Liberating Iraq’s oil imports from the grip of the American administration is a national duty
Liberating Iraq’s oil imports from the grip of the American administration is a national duty
2024-03-22
Hussein Al-Askari
My goal in writing this topic is to clarify an important fact, which is that, contrary to what is rumored by Iraqi politicians and media figures out of ignorance or deliberately to hide the facts from the Iraqi people for unknown purposes, there is no UN Security Council resolution that forces Iraq to put its oil imports into account. “Development Fund for Iraq” in the US Federal Bank, as has been done since May 2003. This act is also an American and Iraqi violation of Security Council Resolution No. 1956, issued in December 2010, which stipulates the closure of the “Development Fund for Iraq” and the transfer of What is deposited in it to the Central Bank of Iraq. The decision to place funds from Iraq’s oil exports in an account at the Federal Reserve Bank came as a decision by Paul Bremer, the American governor of Iraq after the invasion in 2003, and was supported by a presidential decree signed by US President George W. Bush on May 22, 2003. This was a purely American decision that had nothing to do with it. With international resolutions, nor the issue of Article Seven, which is used as a scarecrow to frighten the Iraqi people of the consequences of violating the orders and desires of the American occupier.
The issue of item seven
Let us first explain where the issue of placing Iraq under Title VII (which means the use of force or the threat of use of force to force Iraq to implement United Nations resolutions) came from and how Iraq got out of this clause in 2013.
When Saddam’s regime invaded and occupied Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the Security Council met on the same day in New York and issued Resolution No. 660, which demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait and called on the two parties (i.e., Iraq and Kuwait) to settle their differences peacefully and through dialogue. That is, the resolution did not include Article Seven: He did not threaten to use force.
But because Iraq did not implement Article Two of Resolution 660, which stipulates the immediate withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the Security Council followed that up with Resolution No. 661 on August 6, 1990, which imposed on Iraq to implement this under Article Seven. The resolution also called for a complete halt to all exports and imports to and from Iraq and Kuwait (i.e. an economic blockade). Here Iraq came under the penalty of Chapter Seven.
The Security Council issued about eleven resolutions pertaining to Iraq until April 1991 after the liberation of Kuwait. The fateful Resolution 687 was issued on April 8, 1991, which established the economic blockade on Iraq with the exception of some foodstuffs and medicines, and the establishment of United Nations committees to inspect weapons. Mass destruction and destruction, establishing a border demarcation committee, establishing a compensation fund for Kuwait and those affected by other countries as a result of the Iraqi invasion, forming a committee to search for the fate of Kuwaiti prisoners and missing persons in Iraq as well as citizens of other countries, and establishing a fund to pay Iraq’s previous debts. This decision established the era of economic blockade, humiliation, hunger and poverty in Iraq and paved the way for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Other decisions were issued to establish the issue of the compensation fund and to export Iraqi oil on a limited basis to finance the fund, such as Resolution 692 on May 20, 1991.
These decisions, which were under Clause Seven, will be canceled later (as will be stated below) after Iraq fulfills its obligations or proves that it is committed to fulfilling its obligations.
Iraq was released from Title Seven captivity in 2013 before completing the payment of compensation to Kuwait
It is worth noting that completing the payment of compensation is no longer linked to Chapter 7 since the issuance of Security Council Resolution No. 2107, which removed Iraq from Chapter 7 on June 27, 2013, that is, nine years before the completion of the payment of compensation to Kuwait.
The reason, as stated in the text of the resolution, is that Iraq has shown full cooperation in settling the issue of finding Kuwaiti prisoners and missing persons from other countries in Iraq or finding and returning their remains, and also because Iraq was committed to completing the payment of compensation to Kuwait. That is, the compensation has not been paid in full yet, but Article Seven will be removed from Iraq because it has shown good faith and cooperation in completing this file in the coming years as well.
If Iraq left Clause Seven, all decisions in previous resolutions were cancelled, the most important of which were No. 661, 687, and 692, all of which fell under Clause Seven.
Resolution 2621 was issued on February 22, 2022 by the Security Council, in which it confirmed that Iraq had completed paying all compensation to Kuwait and the rest of those affected by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and it was decided to close the Compensation Committee and the Compensation Fund.
US control of Iraqi oil imports after the invasion in 2003
After the issue of the illegal American-British invasion of Iraq, which violates the United Nations Charter for the Protection of the Sovereignty and Independence of Nations (Article Two, Fourth Paragraph, of the United Nations Charter) became a reality, and after the collapse of Saddam’s regime, the Security Council had to accept the new situation and establish the post-invasion phase, because the United States The United States and Britain have become responsible for the situation in Iraq as an occupying force. Therefore, Resolution 1483 was issued by the UN Security Council on May 22, 2003.
Voting on the resolution and its formulation came at the request of the representatives of the United States, Britain, and Northern Ireland, as stated in the text of the resolution.
It has also been proven that the occupying countries are responsible for all aspects of life in Iraq under the “coalition authority” as an occupying authority responsible for managing the affairs of Iraq, the occupied country. This means that it is also authorized to dispose of Iraq’s resources.
The decision was also proven to have been taken under Clause Seven.
The resolution addressed various issues, including disarmament, the previous regime, the call to help Iraq transition to a normal situation, the creation of the Iraqi Development Fund of Iraq (DFI), which required the receipt of all oil revenues therein, assistance to Iraq to solve the debt problem, and deduction of compensation at a certain percentage. From all oil revenues. The resolution also stipulated the cancellation of economic sanctions on Iraq, the end of the “Oil for Food Program,” the transfer of funds allocated to it (about 10 billion dollars according to some reports), and the transfer of responsibility to the coalition authority.
Paragraphs (12, 13, and 14) that established the “Development Fund for Iraq” did not mention the US Federal Reserve, nor where its headquarters or account number is located. Rather, it confirms that “it is placed in the custody of the Central Bank of Iraq. However, its resources are disposed of by the ruling coalition authority in consultation with Interim Iraqi administration.
Text of Article 12 of Resolution 1483: – Refers to the establishment of a development fund for Iraq, which will be placed in the custody of the Central Bank of Iraq, and whose accounts will be audited by independent public accountants approved by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board for the Development Fund for Iraq.
The American President directly seizes the Development Fund for Iraq
On the same day that UN Security Council Resolution No. 1483 was issued, that is, on May 22, 2003, US President George W. Bush signed Presidential Decree or Executive Order No. 13303, entitled “Protection of the Development Fund for Iraq and Other Property in which Iraq Has an Interest.”
(Protecting the Development Fund of Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest)
Accordingly, the American President became an official trustee of the Iraq Development Fund and oil export funds. But according to American law, not international law. It is clear that the American administration was prepared for the issuance of the Security Council resolution that it had called for and contributed to drafting, and it attacked the fund only hours after the issuance of the United Nations resolution, meaning that the fund had not yet been actually established, but even before its birth it had become at the disposal of the American president. All Presidents of the United States subsequently annually renewed this presidential decree in May of each year, the last of which was President Joe Biden signing the renewal on May 16, 2023.
The Provisional Destruction Authority, led by Paul Bremer, which proposed establishing the fund to the United Nations, was the one that decided to place the account number for the Development Fund for Iraq in the US Federal Reserve, not the United Nations.
It may be possible to argue legally that since the United States is responsible for Iraq’s funds because it is an occupying state, it has the right to dispose of the fund and where it is based. But why did the situation continue as it was after the end of the occupation was announced, even in name, and the signing of the “Strategic Cooperation Framework” agreement between Iraq and the United States in 2008, which stipulates that American forces are present in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government and not an occupation imposed by the United States? United?
The Security Council abolishes the Development Fund for Iraq in 2010
None of the successive Iraqi governments have demanded changing the headquarters of the Development Fund for Iraq to the Central Bank of Iraq in Baghdad.
But on December 15, 2010, the UN Security Council unanimously (i.e., with the approval of the United States) issued Resolution No. 1956, after the letter sent by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to the Security Council “in which he affirmed the Iraqi government’s commitment not to request further extensions.” of the arrangements of the Development Fund for Iraq, and that oil revenues will be used fairly. He pointed to the important role of the Development Fund and the International Advisory and Monitoring Council.”
The decision stipulates that the fund will be canceled and UN supervision of it will end no later than June 30, 2011.
Text of Security Council Resolution 1956:
Article Five: Indicates the transfer of all proceeds from the Iraq Development Fund to the account or accounts of successor arrangements established by the Government of Iraq and the closure of the Iraq Development Fund no later than June 30, 2011, and requests that the Council be provided with proof of A written statement as soon as the transfer of proceeds is completed and the fund is closed.
Issuing this decision means canceling Resolution No. 1483 issued in 2003.
It is worth noting that from that moment on, the United Nations no longer supervised the Fund and could not scrutinize its affairs, and it only became under the complete control of the United States. Was that the goal of the Iraqi Prime Minister when he asked the Security Council not to renew the fund?
Accordingly, the American administration and the Iraqi government are in violation of United Nations Resolution 1956 issued in 2010, which means that on the one hand, a complaint can be filed against the Iraqi government by Iraqi citizens or members of parliament about this, and also a complaint can be filed against the United States government for its seizure of a development fund. Iraq and Iraq’s oil imports and exports, in contravention of United Nations resolutions.
But as I am not a legal expert, I put this information in front of those who are competent, and also those who have responsibility before the Iraqi people, to formulate it in the correct legal manner and present it to the relevant authorities.
burathanews.com
