• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

23 May 2003

New Resolution Defines "Vital Role" for U.N. in Iraq

(Holmes briefs May 23 at Foreign Press Center) (5190)
The United Nations will play a "vital role" in coordinating
humanitarian aid and reconstruction assistance in Iraq, says the State
Department's Assistant Secretary for International Organization
Affairs, Kim Holmes.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483, which the council approved May
22, marks a "turning point in the historical page in Iraq," Holmes
told journalists at a Washington Foreign Press Center briefing the
following day.
"The international community has come together to help Iraq build a
better future, and the Security Council has demonstrated its unity and
its resolve," said Holmes of the council's 14 to zero vote in favor of
the resolution.
In addition to ending nearly 13 years of economic sanctions, Holmes
noted that the resolution supports the establishment of a transitional
administration run by Iraqis, encourages the international community
to support Iraq's reconstruction, and asks the U.N. secretary general
to appoint a Special Representative to coordinate U.N. activities to
assist Iraq.
He also noted that the resolution recognizes the authority of
coalition forces under the Fourth Geneva Convention as an "occupying
power."
As an "occupying power" or provisional authority, Holmes said, the
coalition has the "rights and obligations" to take the lead during the
interim period, not only in reconstructing and rebuilding Iraq in the
near-term, but also in creating a process by which Iraqis can choose
their own future government.
Holmes said the U.N. special representative will support the authority
in these efforts and that the authority will work closely with the
special representative in a "transparent process" that will allow
Iraq's people to choose their own future government.
The resolution "lays out the principles that stress the right of the
Iraqi people to fully determine their own political future and to
control their own natural resources," said Holmes.
The resolution also establishes a "Development Fund for Iraq" to be
held in the central bank of Iraq, through which Iraqi oil revenues
from export sales will be deposited.
According to the resolution, the development fund is to be used to
meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic
reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued
disarmament of Iraq, for the costs of Iraqi civilian administration,
and "for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq."
The fund will be monitored by an international board that includes
representatives from the U.N. Secretary General, the Arab Fund for
Social and Economic Development, the IMF and the World Bank.
Independent public accountants will report to the board on
transactional transparency.
Holmes said the board will have auditing and monitoring functions to
ensure Iraqi revenues are spent on Iraqi reconstruction. While
reporting requirements are not yet determined, Holmes said the fund's
activities would be carried out in "a transparent and efficient and
legal manner."
Asked to clarify the resolution's definition of "other purposes
benefiting the people of Iraq" and whether the development fund might
be used to finance the "military occupation of Iraq," Holmes said the
U.S. does not envision any of the development funds being used to fund
"military occupation or military purposes."
"It [the Development Fund for Iraq] can be used for civil
administration but not for funding the military side of the problem,"
he said.
In response to a questioner charging that the coalition entered Iraq
because of proceeds it could derive from Iraqi oil revenues, Holmes
said, "this is clearly not the view of the Security Council."
"This resolution requires adequate international transparent oversight
of the use of these funds. And we have made it clear time and time
again, and I've made it clear here, that our presence in Iraq is
temporary," added Holmes.
The United States, he said, would be in Iraq "as long as necessary" to
provide the basic security and stability in which a political process
can be created by the Iraqi people to create their own government, but
"not a day longer."
"It's time to try to get moving," he said, "and get...these problems
solved for the Iraqi people."
Following is a transcript of the briefing:
(begin transcript)
"Understanding United Nations Resolution 1483"
Dr. Kim R. Holmes, Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs
Foreign Press Center Briefing
Washington, DC
May 23, 2003
10:00 A.M. (EDT) 
MR. SILAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the
Foreign Press Center. As you know, Iraq continues to dominate much of
the news. We are delighted to have another briefing on the subject
today, and to welcome again to the Foreign Press Center, Dr. Kim
Holmes, the Assistant Secretary of International Organization Affairs
at the Department of State. He will be briefing on the topic,
"Understanding UN Security Council Resolution 1483." He will have a
brief opening statement to make, and then he will be glad to take your
questions.
Dr. Holmes. 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Thank you very much. Good morning,
everyone. It's a pleasure to be here. The United States, with our
British and Spanish co-sponsors of the Resolution 1483, we welcome the
passage of this resolution. It lists -- lifts 13 years of sanctions
and it marks a turning point in the historical page in Iraq. The
international community has come together to help Iraq build a better
future, and the Security Council has demonstrated its unity and its
resolve, and the Iraqi people are the beneficiary of this decision.
As President Bush said yesterday on hearing the passage -- the news of
the passage of the resolution, the nations of the world have
demonstrated a unity and their commitment to help the Iraqi people on
their path towards a better future. This resolution does a number of
things. Of course, it lifts 13 years of sanctions, which we hope and
believe it will restart and kick-start Iraq's recovery and its
economic transformation.
This will enable Iraq to join the global market. It will return oil
revenues to Iraq and ensure that these Iraqi revenues are spent on
Iraqi reconstruction. Of course, as it does this, it will require that
a temporary immunization of oil sales, and also it provides for
provisions to wind down the Oil-for-Food program over a six-month
period.
This resolution also flushes out the details of defining a vital role
for the United Nations. It lays out the principles that stress the
right of the Iraqi people to fully determine their own political
future and to control their own natural resources. It ensures, through
a number of provisions, that Iraq -- that -- excuse me -- that the
special representative of the United Nations will play a vital role in
reconstruction of Iraq, and also encourages the international
community to support the rebuilding of Iraq.
Now, this is a tremendous accomplishment on the part of the Security
Council. It brings many of the members who had disagreements over the
last four months back together again in a very positive and
constructive agenda. It was very pragmatic. We are very pleased that
there was a unanimous result, and we think that this votes very well
for the future of Iraq and for the future of the Security Council as
well.
Now, I would be happy to take any questions that you may have. 
QUESTION: Thank you. Dmitry Kirsanov of the Russian News Agency, TASS.
Mr. Secretary, I have two questions:
First, I wonder how much authority the United Nations will have under
this resolution. In forming -- in the process of forming new Iraqi
government, I wonder if the United Nations will be able to pick
personalities to include -- to be included in this government, and
what happens if the United Nations voices disagreement over your
personalities to be included in this government?
And, secondly, if you can, at this point of time, announce who will be
the UN special representative in Iraq?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: No, I cannot announce that. That is a
decision that the Secretary General will have to make. And when he
makes that decision, I'm sure he will share with all of us.
This resolution recognizes the authority of the coalition forces in
Iraq under the obligations and rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention,
and also the Hague regulations, as an occupying power. That's a term
that is used in the Geneva Conventions. And that means that the
authority, as it sort of -- the provisional authority, coalition
provisional authority, as it is described in the resolution, has the
rights and the obligations, which means it has -- it will be taking
the lead during this interim period, not only in reconstructing and
rebuilding Iraq in the near-term, in terms of getting humanitarian aid
and relief delivered, but also in helping the Iraqi people and
facilitating the Iraqi people and reconstructing a process by which
they can choose their own future government.
The resolution lays out that the special representative of the United
Nations will help, assist, support the authority in this effort. The
details of that would have to be worked out after there is an
appointment of the special representative, and after the special
representative would give us a plan and we'd have consultations with
Administrator Bremer in Iraq and work out the details on how this
would be done.
But I think that the resolution makes it very clear that we would --
that we would be trying to work as closely as we can with the special
representative to make sure that there is a transparent process that
-- that would choose -- that will allow the Iraqi people to choose
their own future government.
MR. SILAS: Gentleman in the back. 
QUESTION: Yes, I am Jonathan Wright from Reuters. I have a similar
question. The resolution talks about monitoring of the development
fund by the international board. In your discussions with the other
members of the Security Council, I wondered whether you gave any
explanation of what that -- how vigorous that monitoring would be, and
what would happen in the case where that international board disagreed
with the use to which you intend to put this development -- the money
in the development fund?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, the -- as it says in the resolution,
and as we explained to our other members of the Council, the -- this
board would have an auditing and monitoring function. There would be
auditors appointed that would operate under international standard
procedures for auditing; that would have the ability to go in and
review the transactions to audit them and to monitor them, and, at
that point, to be able to report in some fashion where the
international community and the United Nations could take a look and
ensure themselves with some confidence that, in fact, that the --
these operations are being done in a transparent and efficient and
legal manner.
I am sure that, you know, the details of how any kinds of reporting
requirements would have to happen in the future, whether there is some
kind of a dispute that would have to be worked out in the future. You
cannot work out all of the details of the blueprint of a Security
resolution like this. But I am sure that -- that with goodwill on
everybody's part -- and I am certain that we have the goodwill to try
to do the best we can to ensure that this process is transparent --
that the international community will be confident that we are doing
this in a -- in a transparent and efficient way.
QUESTION: Are you saying that you haven't discussed at all any
mechanism for resolving disputes over the use of the development fund
and you are just relying on goodwill and --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, there were extensive discussions in
the Council and all of the -- all of the details of this. But, you
know, not every -- I was not privy to all of the experts meetings on
this. But what I am saying is is that this is something that I am
certain that we will take up in greater detail, once you have the
board actually created, and you have the operating procedures
developed and the consultations that are necessary at that point to be
able to deal with some of the questions that may arise.
MR. SILAS: Gentleman in the center. 
QUESTION: Jyri Faivio, Newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, Finland. About the
weapons inspections and the inspectors, where does this resolution
leave them? Does the Security Council have to decide separately to
dismantle the whole set up?
And another small thing, does the U.S. or anybody else have a say in
who Mr. Annan appoints to the special representative?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: The decision to appoint a special
representative is solely in the hands of the Secretary General.
On your second question about the -- about the future of the arms
inspectors, the resolution says that the Council will be -- reaffirms
the -- the desire of the Council to revisit the mandates of UNMOVIC in
the future. So, at some point in the future, the Council will have to
come together and decide specifically, depending on what status of the
disarmament process is at that time, on what the status of UNMOVIC
will be. That's all it says at this point.
But, of course, as you know, already the United States has made a
decision to send in -- or has agreed to ask the IAEA to send in some
inspectors into the -- to that site in Iraq, the Tuwaitha site, and to
see -- to be able to make an assessment of what's going on on the
ground there. But that is -- that is separate from the legal question
of the status of UNMOVIC will have to be decided in the future by the
Council.
QUESTION: Another question, the resolution says the development fund
money can be used for what it calls other purposes benefiting the
people of Iraq, which is an extremely broad category. Did the United
States give any assurances that none of this money will, in fact, be
used for financing the military occupation in itself?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Yeah, we do not envision any of these
funds to be used for funding the military occupation or military
purposes. It can be used for civil administration, but not for funding
the military side of the problem.
MR. SILAS: This gentleman right here by the post. 
QUESTION: Samir Nader, Radio SAWA. Does the resolution provide the
framework for countries to participate in a peacekeeping force like
countries who wants a UN cover?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, we think it does. I mean, it does --
clearly, first of all, the -- this resolution by recognizing the
coalition provisional authority as a legal entity in Iraq, we think
that this is an important legal, as well as political step of having
the Security Council bless the facts on the ground in Iraq.
In addition to that, the -- this resolution does establish some
principles by which future countries, if they -- members states, if
they will, they would like to contribute in some way to a -- to the
authority in the future, either for stabilization or reconstruction.
This gives the green light for that to happen.
Now, each country is going to have to look at its own legal and
political requirements. And whether or not they can take advantage of
that, that is their decision. But we do believe that this is a good
step in the right direction. We do hope in the future that other
countries, at some point in the future, do come along and give us some
assistance.
MR. SILAS: Gentleman in the gray shirt. 
QUESTION: Good morning. Imad Musa from Al Jazeera Television. Two
different questions. The first is: Since the sanctions were so related
to Iraq's program for weapons of mass destruction, is this an
acknowledgement that they're -- they don't exist and it's time to lift
the sanctions because of that?
And number two: Is the issue of immunization of oil sales -- I am
assuming it's because of Iraq's debt -- and could you tell us a little
bit about how much Iraq owes to the rest of the world, in what form,
and will the United States -- or did this resolution talk about how to
resolve that debt internationally?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, no, this resolution was done --
intended to deal specifically with the problem of debt. The Paris Club
and various multilateral and bilateral fora would have to be used to
do that. It does, of course, as you rightly say, deal with the
immediate problem of immunization -- something, by the way, which
existed -- language which existed in previous Security Council
resolutions.
It was intended to be able to prevent any near-term or precipitous
seizures of oil during this very fragile time for the Iraqi people,
when they needed to get their -- get their -- back on their feet, and
to establish not only an Iraqi interim administration, but eventually
a government that would then have the sovereign authority, at that
point, to make any negotiations on debt relief that it would have the
right to do.
But in the near-term period, during this period, we thought it was
important not to make any precipitous decisions on seizures and allow
the creation of, eventually, as I said, an Iraqi government that would
have to undertake those negotiations.
Your second question? 
QUESTION: The weapons of mass destruction. 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Oh, well, no, not at all. I mean, we are
still, as you probably know, searching for -- for evidence of Saddam
Hussein's regime's involvement in development of weapons of mass
destruction. We have already seen there is a couple of mobile trucks
that we believe -- our intelligence community strongly believes --
that were used for biological weapons purposes, and we think this is
just the beginning.
We have -- of course, there are many scientists that will have to be
interviewed. And as time goes over, we'll have a clear picture of what
this program was all about. I think that the -- the lifting of
sanctions was done mainly because we do not believe that the Iraqi
people themselves should be burdened or punished any longer for the
mistakes and sins and crimes, if you will, of the regime of Saddam
Hussein, and that the threat that was posed by the regime of Saddam
Hussein that was -- that we believed was trying to acquire these
weapons, that threat has diminished. And that particular threat has,
in fact, disappeared because we are now present in Iraq and we are
trying our best to find evidence of that.
So circumstances are fundamentally different and therefore we didn't
see, and the Security Council obviously agreed, that there was any
purpose to continue these sanctions on the Iraqi people.
QUESTION: Giampiero Gramaglia, Italian News Agency ANSA. I have one
question and I need two clarifications of what you told us before.
The question is: Do you consider the resolution a legitimization ex
post of the war in Iraq? Then I will ask the clarification afterward.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, I believe what the resolution says.
It recognizes the specific authorities and responsibilities and
obligations applicable under international law of the occupying
powers. That's what it says. You can interpret that in other terms,
legitimacy or not. Each country will have its own view of that.
We do believe, as I have said and others in this administration have
said, that we were operating under the legal right of Resolution 1441.
We've believed that all along and we continue to believe that. And we
believe that this resolution is certainly an affirmation of, a
recognition of, the fact that we are the authority inside Iraq, and we
believe that's an important step in the right direction for the Iraqi
people and for helping to rebuild Iraq.
We believe that some of these theological debates that existed at the
time of the debate over the second resolution they have passed, we
have now gone past that, we have now had the Council come together.
They have shown unity on the need to rebuild Iraqi society, and I
think that's a positive thing for everybody. It's a positive thing for
the Iraqi people, for the Council, the United Nations, and even the
bilateral relations of many of the countries involved.
QUESTION: The two clarifications, please. Do you see a dialogue in
Iraq between the representative of the United Nations and Mr. Bremer,
or the dialogue would be between United Nations and the occupying
powers in the capital between New York and Washington? How it will
work in the day business?
And the second question. You told us that the money could be used for
the civil authority --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Civil administration. 
QUESTION: The civil administration. The American civil administration
or the next Iraqi civil interim authority?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, for the civil administration, we'd
be paying for the specific bills and things that need to be done in
the near term. Over time, the Iraqi interim administration, once it's
formed, would take on more responsibility for the day-to-day civil
affairs of Iraq. That's the idea. And as they become more organized
and more competent at what they're doing, they will grow in authority
and be -- the provisional authority will shrink, and then they will
play also a greater role in creating the political mechanisms by which
a new constitution and a new Iraqi government will be created. That's
the idea.
But the near-term problem is that we need to not only provide
security, we need to get the electricity turned on, we need to get the
food, make sure it's delivered. That will happen through the remainder
of the Oil-for-Food program, as well as new shipments of grain that
are coming in from the outside, as well as the purchases of some
grains, grain crops in the north of Iraq.
There's health issues. There's already -- the UN has a number of
agencies -- UNICEF, World Food Program and others are already inside
Iraq trying to deal with the near-term humanitarian problem. That's
the first thing we have to do.
And then the next thing we have to do is -- and Administrator
Ambassador Bremer has said this very clearly, he wants to create a
political process that can choose the Iraqi interim administration as
quickly as he can. And the expectations are high that this will be
done very soon. We understand that. But we also have to be realistic
about how difficult it is to do everything all at once. And I think
that we are moving as quickly as we can and I think that certainly we
are committed to moving as quickly as we can on the whole political
process.
QUESTION: Camille Tawil of Al Hayat newspaper. Can you explain a
little bit about what you mean by a "vital role" for the UN? I feel it
is still ambiguous. In practical terms, what does it mean?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: It means, in practical terms, what the
Resolution 1483 says. I mean, it spells it out very -- in considerable
detail on what the role is. It coordinates the humanitarian aid and
reconstruction efforts and activities of the United Nations. That's
what the Special Representative will do. It would also define a role
that will have to be defined in detail by the Special Representative
once they're appointed for police reform, legal reform, human rights
activities as well. And it will, as the resolution says, it will help
aid, assist and support the authority, as well as the Iraqi interim
administration once it's formed, in a political -- in creating a
political process that will create, eventually, an Iraqi government,
sovereign government.
I understand the desire for details, but these are details that have
to be worked out once the people are appointed and have the
opportunity to sit down and put together their own plans, and then to
sit down and present those plans to us, and then we work together to
work out all the details. All this resolution does is lay out the
areas of responsibilities and the principles and the goals and
objectives that will be achieved by the Special Representative.
And all of those activities that are described for the United States
are vital to the reconstruction of Iraq. They're extremely important.
You can find any word you want. Many of the people that we have talked
to over the last two weeks as we were negotiating this resolution, and
many of the members of the Council, they wanted to get beyond this
definition of "vital," "central," "important." They realized that
there wasn't any purpose to that anymore; what mattered is that you
get down to the details and defined out what the areas of
responsibilities were, and unanimously, at least for the 14 members of
the Council, believed and agreed that this was a good way to proceed.
And so debating the debates of two weeks ago at this point are not
nearly important, I believe, to the members of the Council as of
trying to move to the next step, putting some details in there. Once
the Special Representative is appointed, we will start moving on, and
many of these questions that all of you have will become much clearer.
QUESTION: How soon are we to see these roles defined? A week to a
month?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: I really can't put a timeframe on it.
First, we need to get a Special Representative appointed. Soon.
QUESTION: Kiyoshi Ando with Asahi Shimbun of Japan. Before and during
the war against Iraq, critics, many critics, including those in Japan,
contended that the real reason for the United States to wage war
against Iraq was the country's oil and the money that possibly could
derive from that. Now, with the much more public information available
regarding this Oil-for-Food program and then everything else about the
Iraqis' oil resources, highlighted by the passage of this UN
resolution, how would you respond to that sort of conspiracy theory
that the United States wanted some money from the oil of Iraq?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, this is clearly not the view of the
members of the Security Council, some of whom had questions about the
intervention. This is not the way those who voted for this resolution
would view it. I think that that's very clear. So I just don't believe
it's a valid point.
This resolution requires adequate international transparent oversight
of the use of these funds. And we have made it clear time and time
again, and I've made it clear here, that our presence in Iraq is
temporary; it's only there as long as necessary and not a day longer
than to provide the basic security and stability by which a political
process can be created by the Iraqi people to create their own
government.
No one on the Council disagrees with that point as of now. So what we
have to do now is move forward and not try to resolve all of the
theological debates of two or three weeks ago. It's time to try to get
moving and get this -- these problems solved for the Iraqi people.
QUESTION: Yes, Reha Atasagan from Turkish Public Television.
Concerning this contract in the pipeline, the resolution states some
of that will be postponed until international recognize the Iraqi
government. Nobody knows how long it will be. And how would the firm
would have an idea if they are to be honored or not? How soon, and
what is the mechanism for that?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, the mechanism is same mechanism that
was created before on Resolution 1472, where the Secretary General has
the authority to prioritize contracts based upon the immediate and
urgent needs of the Iraqi people in terms of food and medicines and
the like. So it's clear that the Secretary General would want to move
up to the head of the line any contracts that have a higher priority
for the immediate needs of the people. That will be up to him. I mean,
he has the authority to wind down for six months the Oil-for-Food
program, and that authority maintains, stays the same.
Any contracts that are left over after that period, then they would be
-- that decision-making mechanism would go over to the authority or to
a future Iraqi government. Then, at that time -- the point is that if,
in the future, when there is a sovereign Iraqi government, they would
have the right to decide what to do with those contracts as they see
fit. But the idea here, as made very clear in this resolution, we are
agreeing to unwind this Oil-for-Food program as much as possible for
the money that's in the pipeline to go to the contracts that are
already there. But the decisions on who gets what in the near term,
for the next six months, is not up to us.
QUESTION: To clear up this one point about using oil revenues for
financing U.S. activities, you said that they would -- they could
cover the cost of the civilian administration. Does that include the
salaries and expenses of U.S. personnel in, for example, in Bremer's
office in Baghdad?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Not to my knowledge, no. This is -- you're
getting into an area of questioning that probably should be best
directed to the Department of Defense and the Office of Reconstruction
and Humanitarian Organization.
QUESTION: Yes, sir, I'd like to go back to UNMOVIC, if that's okay
with you. Why was it decided to leave it in a state of flux, in a very
uncertain situation? It's pretty clear that the U.S. is not willing to
let Blix back to Iraq. Why wasn't it just dismantled at this time?
And then a question of peacekeeping. You said that U.S. is welcoming
peacekeepers from other countries. Are you actively searching or
proposing? And then, is this resolution a legal basis for foreign
countries to participate?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: We are having consultations with
countries, clearly, about having contributions to a force for
stabilizing Iraq. There's consultations going on of what kind of form
this may take in the future.
The question about UNMOVIC. There was not, at this point on the
Council, a consensus on what to do with UNMOVIC in terms of its
status, so we decided, in the interests of compromise, to get the
resolution passed, to say that the Council will revisit this issue in
the future.
QUESTION: I wonder if it is possible for Saddam Hussein, if there is
any chance for Saddam Hussein to surrender and not be prosecuted by
the United States.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: This is not a question that has anything
to do with the Security Council resolution. You'd have to pose that
question to someone else.
MR. SILAS: Once again, I'd like to thank everyone for coming, and
thank you, Dr. Holmes.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Thank you. Thank you all.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)