Sovereignty for food
The new oil-for-food programme is a warning sign to many that the UN is bypassing the Iraqi regime, writes Soha Abdelaty
Many were disappointed when the UN secretary- general decided to temporarily suspend the oil- for-food programme three days before the American and British aggression against Iraq began. This is when the Iraqi people need it most, argued those who opposed the suspension. Last week, UN Security Council members finally decided to put aside their differences and passed a resolution relaunching a new version of the programme, which allows Iraq to use part of its revenue from oil sales to buy relief supplies but transfers responsibility for administering the programme from Baghdad to the UN secretary- general. However, not everyone is pleased with the new programme.
UN officials were quick to applaud the decision to restart the programme. "I think it augurs well for future tasks ahead of us," UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan said after the vote on 28 March. "We have many challenging questions and I hope we will be able to approach those tasks with the same spirit."
Britain said the new version of the programme is more effective. "What is important here is that there is continuity and that the oil-for-food programme doesn't stall because the regime, which has never taken the programme seriously, is no longer operating it," the British prime minister's official spokesman said.
The new arrangement, he added, would put an end to the days when the programme was abused by the Iraqi regime by, for example, using it to "import thousands of chewing gum machines". The UK also was encouraged by the fact that the only Arab member at the council, Syria, voted for the resolution.
But not everyone was pleased. The new deal is a controversial package.
Under the previous oil-for-food arrangements, which began in 1996, the cash from oil sale revenues was placed in a UN-controlled deposit account. It was up to the Iraqi government to identify the country's needs and sign contracts with foreign suppliers to import goods using those revenues. The new resolution shifts that responsibility from Baghdad to Annan and his officials for the next 45 days, at which time it will be subject to renewal.
The Iraqi government was quick to announce its rejection of the new programme. "They have distorted the programme," announced Iraqi Information Minister Mohamed Saeed Al-Sahhaf on Saturday, 29 March, a day after the UN adopted the resolution. "If the Iraqi government does not adopt it, it cannot be implemented," he added. "It will remain ink on paper."
The first problem with placing the reins in the hands of the top UN official is that it completely side-steps the Iraqi regime. "The old memorandum-of-understanding (MOU) was a bilateral agreement between two parties, the Iraqi government and the UN," said Mohamed Gomaa, attorney at law and an international law professor in Egypt. "Now the renewed version has replaced the Iraqi government with Kofi Annan. The parties are now negotiating among themselves," Gomaa told Al-Ahram Weekly. By putting forward this resolution, Annan is in effect dealing with Iraq as a country with no recognised governing authority. "He's [Annan] exercising his appetite for state-building capacities of the UN which can be understood in the case of failed states," explained Gomaa. "But this is not the case in Iraq, which is subject to a classical form of armed aggression and belligerent occupation," he added.
But the issue also has political dimensions. The Iraqi government will no longer be able to choose the countries it wishes to deal with, nor can it negotiate on the best tenders presented. In addition, the new deal mandates the UN to decide the needs of the Iraqi people instead of the government deciding for its own people.
And while many US and UK officials were quick to note that the Iraqi regime misused the programme, there is evidence to the contrary. "We had regular scientific surveys on the ground," says Ashraf El-Bayoumi, who was based in Iraq as head of the observation team for the programme. "I can tell you that 99 per cent of Iraqi citizens said they got the food on time," he added.
Furthermore, there were numerous restrictions on the programme that were meant to ensure that the Iraqi government did exactly what was expected of it. The distribution efforts of the regime were closely monitored, El-Bayoumi explained to the Weekly. In addition, the Iraqi regime was required to discuss its needs in detail with the sanctions committee, which placed restrictions on what Iraq could and could not import. The "dual items" list, which covered items that could not be imported because they could be used for military purposes as well as civilian ones, included many necessary supplements, said Bayoumi. In addition, the food items Iraq was allowed to import were not always sufficient in nutritional value.
Observers also criticise the fact that the secretary-general himself will be running the programme. "We don't trust him," said El-Bayoumi. "He's under political pressure from the US," he added. This is the same person, argued El- Bayoumi, who has thus far refrained from condemning the aggression and who withdrew UN personnel from Iraq before the war. "These are actions that do not agree with his mandate as secretary-general," El-Bayoumi said.
Another major difference between the old and new arrangements is the nature of the agreement. "The idea of the old agreement was based on Resolution 661, but in essence, it was a bilateral agreement," said Gomaa. Unlike the previous arrangement, the new version does not give the Iraqi government the right to make decisions about stopping or renewing the programme. "Now there's a Security Council resolution dictating the programme." This means that the UN is responsible for implementing it regardless of Iraq's approval. And by force if necessary.
With Iraq refusing to take part in the new programme, the question now is: Who will distribute the food, if not the Iraqi government? The US army does not yet have full control over the country. "There are practical barriers for US distribution. It [the US] is not in control of the cities," El-Bayoumi said.
But once it does gain control of these cities, this could all change. If anything, the new programme seems to be set in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
