Tweet
It's impossible to properly analyze it without the texts of the other letters and declarations, but two or three sticking points appear to me:
What exactly is the nature of the authority assumed by "the Authority" referred to in the May 8, letter? Essentially, the resolution states that the Authority will consult with the UN on various matters, but that can be like the way I consult with my two year old son in telling him this is the way things are.
Like many UNSCRs, the wording is rather fluffy, cf Paragraph 6: "Calls upon the Authority to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people" essentially says that you can do whatever you want, as long as you cloak it in the rhetoric of "promoting the welfare of the Iraqi people."
The mechanism is to some extent set up that the UN is endorsing in advance any Authority action which is claimed to be undertaken in the interests of the Iraqi people. Does anyone really doubt that the US lawyers and staffers who drafted this language intend anything else?
Paragraph 12 gives total control of disbursement to the Authority, with only consultation with the Iraqi interim authority being required. In effect, this means "we told you what we're doing, and that's all we need to do."
Paragraph 13 makes the Iraqis (or their oil) responsible for all rebuilding costs, and for supporting the costs of "continued disarmament." In other words, an open ended search, funded by the people being searched.
Paragraph 19 doesn't refer to administrative costs, as someone posted, but rather to compensation for enforcing UNSCR 687, which created UNSCOM, later replaced by UNMOVIC. I somehow doubt the US intends to compensate UN organizations for searching the country.
Paragraph 20 is a move to effectively repudiate all Iraqi pre-existing foreign debt, by making Iraq's main assets immune from any claims. That's rather dicey for the precedent it sets - it would be better to grant the Iraqi state a period of immunity, and then let the permanent government sort out foreign debt claims on it's own, when the government is off the ground and financially solvent.
Other than that, the UN is essentially being asked to grant it's legal authority to the occupying power "the Authority" with no accountablity other than financial accounting. "Yes, they spent the amount of money stated lining their pockets/nobly benefitting the Iraqi people."
The best move (not for the US, though) would be to divorce certain controversial elements from those that are totally benign, and have a separate resolution dealing strictly with the authority of "the Authority" and the manner of accountability to the UN, the Iraqi state and other international bodies to the extent appropriate.
What exactly is the nature of the authority assumed by "the Authority" referred to in the May 8, letter? Essentially, the resolution states that the Authority will consult with the UN on various matters, but that can be like the way I consult with my two year old son in telling him this is the way things are.
Like many UNSCRs, the wording is rather fluffy, cf Paragraph 6: "Calls upon the Authority to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people" essentially says that you can do whatever you want, as long as you cloak it in the rhetoric of "promoting the welfare of the Iraqi people."
The mechanism is to some extent set up that the UN is endorsing in advance any Authority action which is claimed to be undertaken in the interests of the Iraqi people. Does anyone really doubt that the US lawyers and staffers who drafted this language intend anything else?
Paragraph 12 gives total control of disbursement to the Authority, with only consultation with the Iraqi interim authority being required. In effect, this means "we told you what we're doing, and that's all we need to do."
Paragraph 13 makes the Iraqis (or their oil) responsible for all rebuilding costs, and for supporting the costs of "continued disarmament." In other words, an open ended search, funded by the people being searched.
Paragraph 19 doesn't refer to administrative costs, as someone posted, but rather to compensation for enforcing UNSCR 687, which created UNSCOM, later replaced by UNMOVIC. I somehow doubt the US intends to compensate UN organizations for searching the country.
Paragraph 20 is a move to effectively repudiate all Iraqi pre-existing foreign debt, by making Iraq's main assets immune from any claims. That's rather dicey for the precedent it sets - it would be better to grant the Iraqi state a period of immunity, and then let the permanent government sort out foreign debt claims on it's own, when the government is off the ground and financially solvent.
Other than that, the UN is essentially being asked to grant it's legal authority to the occupying power "the Authority" with no accountablity other than financial accounting. "Yes, they spent the amount of money stated lining their pockets/nobly benefitting the Iraqi people."
The best move (not for the US, though) would be to divorce certain controversial elements from those that are totally benign, and have a separate resolution dealing strictly with the authority of "the Authority" and the manner of accountability to the UN, the Iraqi state and other international bodies to the extent appropriate.
Methinks you clicked the wrong thread.
Comment