UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Talking Points on the Process of MOU Implementation

  1. Since six phases of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by Iraq and the UN Secretariat on 20 May 1995 have been implemented, the Government of the Republic of Iraq has been to abide by the provisions of MOU as a temporary and exceptional measure. It has also fully cooperated with the UN agencies in the consideration and discussion of the needs of sectors covered by the procurement and distribution plans with a view to supply items within the period of time specified for each phase and to meet some basic needs of the Iraqi people.
  2. A review of the implementation of the six phases shows that certain members in the Security Council, namely the US and Britain, keep on impeding a sound implementation of the MOU through a series of illegal practices involving dubious political purposes aimed at politicizing the MOU, which was primarily designed to meet some humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. To this end, the said members have been abusing their membership in the Sanctions Committee by placing contracts for humanitarian items to be exported to Iraq “on hold” under frivolous pretexts. It is noteworthy that contracts put on hold up to 18 Feb, 2000 numbered 1000, with a total value of $ 1.762 M.
  3. The methods and pretexts taken up by the US and Britain for placing in hold contracts for humanitarian items are on hold illegal all and illogical. The allegations as “dual-use items” or that of lack of information to be available in contracts are untrue and baseless. The questions : Does the import of oily dustless school blackboards or of wooden doors and glass for classrooms fall within the import of dual-use items”.
  4. Since the start of this program in Dec, 1995, the US Secretary-General’s periodical reports on the program me implementation has certified that the program me observers have made hundreds of thousands of field visits to ascertain that all items purchased under the program had been distributed in a fair manner, and used for the intended purposes. The latest report was that of 22 Nov,1999 (doc. S/1999/1162) which stated that “during the period of the report (180 days), the Geographical Monitoring unit made a total of 5709 monitoring visits covering all the program sectors, throughout the country. The World Food Program (WFP) observers made 79120 visits (during the period covered by the report). No report by the UN Secretary General has indicated the use of any imported items for a different purpose. This by itself, refutes the allegations of the US and British representatives that there is no monitoring on the distribution of items imported under the MOU.
  5. Following is some of the main obstacles of the implementation of MOU since its start:

-The program Secretariat delays in submitting contracts to the Sanctions Committee, sometime for over 6 months, which has resulted in the accumulation of large numbers of contracts registered in the program but still unapproved despite of the availability of the needed funds.

- Holding on the contracts for humanitarian items by the US and British representatives in the Sanctions Committee, which belong to the sectors directly connected with a people live, namely electricity, water and sewage, communications, food stuff and that of oil sector. Such holding does not only deprive Iraq of the benefits of humanitarian items, include in the same contract, but also, in many cases, deprives it of the benefits of other contracts already delivered to Iraq, but they constipate along with the items of the held contract as an integrated package, a part of which would be useless without its bearing supplemented by the other parts. An example of this was a contract for serums which were delivered to Iraq, whereas another relevant contract for injections was put on hold, Another example was that of a contract for an electric power station spare parts received by Iraq, while another contract for same station parts was put on hold.

  1. Delay of coverage procedure for contracts approved by the Sanctions Committee pending the chairman’s signing of the notification of approval. It sometimes takes three weeks.
  2. Delay of credit execution by BNP Bank despite of the issuance of contract coverage notifications, because of a series of unjustifiable inquiries and remarks on the letter of credit
  3. A scrutinizing company, Cotecna, approves of shipping documents of incompatible items with the respective specifications and forwarding them to BNP in New York for payment without due consideration to the importers concerns to hold the payment. The continuation of this procedure results in wastage of Iraqi funds and allowing the companies to violate their obligations mentioned in the contracts and to evade from their legal responsibility for the violation.
  4. In spite of its approval of some contracts which require moving them from a phase to another, due to the to the lack of allocations, the Sanctions Committee insists on that these contracts should be reconsidered by it as if they were new, which leads to further unjustifiable delay.
  5. The Iraq Program and the Sanctions Committee persistence in depriving Iraq of the right to add good-performance warrants to the contracts, induces the exporting companies to violate the respective specifications of goods .
  6. The Iraq Program office has not taken into account the field reports of the Coordinator office and the operating agencies in Iraq which reflect the facts precisely.
  7. The Government of Iraq put before you all these facts which prove that the program has not and will not eliminate the great human suffering which the Iraqi people has been subject to for about ten years now. The anti Iraq forces in the Security Council seek to turn this program, though its insufficient and modest, from allegedly means to ease our people’s suffering into a tool to inflict greater harm upon them.
  1. The resignations of both the UN Coordinator and the Head of WFP’s office in Iraq are clear expression that the “oil - for – food ” program does not meet the minimum of the basic needs of the Iraqi people. The only alternation is the total lifting of the unfair embargo imposed on Iraq for ten years now.
  2. While we hold the United States and Britain responsibility for the continuation of the iniquitous embargo on Iraq with all its grave consequences on our people , we appeal to all the honest and fair – minded in the world to raise their voices loudly to express their clear and positive attitude which their human and moral responsibilities dictate upon them by urging these two states to stop their hostile policies against the Iraqi people, their daily military aggression on Iraq and to remove the illegitimate so- called “no- fly” zones.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list