From: "Mohammed BEN JELLOUN" <mohammed.benjelloun-AT-mail.bip.net>
Subject: article by Phyllis Bennis
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:53:15 +0200


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


  a.. UN expected to provide the U.S. with ex post facto legitimation for its illegal war.
  b.. The U.S. is determined that its military will rule Iraq when the war has ended.
  c.. Powell says: "we didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future."
  d.. The U.S. remains very clear that while it expected international financial support to cover its own humanitarian obligations, it has no intention of sharing actual authority, power, or decision-making with anyone.

***********************************************************************************************************

 WHO RULES THE PEACE WHEN THE RULERS BREAK THE RULES?

Background & Talking Points for United for Peace & Justice
by Phyllis Bennis
3 April 2003

. The U.S. war is being waged without United Nations authority, and in
violation of the UN Charter.  It is a war of aggression.  According to the
Geneva Convention, as the occupying power the U.S. and UK are obligated to
provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi population, including food,
medicine, water, shelter, etc. (Article 55 of the 4th Geneva Convention and
Article 69 of the 1st Protocol).  This obligation is unquestionable during
the period of hostilities, as well as during any period of post-war U.S.
occupation.

. Because the war itself is illegal, any post-war U.S. occupation will be
illegal too. That means the United States should not be allowed to claim
any power to rule or determine economic, political or social arrangements
in post-war Iraq. The U.S. and UK are still, however, obligated to pay the
cost of providing for the humanitarian needs of the occupied Iraqi people
during the war and its aftermath. Only the United Nations has the
legitimate authority to provide governance and to help rebuild a new Iraqi
government and civil society if the current Iraqi regime is overthrown.

. The UN itself is pushing for a central role in emergency relief
(particularly through the large international humanitarian agencies such as
UNICEF and the World Food Program). In a difficult meeting with Kofi Annan,
in the first days of the war, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice essentially claimed the right to issue a dictat for the role of the UN
in post-war Iraq. Annan indicated he did not believe the UN should be
co-opted into providing the U.S. with ex post facto legitimation for its
illegal war.  According to Secretary of State Powell, however,  two weeks
into the war, "what we have to work out is . how the UN role will be used
to provide some level of endorsement for our actions, the actions of the
coalition in Iraq."

. The U.S. is determined that its military will rule Iraq when the war has
ended. There is disagreement within the administration as to the balance of
power between the overall Pentagon-chosen viceroy, and the State Department
nominees to head the various shadow ministries, each of which will be
assigned several advisers from among the U.S.-anointed Iraqi exiles.  State
Department officials have indicated fear that Pentagon ideologues are
trying to replace the State nominees with people like former CIA chief
James Woolsey, a long-time campaigner for war against Iraq.  But there is
no recognition of the international obligations incumbent on what UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan called the "belligerent powers occupying
Iraq."

. Testifying in Congress on March 26, Secretary of State Powell described
the limits of what the potential United Nations role could be in
decision-making regarding governance of post-war Iraq.  A member of
Congress asked him, "it seems to me it's one thing for there to be a future
UN resolution about a role for the UN, particularly humanitarian. But it
would be another thing for the UN resolution to lay out some road map for
post-war Iraq in such a way that it [the UN] would basically grab that
decision-making and control from the coalition.. Can you give us some
assurance that whatever UN resolutions are in the future will not do that?"
 Powell replied "I don't even see a possibility of that right now. . We
would not support .essentially handing everything over to the UN, for
someone designated by the UN to suddenly become in charge of this whole
operation."  Later in his testimony Powell said that, "we didn't take on
this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have
significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future."

. On the parallel question of paying the costs of emergency assistance and
reconstruction, Powell was equally explicit. In the same March 26th
testimony, he said, "the UN has a role to play. If we want to get help from
other nations, and we ask these nations to go get funds from their
parliaments or their legislatures, it makes it a lot easier for them to get
those funds and to contribute those funds to the
reconstruction/redevelopment effort if it has an international standing, if
I can put it that way, as opposed to 'just give us money to give to the
Americans.' That will not work. And so there are a number of advantages to
having a UN role in this effort." But the U.S. remains very clear that
while it expected international financial support to cover its own
humanitarian obligations, it has no intention of sharing actual authority,
power, or decision-making with anyone.  BBC World quoted a high-ranking
Bush administration official who was asked whether France should have a
role. Referring to France's alleged "anti-americanism," the official said
"if they want to participate, they can pick up the garbage."

. European governments, including key U.S. ally Tony Blair of Britain,
strongly oppose the plans for U.S. military control of Iraq. Blair is
leading a European-wide effort to push for greater UN involvement in and
perhaps even control of the reconstruction process, apparently viewing it
as a way of repairing his damaged relations with European opponents of the
war, particularly in France and Germany. UN officials have indicated they
see the British proposal as a useful starting point for determining the UN
role in Iraq beyond purely humanitarian relief. But, according to a UN
staff member, "Even on that, the Americans have more or less signaled to
us, 'forget about it.'"

. Two weeks into the war senior Bush administration officials, responding
to the "overly optimistic" assumptions that governed their post-war
planning (especially that military operations would be over within 30
days), acknowledged that "the American military will likely need to retain
tight control over the country for longer than they anticipated." (New York
Times, 2 April 2003)  Plans for announcing the "Iraqi Interim Authority"
have been shelved.  Turning over any local power to Iraqis will be delayed
until variously-defined conditions are met -- ranging from the complete
pacification and defeat of military and paramilitary forces in Basra and
other cities, to the seizure of Baghdad and destruction of the Iraqi
regime. Secretary Powell did hint, however, that U.S. might ask the NATO
military alliance to play a role.

. On the question of organizing emergency humanitarian assistance, U.S.
military planners anticipate aid organizations will flood into Iraq as soon
as the military fighting is over, providing sufficient food, medicine,
shelter, water purification, etc., for the Iraqi population and operating
under U.S. military authority. The Pentagon wants humanitarian workers to
wear identification badges issued by the U.S. Department of Defense.
However, aid organizations themselves identify key problems:  1)  if the
fighting ends very soon, there is at the moment insufficient food, medicine
and water inside Iraq to provide for the population's needs once the
immediate family-stored stocks have been used up;  2)  the U.S. is refusing
to grant permission for aid organizations to enter Iraq now to assess needs
and begin bringing in material -- essentially the U.S. has seized control
of much of Iraq's border control and is determining who may enter; 3)  the
continued existence of U.S.-controlled economic sanctions means that aid
organizations cannot get licenses to move significant amounts of goods into
Iraq even to the limited degree they could safely do so;  4) aid
organizations in general are not prepared to work under military control --
such an arrangement compromises their mandatory neutrality, and places at
risk all their counterparts elsewhere in the world who then become
identified with the U.S. military attack on Iraq.

. The Pentagon created the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian
Assistance to be run by former General Jay Garner, who is currently based
in Kuwait and answers to General Tommy Franks, CentCom chief and head of
the U.S. military attack. . Garner remains, despite his new Iraq post, the
President of SY Technology, which provides technical support for missile
systems currently in use in the Iraq war. The appointment of Garner
reflects several layers of problems: 1) he represents the intersection of
military brass and weapons manufacturers that is inherently suspect; 2) he
has made provocative statements regarding the capability of weapons
(including a widely disputed claim about the Patriot missile) and about
Israel ("Israel has exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal
violence orchestrated by the leadership of a Palestinian authority") and is
certain to provoke extreme reactions in the Arab world; 3)  he is known to
have "frosty" and "strained" relations with the United Nations;  4)
appointing any American to act as pro-consul in Iraq following an illegal
war represents further defiance of the UN Charter and the authority of the
United Nations.

. The U.S. plans for the Agency for International Development (AID) staff
to work under Pentagon control in coordinating aid efforts after the war,
essentially relegating even Washington's own premier aid agency to becoming
an arm of the military.

. Philip E. Carroll, the former CEO of the giant Shell Oil Company is the
likely appointee of the Bush administration to "oversee" post-war Iraqi oil
production. He recently retired as chairman and CEO of Fluor Corporation, a
construction company singled out as one of the five U.S. firms offered
massive contracts by the Pentagon for rebuilding Iraq. According to the New
York Times, Carroll is known for not micro-managing people, something the
Times says would serve him well "IF the administration decides to let the
Iraqis control their oil."

. WHAT DO WE CALL FOR?

*   The UN must be in charge of emergency and post-war reconstruction
efforts, not the U.S.
*   The U.S. & UK as belligerent occupying powers are liable under the
Geneva Conventions for costs of emergency and post-war reconstruction
efforts.
*   During hostilities the belligerent powers are obligated to provide for
the needs of the civilian population. Humanitarian organizations must be
given free access to the country and allowed to do their work, to bring in
people and supplies unhindered by military restrictions or the limitations
imposed by sanctions, and must be allowed to make their own decisions
regarding when it is safe to enter the country. They must be independent
of, not under the control of, the U.S. military.
*   No U.S. officials with ties to the Pentagon or to arms manufacturers
whose weapons are currently deployed against Iraqis should be allowed to
participate in any post-war humanitarian position.

http://medlem.spray.se/benjelloun/

HTML VERSION:

• UN expected to provide the U.S. with ex post facto legitimation for its illegal war.
• The U.S. is determined that its military will rule Iraq when the war has ended.
• Powell says: "we didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future."
• The U.S. remains very clear that while it expected international financial support to cover its own humanitarian obligations, it has no intention of sharing actual authority, power, or decision-making with anyone.