Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Brumar89 who wrote (111971)	8/19/2003 2:43:22 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) of 281500

The US, as an occupying power is in control of Iraqi oil. The US, after occupation (assuming the occupation ever ends), will control Iraqi oil through contracts signed now under its power of occupation. If Iraq is ever liberated, it will be on terms set by the United States. The UN trade sanctions in place that forbade the export of oil except under the oil for food program administered by the UN. That program expired on June 3rd. The US would be in blatant violation of international law if it exported Iraqi oil without first moving to end trade sanctions. The lifting of trade sanctions required a UN Security Council Resolution -- 1492 -- to assign responsibility for managing Iraq's resources. This is no way legitimizes the occupation, but it does acknowledge that there is an army of occupation in Iraq with responsibilities under international law. 1492 is written to acknowledge that the US is governed by the international laws that apply to an occupying power -- not a liberating power. You cannot "liberate" and "occupy" at the same time. It is one or the other. There is no Iraqi government and we have an army of occupation in control of Iraq -- that is "occupation". The Geneva and Hague Conventions apply to the US as an occupying power. The US set up an administrative process that the UN would agree to and that leaves the US with control of the process of extracting, distributing, selling and controlling the revenues from Iraqi oil. The real power of the US is to sign contracts and to destroy old contracts -- although the right to destroy contracts as an army of occupation applies to whatever government is eventually formed in Iraq. The argument to destroy contracts under Saddam is that Saddam did not represent the Iraqi people. The problem with this thinking is that the United States military occupation in no way represents the Iraqi people. Any contracts the US puts in place now could be repudiated by a new Iraqi government. The US will seek some means to force a new Iraqi government to surrender their right to destroy US contracts after a transition. The US occupation will be in force until a new government is established and control is clearly transferred.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next