors, why the need for an open-ended authorization to base military forces in another country at their costs? Also, the US position, unless it changed and I haven't heard, was that UNMOVIC is finished and the US is now in the WMD inspection business in Iraq.

Paragraph 20. A good idea all around.

Paragraph 20 is the most onerous of all. Third-world countries do not deal with developed nations from anything close to a position of parity. Do you really want to break the conventions of international finance and grant a third-party nation the right to repudiate another nation's debts? For that matter, if I'm Burkina Faso, and I see the US can wave it's magic Cheney and wipe out Iraq's foreign debts (or effectively do so by making those debts uncollectable except by Iraqi niceness), then why wouldn't I do the same? "Oh, you can't do that, only the US can do that."

Immunizing Iraq for a period of time, to allow for a legitimate Iraqi government and rebuilding, is fine as a one-off case. Anything beyond that should be left as a bilateral issue between the government of Iraq and it's various creditors, to be resolved in accordance with applicable commercial law.

About the idea of 2 resolutions. I think one is sufficient. It would be to hard to get agreement if you spread it out.

It's hard to get agreement if you combined benign and onerous provisions in one. Doing two would let you get the non-controversial, apolitical issues out of the way.

[Oerdin]

Oppsies...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I should be criminal to remove a child from the country without the concent of BOTH of the parents especially if the parents are going through a bitter divorce.

Methinks you clicked the wrong thread.

[St Leo]

Toronto Star Article

The French proposal seems reasonable.

[Ned]

I do not read the immunity clause as being limited to existing claims. Further, the immunity never ends.

Both aspects are highly controversial.


20. Further decides that petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas originated in Iraq, and proceeds of sales thereof, shall be immune from judicial, administrative, arbitration or any other proceedings (including any prejudgment or post-judgement attachment, garnishment, or execution or other action to satisfy a judgement) arising in relation to claims, of whatever kind and whenever accrued, against Iraq or any instrumentality or agents thereof (or the Authority, or its participating states or their instrumentalities or agents), and that all Member States shall take any steps under their respective domestic legal systems necessary to give full effect to this paragraph;