March 26, 2003
WHY WE'LL BE FRIENDLY TO THE FRENCH - FOR A WHILE:
Oil for Iraqis, Not the French (Wall Street Journal editorial, 3/26/2003)
A good place for the U.S. to start rebuffing ... European conceit would be to throw over the side the U.N.'s corrupt oil-for-food program.U.N. Security Council members have been haggling this week over the fate of that program and the $40 billion said to be sitting in its escrow accounts....
But while Secretary-General Kofi Annan has proposed a resolution that would give him interim authority over the program and allow him to start the flow of humanitarian supplies, France and Russia have declared they will block anything acknowledging that the status quo has changed. Jacques Chirac says he will "not accept" any resolution that "would legitimize the military intervention" and "give the belligerents the powers to administer Iraq."
As usual, the French and Russian position has more to do with commercial interests than any principled opposition to "legitimizing" the use of force. Oil-for-food has been a giant racket whereby Saddam has rewarded the firms of friendly countries with U.N.-approved contracts and kept most of the food for his Baathist allies.
The U.N. is notoriously corrupt - third world elites routinely join the U.N. bureaucracy poor and go home wealthy, after living it up at New York's finest restaurants - but the oil-for-food program created an entirely new kind of corruption. First, the U.N. got to skim off "expenses" from a flow of cash that approached $10 billion a year for much of the 1990s, bathing the U.N. in virtually limitless cash. Second, Saddam got to negotiate all the contracts for both oil sales and goods purchases, and he routinely paid above-market prices while directing deals to the companies of France, Germany, and Russia -- and what he received in return, we do not know.
Now, the French are apparently trying to use their U.N. powers of veto over the disposition of the $40 billion in escrow to obtain a continuation of Saddam-era contracts. (See here for signs of French confidence.) Meanwhile, Kofi Annan apparently wants authority to spend the whole $40 billion himself, not just $1 billion or so in "expenses."
During the run-up to the Iraq war, the U.N. failed to show it could play a positive role in international events. If it withholds the $40 billion escrow accounts from the Iraqi people, the U.N. will show that it plays a negative and obstructionist role. I think the Bush administration can reasonably take a hard line in these negotiations.
I assume they have good intelligence on Kofi Annan's Swiss bank accounts, and will soon have proof of French and Russian collaboration with Saddam. I expect they will negotiate by publicly making nice while privately threatening to expose malfeasance and to suspend U.S. contributions to the U.N. I expect they'll succeed in getting the $40 billion to its rightful owners, the Iraqi people.
Posted by Paul Jaminet at March 26, 2003 8:05 AMThere's an interesting article in NRO on the battle between Chirac and Blair.
Chirac plays hardball. (Like Saddam.)
In a more normal world, his cards wouldn't be extraordinary, but this is no normal world; and I can imagine a scenario where the French will do their utmost to spin French, obstructionism 180 degrees, as US obstructionism, should the US, having decided it's had enough of being jerked around by the UN, choose to rebuild Iraq independently of that august organization.
Albeit, Iraqi oil could be used by the US in the rebuilding effort, even though by doing so, Bush would likely encourage the canard that the war was fought for oil (remembering that this is no normal world).
The question is, does Bush have the nerve?
The signs are ominous, as the rush by Blair and Straw to insist on solving the Palestinians-Israeli problem suggests that Blair (likely with Bush in tow) feels that he must do his best to placate that part of the world that is unplactable.
Mr. Judd;
We don't know what Saddam Hussein recieved in return for those contracts? I think that last year has made it crystal clear that he got real value for his 30 pieces of silver.
PJ;
Hopefully you'll get over being referred to as a Judd – if you couldn't take that you shouldn't have signed up.
I wonder what would happen if the new Iraqi government sued in the World Court to reposess those funds? How will France and Anan look saying that they can spend the money on Iraq better than the Iraqis? I wonder if the money is really still there.
PJ:
You left out "Third": third was that, whether by intent or as an effect, we imposed murderous sanctions on the regime which were only lifted to the extent of requiring Saddam to ship us oil. The reality is that the "peace" represented blood for oil as much as does the war, if not more.
Annoying Old Guy,
We're on his doorstep ready to bust down the door and take him out! A lot of good those 30 pieces of silver have done him. What he bought, though, is the destruction of the UN. Ahh...the law of unintended consequences.
AOG - Yes, we can be certain Saddam got good value for his money, but we don't know the details. I'd like to know more. I'd like evidence to help judge whether the French were just money-grubbing rogues, or were actively seeking to harm the U.S.
You're right that the new Iraqi government will carry a great deal of moral weight. This is another reason why I expect French resistance will crumble.
OJ - you're right, the last 12 years have been a moral travesty.
Before discussing the afterwar, it's maybe appropriate to try winning the war. That is definitely not happening. The advance has stopped, the troops are worn out, they are under constant rearguard attack, the Iraqis have rallied around Saddam etc... And now there are reports that the RG is moving on a massive scale to cut off the US troops that are dangerously exposed, hundreds of miles into hostile territory. A brilliant plan indeed. Saddam couldn't have done it any better himself.
Posted by: Peter at March 26, 2003 10:44 AMPeter;
You need to read more military history. Even with a major battle field defeat this would still be a very successful campaign. Advancing as fast as you can drive is a phenominal success. And as has been mentioned elsewhere, I doubt there's much our military command would like better than Iraqi military units moving around outside of urban areas. No troops are “dangerously exposed” as long as we own the air. Our troop are worn out because they've been advancing so rapidly so that's a mark of success
. Read about Tarawa, Achen or Guadalcanal if you want to know what hard fighting really is. The fact that we can have multi hundred click supply lines that work shows that the Iraqi military is just not very capable.
How do we know that we have such terrific supply lines ? I'm afraid that this was a foolish charge ahead, much like the valiant Polish cavalery attacking the German Panzers. They were brave soldiers too (and their compatriots who managed to get out of Poland were among the best troops on the Allied side throughout the war), but they were very dead at the end of the German-Polish war.
Posted by: Peter at March 26, 2003 1:37 PMTo the UN issue - I too am worried that Blair will push Bush to give the UN/France/Germany/Russia a larger role in post-Iraq than they should.
To the military strategy issue - the RG advance was noted elsewhere - either this greatly helps the US (RG forces moving out into the open) or they know the US doesn/t
AWW -
These things usually end in compromise -- we're not going to waste energy and political capital killing the UN -- so the UN will get some humanitarian role. But, I predict, we won't give them decision-making power (as in having to get a Security Council resolution to do things), authority over money (as in oil-for-food), or a continuing presence (as in the refugee camps that Palestinians still occupy 55 years after they were set up).
Peter - They've already taking steps to secure the supply lines. They'll only get more secure each day.
Posted by: Paul Jaminet at March 26, 2003 2:55 PMThe advance for the first 3 or 4 days amounted
to "driving in the pickets."
Now, the past couple days, there seems to
have been some organized resistance at a
couple of road crossings.
Not much of a battle and therefore not much
of a triumph, except of logistics, which however
is what wins wars.
I have said for months that the war, once it
began, would be over in 48 hours. I'm
sticking with that.
If the two armies fight a pitched battle, it
won't even be 48 hours. If the Iraqis
disperse or try a city fight, the war will have
ended at that point, though the fighting will
likely last a while longer.
Except for bombing, this war has hardly begun.
Marching across empty desert is not a
campaign, it is preparatory to a campaign.
Peter:
If we had horses and the Iraqis Panzers you might be right.