The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
>Suzy Kane wrote: " But won't
>extracting oil in Iraq be a problem for a while? Is the UN escrow fund
>large enough to dip into for humanitarian aid without the further sale
>of oil?"
It is not clear whether, as allegded (see below) the UN escrow/oil for food
account has $48 billion (!)in it.
Since it takes time, I think six months, for profits from oil for food
to show up in the escrow account, there must presently be money in the
account. Another reason why I think there must be money in the account is that
the US and UK habitually hold up most contracts going to Iraq, and therefore
money
is not spent. I propose
a) finding out exactly how much is in the escrow account.
b) demanding that proceeds from that account continue to flow as
humanitarian aid, either through NGOs, the Red Cross, a neutral country
(Malaysia?) or the Arab League
c) have the escrow account be open for individual private donations if
the flow of humanitarian aid can be secured.
Philippa
Ppg sent the CASI list this which shows that in Russia at least
it is an issue:
Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/03/20/042.html
Thursday, Mar. 20, 2003. Page 7
Report: U.S. Plans to Tap $40Bln Iraq Account
More than $40 billion from Iraqi crude sales are sitting in an escrow
account controlled by the United Nations, and the United States and Britain
want to use it to pay for humanitarian war aid, The Associated Press reported
Wednesday. The news agency said the $40 billion figure came from "previously
undisclosed UN figures," and represented money Baghdad was unable to spend
under the oil-for-food program, which was introduced to soften the blow of
economic
sanctions imposed on Iraq after it invaded neighboring Kuwait in 1990.
Citing unnamed diplomats and UN sources, the AP said Russia and the other
Security Council members have asked Secretary General Kofi Annan to oversee
any use of the money to avoid further conflicts within the council.
The proposal, which apparently envisages a quick overthrow of the Iraqi
regime,
will reportedly be put forward by Annan shortly after the war begins.
Neither Washington nor London will have direct access to the alleged cash,
which
would ease their liabilities in rebuilding a post-war Iraq.
It would also mean the end of any deals that Russian, French or other
countries
have with Baghdad through the oil-for-food program, according to the AP.
A UN spokesman for the program said Iraq has $1.3 billion in nonearmarked
funds on an account set up for the northern regions of the country.
He could not say how much there might be in the account on top of that in
funds
pegged for deals that have not yet been concluded .
A senior UN diplomat involved with the program in New York said late
Wednesday that the UN liked to keep details of those earmarked funds "close to
its chest."
Another account, for the central and southern regions of the country, has a
cumulative shortfall of almost $5.4 billion in approved contracts that could
not be covered by revenues due to fluctuations in the oil supply, the UN
spokesman said.It also has another $9 billion in funds earmarked for other
deals still in the pipeline.
However, the senior diplomat denied that Iraq had $40 billion in any or
all of its United Nations' accounts.
"The $40 billion is the amount that has gone through one of Iraq's UN
accounts under the oil-for-food program over the last six years,'' he said on
condition of anonymity. "That's how much has been used."
The plan being put forward by the United States and Britain would not
end the oil-for-food program, but adapt it, he said, adding that the goal was
to give humanitarian supplies of foodstuffs and medicines priority over
equipment.
The idea is to make use of deals totaling $6 billion that have already
been approved, but not yet delivered, he said.
Russia has been a major supplier under the oil-for-food program, making
it
potentially the biggest loser if the program is wound up.
France is the next biggest supplier, followed by Sudan, the United Arab
Emirates, and China, according to the UN. Russia's Economic Development and
Trade Ministry released figures Wednesday showing that Russian oil firms won
contracts to sell 124 million barrels of Iraqi oil in 2002, or 40 percent of
the country's total crude exports.
Some 15 Russian firms brokered Iraqi crude deals worth a total of $2.8
billion last year, the ministry said.
In addition, some 60 Russian firms exported a total of $1.5 billion
worth of goods, services and equipment to Iraq in 2002.
French diplomats told The Associated Press that France and Russia want
Iraq's funds to remain under UN control, rather than the U.S. or Britain.
The oil-for-food program was suspended Monday because of the evacuation
of UN staff from Iraq. A new resolution is necessary to continue the flow of
humanitarian goods into Iraq because the current agreement was made with the
government of Saddam Hussein.
===== Original Message From "Suzy T. Kane" <suzytkane@starband.net> =====
>Good points, Philippa, but I would like to add another question: the
>oil-for-food program is part of the sanctions system, so why isn't the
>lifting of sanctions included in the so-called "liberation" of Iraq? To
>keep sanctions going after the war would be a scandal.
>
>Perhaps the UN could administer humanitarian help for the Iraqis outside
>the oil-for-food plan through NGO's, as Philippa suggests. But won't
>extracting oil in Iraq be a problem for a while? Is the UN escrow fund
>large enough to dip into for humanitarian aid without the further sale
>of oil?
>
>Suzy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
>[mailto:casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk] On Behalf Of pjw8
>Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 8:06 AM
>To: casi-discuss; peter kiernan; pjw8
>Subject: RE: [casi] oil for food program stopped
>
>
>>Yes, this raises several important issues. First of all, Iraq
>is effectively now under complete siege BY THE ORDER OF THE UN. If the
>UN
>Security Council did not vote for this war, then how is it that the UN
>oil for
>food program has been stopped? Saying it is because UN officials
>running the
>program, had to leave Iraq, is a poor excuse.
>In cases of an attack by an aggressor, there should be a back-up plan
>to keep the income flowing into the country. For example, the UN could
>have turned the management of the oil for food program over to non-
>governmental organizations.
>And, as Peter Kiernan says, where does that leave the UN Escrow Account
>after
>the war?
>The point is, the oil for food program needs to be reinstated as soon
>as possible, and that falls under the mandate of the UN Security
>Council.
>Perhaps someone with contacts on the Security Council, or a media
>reporter,
>could follow up on this ASAP, Philippa Winkler
>
>===== Original Message From peter kiernan <pvk66@starpower.net> =====
>>There were some media reports last week that the US has a plan to
>employ
>>Iraqi soldiers in reconstruction work after the war, and pay their
>salaries.
>>Donald Rumsfeld stated that money to pay these salaries would come from
>>Iraq's overseas frozen assets, and from the Oil for Food program
>account. To
>>my knowledge there is no facility in the now suspended program to pay
>>salaries for civil servants or military personnel, and any change would
>>require a SC resolution. No-one in the press picked up that the funds
>for
>>oil for food are kept in a UN controlled escrow account, and there
>would be
>>legality issues if the US or any-one else wanted to get access to it. I
>>think this is something worth following.
>>Peter Kiernan
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "pjw8" <Philippa.Winkler@NAU.EDU>
>>To: "casi-discuss" <casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk>
>>Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:30 PM
>>Subject: [casi] oil for food program stopped
>>
>>
>>> Friends,
>>> The US Department of Energy is now giving daily updates on energy
>prices
>>etc,
>>> because of the war:
>>> website:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/security/esar/esar.html.
>>>
>>> This was sent by the DoE:
>>>
>>> "Production/Export/Infrastructure Developments
>>> Iraq: As of Thursday morning, Iraqi oil exports effectively were
>halted
>>except
>>> for a small amount of remaining oil to be loaded from storage tanks
>at
>>> Turkey's
>>> port of Ceyhan. This is because, with the departure of UN staff from
>Iraq
>>and
>>> with war appearing imminent, the UN "oil-for-food" program is
>effectively
>>on
>>> hold. Earlier reports had indicated that no oil was leaving Iraq's
>Persian
>>> Gulf
>>> port of Mina al-Bakr, and that buyers were shying away from purchases
>of
>>Iraqi
>>> oil. As of 9 AM Thursday, there have been reports (on Kuwaiti and
>Iranian
>>> television) regarding possible oil fires near Basra in southern Iraq.
>>Iraqi
>>> Oil
>>> Minister Rasheed has denied these reports. In statements made on
>Thursday
>>> afternoon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that he has seen
>>indications
>>> that the Iraqi regime may have set fires to oil wells in the South.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on
>Iraq.
>>> To unsubscribe, visit
>>http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
>>> To contact the list manager, email
>casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
>>> All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
>>To unsubscribe, visit
>http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
>>To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
>>All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
>To unsubscribe, visit
>http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
>To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
>All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
>To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
>To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
>All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk