Posted on 03/30/2003 11:12:32 AM PST by Suck My AR-16
[Congressional Record: March 27, 2003 (Senate)]
[Page S4507]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr27mr03-161]
INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING OCCUPIED IRAQ
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, next week we are going to have a
supplemental appropriations bill of at least $75 billion before the
Congress of the United States for the funding necessary for the
military action in Iraq, at least for the early part of that action,
which number could not have been decided when we passed the
appropriations bills in January because at that point there would not
have been any military action. I raise this issue now in conjunction
with what there is in international law in regard to a victorious power
in a nation, after the war is done, of what can be used of the natural
resources of a country for the victorious country to administer the
nation as well as to rebuild that nation.
The reason I raise these points about international law is because
there is very clear international law about what a victorious nation
can do and cannot do in regard to the resources of the defeated nation.
I raise this issue at this point because I want to make sure the
American taxpayers are not saddled with any of the costs of rebuilding
Iraq that can be legitimately paid for, under international law, out of
the resources of Iraq.
After the first full week of the conflict, the allied forces have
pushed well into the country, liberating Iraqi populations across
western and southern Iraq. These developments, then, raise an issue
that must be explored and discussed before we obligate taxpayers' money
to rebuilding Iraq; that is, with regard to the United States and
allied occupation of Iraq, what does international law tell us? What
does international law dictate with regard to our rights as the
occupying power to administer Iraq's oil resources and our obligations
to the citizens of Iraq?
The Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention provide the
basis for international law with regard to the obligations and rights
of an occupying power. They provide specific guidelines for
administering the resources of the occupied territory and the
obligations of the occupying power to provide for the welfare and the
safety of the occupied people.
With regard to the rights of an occupying power to use public
property and resources, article 53 of Hague regulations of 1907
provides that an occupying power can only take possession of state-
owned property, and any seizure of private property must be restored
and compensation provided when peace is made.
Further, article 55 provides:
The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator
and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property,
forests and agricultural works belonging to the hostile
State.
The rules of usufruct provide a tenant--in this case it would be the
United States or the coalition forces--the right to use and enjoy the
profits of property owned by Iraq, as long as the property is not
damaged or altered in any way. In addition, the allied forces may use
the public assets only for the benefit of Iraq and the Iraqi people,
and to defray the costs of administration.
Secretary Powell recently reaffirmed this right. When discussing the
issue of oilfields, he stated:
You can be sure that they [meaning the oilfields] would be
protected and the revenue generated from any such oil fields
would be used in accordance with international law and to the
benefit of the Iraqi people.
The occupying power may also take possession of public movable
property only if such property can be directly or indirectly used for
military operations. Clearly, Iraq's oil reserves are susceptible to
military use and thereby subject to seizure by U.S. military forces
under the laws of war to restore Iraq.
In addition, the oil produced from Iraqi wells may be considered
similar to the produce of public land which, under article 55, may be
appropriated by the occupying power.
With regard to the obligations of the occupying power, article 43 of
Hague regulations of 1907 state:
The authority of the legitimate power, having actually
passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take
steps in his power to restore and ensure, as far as possible,
public order and safety.
The Geneva Convention, relevant to the protection of civilian persons
in time of war, states that the occupying power is also responsible for
establishing a direct system of administration and maintaining the
public order.
The key restriction to the use of Iraq's oil is that the proceeds are
limited to occupation purposes, which includes measures taken in the
furtherance of fulfilling that obligation that I just read under
article 43, to reestablish peace and order to Iraq. Clearly,
international law provides that the United States is entitled to use
the money from oil sales to pay for such obligations as long as food
and water, health care, roads and bridges, schools and airports, as
examples.
Once a viable Iraqi government is established, the oilfields must be
returned to Iraq in a reasonable condition.
One final issue for debate will be the role of the U.N. in the
reconstruction and administration of Iraq. For example, what will
remain of the United Nations Oil For Food Program in post-Saddam Iraq?
Given the U.N.'s inability to fulfill its obligations with regard to
enforcing Security Council Resolution 1441, it is unclear whether the
U.N. will be relevant at all in the reconstruction efforts of Iraq.
It is my hope that the U.N. will follow the lead of the United
States, Britain, and the other 40 or more allies currently in Iraq
enforcing the U.N. resolutions. After all, it must be made very clear
that the resources of Iraq will finally be available for the use of the
Iraqi people, for the betterment of those same people.
For far too long, we know the prisoners of Saddam's regime have been
deprived of their country's riches and forced to survive as peasants.
While the responsibility for providing for the welfare of the Iraqi
people belonged to Saddam Hussein, he was, as we know, more interested
in spending it on himself in the form of elaborate palaces and in the
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
The Iraqi people will finally share in the wealth of their country
that has always belonged to them rather than Saddam sharing it with his
family and the cronies of his brutal regime.
I hope the Congress will take into consideration the rights the
taxpayers of the United States have under this Geneva Convention, to
make sure the resources for the rebuilding of Iraq come from Iraqi
natural resources and not from the American taxpayers. That should be
fully taken into consideration, as some of the money we appropriate
next week will probably be used for that purpose of at first
establishing administration in Iraq.
I yield the floor.
____________________
In that, the United States people will finally share in the wealth of their country that has always belonged to them rather than corporations sharing it with their family and the cronies of their brutal regime.
No, not really, because according to this rationale, it's ok for someone else to do something like this to us. Again.
It appears to me that the Iraqi Military has used the Iraqi Oil money to destroy their towns and villages, kill bunches of their own people, and repress those lucky enough to live. While we make every effort to avoid civilian casualties, the Republican Guard guns down women and children trying to leave Basra. The "Iraqi" oil money has gone into Saddam's pocket to be used as a tool in his Stalinist regime. The Iraqi people are entitled to have the kind of country they want built with the resources of their land - that would be oil money. We are spending our money providing them with that opportunity.
Works for me.
Now, let's find out if we can legally do the same thing in California.
This is a statement with which I agree. However, I don't agree that it is our right to steal their resources and use that money how we think is best for them. This is why countries around the world hate the United States, because we're always doing dumb crap like this. We think we know what's best, and then we execute whatever that policy is, by force, regardless of what those people want.
My opinion of the war aside, if it is the right of the Iraqi people to determine their own destiny, which I think it is, then it is their right to use their resources however they choose to rebuild their land.
No Ass, No grass, no gas = no free ride
The point was lost on you wasn't it? Since they did NOT pay for the rebuilding of the WTC, nor pay the families of the people who were killed, they get to pay, instead, for the rebuilding of their country.
It all evens out in the end.
Not, if by allowing them that, I'll have to see my grandchildren go over there in 15 years to do this BS all over, again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.