Posted on 04/18/2003 7:51:23 PM PDT by Pokey78
WASHINGTON, April 18 — The Bush administration plans to ask the United Nations to lift international penalties against Iraq in phases, retaining United Nations supervision of Iraq's oil sales for now but transferring other parts of its economy to a new Iraqi authority in coming months, administration officials said today.
The officials said that instead of a single Security Council resolution to lift sanctions on Iraq, the United States would seek three or four resolutions over several months, gradually turning over parts of the economy to an Iraqi authority assembled with American guidance.
The step-by-step approach was described as the latest American tactic to counter assertions by France, Russia and other Security Council members that they would oppose lifting sanctions without a broader role for the United Nations than the one envisioned by Washington.
At least in theory, France and Russia could veto the lifting of sanctions, giving them considerable leverage even though they opposed the war. Some in the Bush administration say they fear a messy situation in which lawsuits would be filed by those arguing that any oil sales in defiance of the United Nations measures would be a violation of international law.
"Nobody wants to have litigation on this," an administration official said. "But the sanctions have to be modified or you can't have a reconstruction of Iraq."
This official, like others interviewed today, requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject and the fact that many aspects are unresolved.
How to approach this issue has been a matter of considerable debate in an administration that has long been riven ideologically on the issue of the United Nations. The Pentagon has favored a minimal role for the United Nations, but the State Department argues that its role is essential to lending legitimacy to a postwar Iraqi government.
"For a while there was a lot of talk about one omnibus Security Council resolution on Iraq," a senior administration official said. "We're now thinking in terms of several resolutions and letting Iraqis build their economy in phases before they get full control of the oil."
It was not clear, however, whether the latest administration approach would win any support from Security Council members who remain bitter about the administration's decision to go to war without the Council's authorization.
United Nations diplomats say there is confusion over how to return Iraq to normal status now that the war is over. France has asked for a "central" role for the United Nations, and President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain say they want a "vital" role. But little has been put in writing.
"The U.S. is facing a pretty stiff resistance from other members of the Council on this," a European diplomat said. "The U.S. position is, `We're there in Iraq and it's going to be our effort, and maybe someone from the U.N. can come in and give it a blessing.' That's not going to fly."
One of the most contentious issues, expected to surface next week, is deciding the next phase of the multibillion dollar Oil for Food Program, in which oil is sold and the proceeds used for medicine and food for Iraqis. At present, the program distributes at least some food to 90 percent of Iraqis.
Before the war, the Oil for Food program was jointly supervised by Iraq and the United Nations. When the war began, the Security Council authorized Secretary General Kofi Annan to take it over, and it continued on a much smaller scale with Iraqis managing parts of it.
Now some in the Bush administration would like parts of it turned back to Iraq. Others argue that such a step is impractical because of the complexity of the program. Hundreds of contracts have been let to sell the oil and bring food, medicine, trucks and other supplies into the country.
In addition, there is a network for 44,000 food distribution centers throughout the country that many experts say the Iraqis are not yet ready to run themselves.
"This is big leagues stuff," said an administration official, referring to the oil-for-food program. "It's complex international economics, with a big portfolio. It's good to have Iraqis run it, but that may take time. It makes sense to leave the current structure in place. You can't predict how long."
One advantage of leaving the program in place, officials said, would be avoiding a fight with France, Russia and others who might oppose effectively turning Iraq's oil industry over to a government in Baghdad seen as handpicked by Washington.
But administration officials say that other parts of the economy, including imports of other vital goods and services for the agriculture industry and the civil service, could perhaps be authorized by the United Nations without a fight.
Officials on all sides are particularly uncomfortable discussing one factor on the record. Under the oil-for-food program, much of the food, medicine and other goods like trucks that have been imported by Iraq have been supplied by France, Russia and Syria, all on the Security Council.
Some diplomats say that the United States could make headway on its objectives if it guaranteed that these countries' lucrative contracts remained in place.
"Let's face it, this is a highly politicized environment," said an official involved in the talks on oil for food. "I don't think there's any secret about the motivations of some. It's out there. We're not operating in a vacuum. All these practicalities will come back to the Security Council."
But administration officials maintain indignantly that they will not trade Security Council legitimacy for the awarding of contracts to certain countries.
"The idea that we would throw contracts to the French or the Russians to get them to go along — I mean, come on," an administration official said. "If there are goods in the pipeline needed for the Iraqi people and supplied by them — yes, fine. But our interest has to be the welfare of the Iraqi people."
Another source of contention within the administration, and with others at the United Nations, is over whether Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors have any role to play in the future.
There is a consensus in the administration, State Department officials said, that Mr. Blix should be sent into retirement. Many officials remain angry over his performance during the inspections phase in Iraq this winter, believing that he was too eager to please Iraqi authorities.
On the other hand, some American officials admit that they have not been able to find the chemical, biological and other unconventional weapons that not too long ago they blamed Mr. Blix for not finding.
But a new element is the fact that the Arab news media — most notably, Al Jazeera, the influential television network — have begun suggesting that if chemical, biological or nuclear weapons are found in Iraq, it will be because the American military planted them there.
Thus there is a growing feeling, however reluctant, that Mr. Blix and the United Nations may be needed if the United States is ever to convince the world that its fears of Iraqi weapons programs were justified.
We have "ex government officials" implying the same. I bet they get paid plenty for appearing on Jazeera.
I do... there two faced, dictatorial, power hunger, petty bureaucrats with delusions of grander....
Hypocrites with no moral that real don’t give a damm about the little people who in there eyes are peon there to provide for them... "the worlds preordained ruling elite" ....
In other words a cross between the DNC and France lite
Scurrilous attempt by leftists at the increasingly IRRELEVANT New York Times to foster the illusion of discord between State and the Pentagon.
France, Germany, Russia and others in the UN don't want to see "reconstruction of Iraq" until they get their piece of the action.
IMHO that is what this is all about.
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.