Oil-for-Food Program

Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
December 20, 2002

Oil-for-Food Program

The United States is at the forefront of UN efforts to enable Iraq to use its resources to acquire goods needed to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis. These international efforts, initiated by the United States and administered by the UN under the Oil-for-Food Program, have prevented a potential humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq. Instead, basic humanitarian needs are being met in Iraq, and the quality of life has been improving since Iraq belatedly accepted the Oil-for-Food Program in 1996. Continuation of this trend is up to Baghdad, and its willingness to cooperate fully with the United Nations. Unfortunately, the UN effort is hampered by Iraqi non-cooperation.

Key Facts and Chronology:

After the Gulf War and liberation of Kuwait, a UN Secretary-General’s team determined that the Iraqi people faced a humanitarian catastrophe, including epidemic and famine, if life-support needs were not rapidly met.

The United States introduced UN Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712 in August and September of 1991.

These resolutions eased sanctions on the sale of oil, imposed in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, by allowing Iraq to sell a certain amount of oil and use proceeds to meet the humanitarian needs of its people. Iraq refused to cooperate and made no sales under 706 and 712, and refused to discuss alternate arrangements.

Instead, Iraq in effect held its own people hostage. It demanded that the UN Security Council lift all sanctions unconditionally. It simultaneously refused to cooperate with efforts to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, a key precondition set by the UN for ending sanctions. The Iraqi strategy was a duplicitous effort to blame the international community for the suffering of its people, and thereby force the UN to end sanctions without ensuring that Iraq relinquish its weapons of mass destruction programs.

UN Security Council Resolution 986, which passed in April 1995, established the current Oil-for-Food Program, to further facilitate the delivery of humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people. Iraqi intransigence, however, delayed implementation of the program until December 1996.

Oil-for-Food has steadily expanded over the years, lifting the limit on the amount of oil that could be sold and expanding the range of goods that can be purchased. In May 2002, the United States led an initiative to streamline UN procedures for the export of goods into Iraq under the Program. This authorized the export of all goods, except those prohibited under the arms embargo or contained on a list of “dual-use” items that could have military or weapons of mass destruction applications. Items on this list, the so-called “Goods Review List,” are subject to special review procedures.

In spite of Iraqi subversion, Oil-for-Food has been a dramatic success. $25 billion in humanitarian supplies and equipment have been delivered to Iraq, and another $10 billion is in the pipeline. Caloric intake has doubled, and communicable diseases have declined significantly among the Iraqi population. The transportation, agriculture, and electricity sectors have also been rehabilitated. In his November 2002 Report to the Security Council on the Oil-for-Food Program, the UN Secretary-General observed that “the program has made and continues to make a major difference in the lives of ordinary Iraqis.”

More could be done, if Saddam Hussein would fully cooperate with the UN, both in the Oil-for-Food Program and in disarmament. Instead, the Iraqi government continues to exploit the Program. It has withheld sales from the market for political reasons and continues to smuggle oil out illegally – both of which deprive the Program of revenue. The Iraqi regime continues to divert dual-use items from humanitarian needs to military programs. All exports of military items to Iraq continue to be barred by UN Security Council resolutions.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: Doesn’t buying Iraqi oil just support Saddam Hussein?

A: No, not if it is purchased through the Oil-for-Food Program. Proceeds are deposited directly into a UN escrow account. The use of these funds is administered by the UN’s Office of Iraq Programs for the benefit of the Iraqi people. 72% of all proceeds fund the humanitarian program. Another 25% underwrites reparations owed by Iraq for damage and destruction during its invasion and illegal occupation of Kuwait. 2.2% covers administration of the UN Office. The remaining 0.8% funds the UN arms inspectors in Iraq.

Q: Isn’t the United States seeking to withhold needed medicines from the Iraqi people?

A: No. We are proposing that the UN Sanctions Committee on Iraq review requests for medications that might have military use when the requests are for quantities that are grossly in excess of any civilian requirement. The United States opposes allowing the Iraqi military to stockpile quantities of certain medicines that could be used to protect its troops in the event Iraq launched chemical or biological warfare.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell's Statement on Iraq's Weapons Declaration

US Secretary of State Colin Powell's Statement on Iraq's Weapons Declaration

Friday December 20, 2002

On November 8, the United Nations security council responded to the challenge issued by President Bush in his 12 September speech to the United Nations general assembly. On that day, the security council unanimously passed resolution 1441, requiring Iraq to disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction and to disclose all of its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs.

Resolution 1441 was the latest in a long string of security council resolutions since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Previous resolutions, which included requirements to disarm and to end the cruel repression of the Iraqi people, have all been defied or ignored by Iraq.

Resolution 1441 recognised that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations," but gave the Iraqi regime, again, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.

Iraq's answer came on December 7 in a 12,200-page document submitted to the security council.

Resolution 1441 required Iraq to submit a declaration on all its mass weapons program of destruction, a declaration that was "currently accurate, full and complete," in the words of the resolution.

The inspectors told the security council this morning that the declaration fails to answer many open questions. They said that in some cases they even have information that directly contradicts Iraq's account.

Our experts have also examined the Iraqi document. The declaration's title echoes the language of resolution 1441. It is called, "Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Declaration." But our experts have found it to be anything but currently accurate, full or complete. The Iraqi declaration may use the language of resolution 1441, but it totally fails to meet the resolution's requirements.

The inspectors said that Iraq has failed to provide new information. We agree. Indeed, thousands of the document's pages are merely a resubmission of material it gave the United Nations years ago, material that the UN has already determined was incomplete.

Other sections of the Iraqi declaration consists of long passages copied from reports written by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The only changes the Iraqi regime made were to remove references critical to its own conduct. The declaration totally fails to address what we had learned about Iraq's prohibited weapons programs before the inspectors were effectively forced out in 1998.

And let me just touch on a few examples, and we'll be giving out a fact sheet later with additional examples.

Before the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq, they concluded that Iraq could have produced 26,000 litres of anthrax. That is three times the amount Iraq had declared. Yet, the Iraqi declaration is silent on this stockpile, which, alone, would be enough to kill several million people.

The regime also admitted that it had manufactured 19,180 litres of a biological agent called botchulinum toxin. UN inspectors later determined that the Iraqis could have produced 38,360 additional litres. However, once again, the Iraqi declaration is silent on these missing supplies.

The Iraqi declaration also says nothing about the uncounted, unaccounted precursors from which Iraq could have produced up to 500 tons of mustard gas, sarin gas and VX nerve gas.

Nor does the declaration address questions that have arisen since the inspectors left in 1998. For example, we know that in the late 1990s, Iraq built mobile biological weapons production units. Yet, the declaration tries to waive this away, mentioning only mobile refrigeration vehicles and food-testing laboratories.

We also know that Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength aluminium tubes which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear weapons program. The Iraqi regime is required by resolution 1441 to report those attempts. Iraq, however, has failed to provide adequate information about the procurement and use of these tubes.

Most brazenly of all, the Iraqi declaration denies the existence of any prohibited weapons programs at all. The United States, the United Nations and the world waited for this declaration from Iraq. But Iraq's response is a catalogue of recycled information and flagrant omissions. It should be obvious that the pattern of systematic holes and gaps in Iraq's declaration is not the result of accidents or editing oversights or technical mistakes. These are material omissions that, in our view, constitute another material breach.

We are disappointed, but we are not deceived. This declaration is consistent with the Iraqi regime's past practices. We have seen this game again and again - an attempt to sow confusion and buy time, hoping the world will lose interest. This time, the game is not working. This time, the international community is concentrating its attention and increasing its resolve as the true nature of the Iraqi regime is revealed again.

On the basis of this declaration, on the basis of the evidence before us, our path for the coming weeks is clear. First, we must continue to audit and examine the Iraqi declaration to understand the full extent of Iraq's failure to meet its disclosure obligations.

Second, the inspections should give high priority to conducting interviews with scientists and other witnesses outside of Iraq, where they can speak freely. Under the terms of resolution 1441, Iraq is obligated - it is their obligation - to make such witnesses available to the inspectors.

Third, the inspectors should intensify their efforts inside Iraq. The United States, and I hope other council members, will provide the inspectors with every possible assistance, all the support they need to succeed in their crucial mission. Given the gravity of the situation, we look forward to frequent reports from Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei.

Finally, we will continue to consult with our friends, with our allies, and with all members of the security council on how to compel compliance by Iraq with the will of the international community.

But let there be no misunderstanding. As Ambassador John Negroponte said earlier today, Saddam Hussein has so far responded to this final opportunity with a new lie. The burden remains on Iraq. Not on the United Nations. Not on the United States. The burden remains on Iraq to cooperate fully and for Iraq to prove to the international community whether it does or does not have weapons of mass destruction. We are convinced they do until they prove to us otherwise.

Resolution 1441 calls for serious consequences for Iraq if it does not comply with the terms of the resolution. Iraq's non-compliance and defiance of the international community has brought it closer to the day when it will have to face these consequences. The world is still waiting for Iraq to comply with its obligations. The world will not wait forever. Security council resolution 1441 will be carried out in full. Iraq can no longer be allowed to threaten its people and its region with weapons of mass destruction. It is still up to Iraq to determine how its disarmament will happen. Unfortunately, this declaration fails totally to move us in the direction of a peaceful solution.