With water supplies scarce and hospitals overflowing, global aid organizations are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Ironically, trade sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United States, the United Nations and other global organizations have created an awkward legal situation that stands in the way of assistance getting to the war-torn country.
The UN embargo against Iraq, dating to 1990, covers the importation of all goods and services that the United States or Britain would use for the country’s reconstruction. Last week, the US House and Senate passed legislation that would alter or lift US sanctions.
In the meantime, American firms are sending personnel to the country as humanitarian and reconstruction efforts get under way.
Currently, however, only US nongovernmental organizations and other groups are allowed into Iraq for emergency humanitarian purposes and to assess the needs of the Iraqi people. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is in charge of $1.7 billion in contracts for Iraq’s postwar reconstruction.
USAID contracts that have been put out for bid include seaport administration, airport administration, capital construction such as emergency repair of the electrical supply, water and sanitation systems, logistical support, such as warehousing and customs clearance, public health, education, local government and personnel support.
A European Union spokeswoman said last week that the 15-nation group would examine all USAID contracts to ensure they comply with global trade rules.
“We are studying the contracts on a case-by-case basis to see if they respect WTO (World Trade Organization) rules,” the EU’s Arancha Gonzalez told reporters.
The United Nations is responsible for dispersing Iraq’s oil revenue for food and humanitarian purchases.
Now the country’s oil income is being discussed as the source of funding for Iraq’s reconstruction needs.
The UN oil-for-food program was suspended before the Iraq conflict started but was adjusted and temporarily restarted on March 29.
The current UN mandate runs out on May 12, and the UN Security Council by then will have to reconsider the program.
However a delay in the lifting of the UN sanctions may be in the interest of many members of the UN Security Council — notably France and Germany — who opposed the US-led intervention in Iraq.
UN diplomats believe that before sanctions are ended, the world body must certify that Iraq is free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
In order to do this, the US must agree to re-admit UN arms inspectors.
At the risk of losing face diplomatically, President George W. Bush has decided to urge the UN to reverse the Iraqi sanctions. Last week, while delivering a speech in St. Louis, he said: “Now that Iraq is liberated, the United Nations should lift economic sanctions on that country.”
The speech was made to workers at a Boeing aircraft factory which assembles F-18 fighter jets known as Super Hornets.
Last week, US Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte told reporters that Washington was still working on the specifics of how sanctions would be lifted but added: “I think we envision some sort of step-by-step procedure.”
Even if the sanctions are lifted, another issue complicates the rebuilding of Iraq: Who should oversee the reconstruction of Iraq — the invading forces or world aid agencies?
The idea of the United States and Great Britain’s militaries offering humanitarian — or any other — reconstruction aid is met with skepticism by some European nations, particularly France.
Following recent talks with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, French President Jacques Chirac said: “It is the job of the United Nations, and it alone, to take on the political, economic, humanitarian and administrative reconstruction of Iraq.”
For their part, US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have said that the United Nations should indeed play a “vital role” in postwar Iraq.
This is widely interpreted to be restricted to providing humanitarian aid, not in terms of helping reconstruct the country’s government or industry.
Swiss-based aid agencies like the International Committee for the Red Cross are far less critical of the idea of getting assistance from the US and UK. In fact, they point out that the Geneva Convention requires an invading power to provide such aid.
Nonetheless, Florian Westphal, spokesman for the ICRC, says, “What we are worried about is when, among the people of Iraq, the idea spreads that the military organizations and aid organizations are one and the same.
“We have to see to it that we continue to be seen as neutral and independent. If this reputation gets lost among the people because they think of us as soldiers, then we have a serious problem.”
Arab News Opinion 22 April 2003