----- Original Message -----
From: Francisco Javier Bernal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 1:55 PM
Subject: The Biggest Robbery Of The Century [STOPNATO.ORG.UK]


STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK

> http://www.dailystarnews.com/200012/09/n0120902.htm#BODY4
>
> The Biggest Robbery Of The Century
>
> by Rafiq A Tschannen
> Daily Star (Bangladesh), 9th December
>
> DURING the gulf war 1991 the USA has destroyed the water distribution
> system of Iraq and thereby violated the Geneva war convention. Only
> recently an American High School teacher submitted a study which
> proved that the wilful destruction of a whole country was carried
> out with a strategic calculation. Nearly ten years later the whole
> population of Iraq continues to pay the price of the stubbornness of
> the USA and Iraq's leader Saddam Hussain. There is no end in sight
> in this situation. On the contrary during the US election campaign
> both candidates were eager to outdo each other in their anti-Iraq
> feelings. And quietly the robbing of Iraq continues as the work of
> the UNCC United Nations Compensation Commission shows, an obscure
> entity, which sucks off one third of all Iraqi export earnings.
>
> The UNCC has existed for the last ten years and remains nearly
> unknown to the public. But actually this discretely operating
> institution is one the most important instruments in the destruction
> strategy against Iraq. The economic sanctions against Iraq are
> being covered by the media. We see on TV malnourished children and
> hospitals where the most basic items are missing. We see a whole
> country and a whole culture being permitted to deteriorate
> further and further. But hardly any journalist seems to be interested
> in the work of the UN Compensation Commission and in their doubtful
> legality and their dubious practices. And this in spite of the fact
> that since December 1996, 11 billion dollars, approximately one third
> of the export earnings of Iraq, have flown into the coffers of this
> commission.
>
> In April 1991, shortly after the defeat of Iraq, the UN security
> council decided that according to international law Iraq will be
> liable for all losses, damages.... which other states, individuals,
> or foreign corporations have had as an immediate result of the
> Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait. For the determination of
> such damages the UN compensation commission was created. The board
> of this commission is made up of representatives of the 15 members
> of the UN security council. The executive council, which has been
> dominated by its US members right from the start, is supposed
> to inform the commission, although disinform would be the more
> appropriate term.
>
> The method chosen by the Security Council is without parallel in
> history at least not since the Versailles Agreement at the end of
> World War I, which laid the foundation for the Second World War.
> In article 231 of the Versailles agreement Germany was made to pay.
> Hitler took advantage of this agreement that went too far. It was
> easy for him to point out that "enough is enough". The United States
> had not ratified the Versailles agreement, but today is carrying on
> in the same way "Iraq will pay!" How will this time?
>
> Iraq is not even recognized as a defendant party". Every petty
> criminal has the right of defence but the country of Iraq has no
> say in how and how much the country is bled. Every year 50 million
> dollars are being deducted from the Iraqi export earnings to
> finance the activities of the commission. Excellent salaries of the
> commission members and their travelling arrangements in business
> class are financed. For the first time in the history of countries
> since the Second World War a state has absolutely nothing to say
> about a juristic case that directly relates to it.
>
> Iraq has no right to vote at the UN because it did not pay its dues.
> At the same time the USA is in arrears for over one billion dollars.
> Just another small example of the double standards prevailing today.
> One law for the super power and another law for the rest of the world.
>
> No doubt Iraq does have a duty to provide compensation. But how can a
> law case be fought and presented without giving the other side a right
> to present their own case? For instance: The state of Kuwait had
> presented a claim for 21.6 billion dollars in 1994. Baghdad was given
> a summary of the claim five years later in 1999. The Iraqi Government
> was given a dateline of 19th September 2000. Iraq requested permission
> to use some fund out of the commission's funds actually Iraq's own
> export earnings! to pay for a legal office to scrutinize all the
> documents. The commission refused. After a long discussion finally
> Iraq was given one hour on 14th December 1999 to present its point
> of view. One hour to treat a 20 billion dollar claim! In spite of
> Russian and French reservations the compensation was fixed at 15.9
> billion dollars.
>
> The UN Secretary General had recommended in 1991 that Iraq "be informed
> about all claims and to be given the right to present to the commission
> their point of view." The commission did not follow the Secretary
> General's directive (or probably thought they could claim to follow
> him by giving that one hour to Iraq to discuss a multi billion dollar
> claim...).
>
> The UNCC justifies these practices through the necessity to process
> hundreds of thousands of claims. In fact 2.6 million claims relate to
> individuals. These amount to 20 billion dollars, a small part of the
> total claims of approximately 320 billion dollars. The amount of 15
> billion dollars approved for the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation amounts
> to about the total compensation approved for the 2.6 million individual
> persons. And it is double of what the Iraq central government was given
> from December 1996 to July 2000 for food and medicines of 15 million
> Iraqis.
>
> In the C-category, individual compensation, the US citizen Michael F.
> Raboin is the key figure. He brought along another American Norbert
> Wuhler. This team is of course highly biased. Staff members were
> shocked to continuously hear such instructions as the criteria should
> be interpreted in such a way that maximum approvals can be given, and
> doctoring the samples. It was made easy by the fact that most persons
> could not provide proof of their claims and as such mere statements
> of claimants were considered sufficient.
>
> Even more scandalous was the direct intervention of the US government
> to the executives of the commission to reinterpret the parameters in
> which the commission works. The practices of Washington remind one
> of the work of the UN special commission for the destruction of arms
> which were infiltrated by the CIA and totally manipulated by them
> (UNSCOM).
>
> The largest claims are still under consideration. As at 16th June
> 2000 a total amount of 267 billion dollars in claims was still
> outstanding. A large number of them are totally absurd and might
> well be rejected. Friends of the USA, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
> and Israel, are receiving preferential treatment. A good example
> how the commission works may be given in these instances: Many
> Israeli shops and businesses were compensated for lack of business
> during the war as for instance they were able to sell less flowers
> or less cinema tickets due to the political tensions of the Gulf war.
> Who would have got the idea that Great Britain could have claimed
> from Germany compensation for cinema tickets not sold during the
> Battle of Britain from 1939 to 1945?
>
> The total value of claims amounts to 320 billion dollars. Out of this
> amount 180 billion are claimed by Kuwait, that is 9-fold of the gross
> national product of Kuwait for 1989. Considering that for these claims
> one third of the export earnings of Iraq is being confiscated it would
> mean that Iraq might have paid off these claims by the year 2060. What
> will be left of the hospitals and schools by then?
>
> Is it justified to make a country pay without regard to its ability?
> In article 14 of the peace agreement between Japan and the United
> States dated 1951 it is stated: Japan must pay reparations to the
> allied powers for all damages occurred during the war. We however note
> that the resources of Japan and the economy will not be sufficient to
> pay for all such claims... and at the same time meet all their other
> obligations. It may be reminded that at that time the Japanese Emperor
> was also considered a war criminal just like now Saddam Hussain. UN
> resolution 687 does specially state that the requirements of the Iraqi
> people and the possibility to pay should be considered.
>
> Many jurists deny that the UN Security Council has the right to fix
> the amount of a compensation. In several cases the Israeli attack on
> the airport-of-Beirut in 1968, the Portuguese attack on Guinea in
> 1970, the South African excursion into Angola in 1976 did the Security
> Council state that compensation should be made. However for instance
> in the case of Angola the British Ambassador stated that. The Security
> Council is not a court, and therefore not the right place to decide
> about compensation claims.
>
> Shortly after the UNCC meeting of 28th September 2000 the Security
> Council decided to slightly amend the more scandalous points of the
> rules. As from December of this year the quota of the export earnings
> that will be confiscated by the commission will reduce from 30 to 25
> pre cent. Furthermore, the commission should consider the interest
> of Iraq a bit more. As a compensation to this improvement France and
> Russia agreed to the claim of 15.9 billion dollars, which is mostly
> going into the coffers of the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation. A deal
> which proves once more that it is the United States that plays the
> tune in the commission.
>
> The above mentioned actions of a UN commission bear ill for all other
> UN activities. How can we believe that other UN agencies have the
> welfare of the people as a whole at heart when the same UN permits
> itself to be manipulated in this way?

______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe,
write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to