Posted on 05/02/2003 2:25:54 PM PDT by Shermy
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - In a move to win allies, the United States is considering honoring contracts made by Saddam Hussein's government under the U.N. oil-for-food program if the Security Council lifts sanctions against Iraq, diplomats said on Friday.
The proposal was made by U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte during a meeting of council members and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Thursday and reported by several participants in the session. It would reimburse firms whose contracts had been approved and funded under the multibillion dollar program.
Negroponte said a final decision had not been made. However, his comments indicated serious consideration by Washington to win support from nations like Russia, which had numerous oil and goods contracts with Iraq before the war, the envoys said.
Washington wants the Security Council, which refused to authorize the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, to adopt a resolution lifting all sanctions, except for an arms embargo, so Iraq's economy can be set free.
Any honoring of past contracts would be included in the resolution, expected to be adopted by June 3 when the oil-for-food plan is up for renewal.
The U.S. proposals would end the oil-for-food program, which puts Iraq's oil revenues into a U.N.-administered fund out of which are paid suppliers of food, medicine and other goods. The account holds $12 billion -- more than any other aid fund.
Russia wants the United Nations to take complete charge of the oil-for-food program until a proper Iraqi government is recognized. France has advocated suspending or phasing out the sanctions, without giving many details.
And staunch ally Britain has not yet signed on to the Bush administration's proposals. It wants some kind of political role for the United Nations and to see U.N. arms inspectors back in Iraq so that any weapons of mass destruction found by the U.S. military can be verified.
Differences also persist between the Defense Department, which wants one "omnibus" resolution, and the State Department, which advocates step-by-step measures, diplomats said.
LISTEN TO POWELL, NOT RUMSFELD
British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock told a panel discussion at Harvard University on Friday, If the Pentagon runs the peace, we're in trouble."
"If I were an adviser to George Bush, I would say: 'Listen to Colin Powell, not Donald Rumsfeld,"' he said when asked how he would advise Bush on managing post-war Iraq.
At the United Nations, Negroponte told reporters, "We would like to be able to put something concrete before the council as soon as possible."
He said discussions were ongoing in Washington as well as with British officials. "But I am hopeful it will be some time in the course of next week," Negroponte added.
The U.S. proposals, diplomats said, want the Security Council to transfer Iraq's oil wealth to a new Iraqi administration, with World Bank (news - web sites) oversight. The measure would ask the council to appoint a U.N. envoy in an advisory role but exclude U.N. arms inspectors from verifying that Iraq is clean of weapons of mass destruction.
Unraveling the oil-for-food program will be complex, particularly determining which contracts will be honored and which creditors will be paid.
Since the program began in 1996, Russia had $7.31 billion worth of oil or goods contracts with Iraq, followed by Egypt with $4.3 billion and France with $3.7 billion.
Bush administration officials argue that since the sanctions were imposed to restrain Saddam Hussein's government after he invaded Kuwait, there could be little justification for keeping them in place now that he is gone.
While the United States could just let the oil-for-food program lapse on June 3 by vetoing any resolution to renew it, such an action could raise legal problems and possibly deter multinational companies from doing business there.
Regards, Ivan
DANG, you're right!! Bad news indeed (I hope not). Will he trade future "friendships" and cocktail parties to do the right thing? Let's hope so.
Here's a bio I found, a little dated:
JOHN D. NEGROPONTE, a retired ambassador, is Executive Vice President of Global Markets, the McGraw-Hill Companies. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, Chairman of the French-American Foundation, Co-President of the U.S.-Mexico Commission for Educational and Cultural Exchange, and a Fellow of the Foreign Policy Association. As a member of the career Foreign Service, Ambassador Negroponte served as Special Coordinator for Post-1999 U.S. presence in Panama, Ambassador to the Philippines, Ambassador to Mexico, Ambassador to Honduras, and as Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
The American/British way is to handle this with common sense and honor
So the best course would be to let the UN program lapse on June 3rd while seeing to it that legitimate creditors are paid from the UN account and that remaining funds are placed in a Swiss Trust account dedicated to the people of Iraq.
After June 3rd, control of Iraqi assets should be placed in the hands of a "coalition" appointed board with representatives, one each, from the United States, Britain and Iraq; with that board mandated to honorably manage Iraqi foreign business affairs -- through that Swiss Trust account -- until control can be passed to a legitimately elected government of Iraq.
The U.S. should allow the lapse. And the UN needs to show us the money. Open their books.
We should let it lapse. Who are we to honor past contracts. It's not our resources. It's not our country. Let the new Iraqi's decide if they are going to burden all that debt.
Drew Garrett
Oops,
Drew Garrett
This article is from Reuters (and therefore suspect). It's not clear what "contracts" would be honored. We need more info.
I had some lovely UK relatives visiting me this week, and they told me that "most" Brits "assume" that Pres Bush is a liar and Tony Blair is toast. Umm, yeah. These particular UKers (university-affiliated), anyway, have a totally different way of looking at the world than we. It's very confusing to me how they can make such pronouncements and believe them.
Seriously, I'm much more worried about the World Bank involvement than the Reuters speculation right now.
How so?
Seriously, I'm much more worried about the World Bank involvement than the Reuters speculation right now.
I'm guessing that the choice of the World Bank and IMF was to get the money out of French, etc. banks, and to avoid the outcry and favortism to be alleged if the money were shifted to US, Brit and Spanish banks.
We'll see what the Iraqis do in the future. I'm depressed about the lack of Iraqi voices and protests over the UN hold on its money. It's their money after all.
--David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
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.