- Politics --> Germany's Deficit of Accountability ...

Germany's Deficit of Accountability
Continuing into Iraq's Reconstruction Period

Güter mit doppeltem Verwendungszweck: Das Defizit an deutscher Verantwortlichkeit nun auch beim Wiederaufbau des Irak

Some Info Material Compiled by
Joachim Gruber


Humanitarian Misery in Iraq and German Accountability

I. Problem of Dual-Use Items


I. 1 In Detail

Old system (before May 2002)
New system
I. 2 UN Documentation

I. 3 Iraq: The Day After

I.4 The Tradition of the Marshall Plan

II. Germany's Accountability
II. 1 Compliance of German/Austrian Firms with the Spirit of Nonproliferation

II. 2 Deficits in German Peace Research

III. Transatlantic Partnership: Excerpts from a Proposal to Promote a Partnership for Democracy and Human Development

IV. Appendix

IV.1 The Present: Assistance to Iraq After the 2003 War - Inadequate Grants from Germany

IV. 2 The Past: Search for the Cause of the Humanitarian Misery

IV. 2. a Iraq Didn't Agree to Targeted Sanctions
IV. 2. b Saddam's Obstruction

Humanitarian Misery in Iraq and German Accountability
Multilateralism, Accountability and Universal Principles

... multilateralism requires help from outside the US. It would be easier to make our case if it were clear that there were other agents in international society. capable of acting independently and, if necessary, forcefully, and ready to answer for what they do, in places like Bosnia, or Rwanda, or Iraq. When we campaign against a second Gulf War, we should also be campaigning for that kind of multilateral responsibility. And this means that we have demands to make not only on Bush and Co. but also on the leaders of France and Germany, Russia and China, who, although they have recently been supporting continued and expanded inspections, have also been ready, at different times in the past, to appease Saddam. If this preventable war is fought, all of them will share responsibility with the US. When the war is over, they should all be held to account."
(Michael Walzer, The Right Way, New York Revew of Books, March 13, 2003).

Michael Waltzer

Michael Walzer
Michael Walzer has written about a wide variety 
of topics in political theory and moral philosophy: 
political obligation, just and unjust war, 
nationalism and ethnicity, 
economic justice and the welfare state. 
He has played a part in the revival of 
a practical, issue focused ethics 
and in the development of a pluralist approach 
to political and moral life. 
(M.W.,Schol of Social Science
Insitute for Advanced Study, Princeton, USA)

"... America's thinking about its engagement with the world is being bedeviled by the insistent asking of the wrong question, which is: how can we close the rift with Europe caused by the Bush administration's "unilateralism", which betokens wariness about international institutions and international law? The right question is: do we really want to close this rift?

It reflects fundamental differences between American and European understandings of constitutional democracy. So argues Jed Rubenfeld in a mind-opening essay forthcoming in the Wilson Quarterly.

Rubenfeld, a Yale Law School professor, wonders why America - which after 1945 was the principal progenitor of today's system of international organizations and law, including the United Nations - has come to be regarded as hostile to that project. His answer is that Cold-War unity between America and Europe disguised what is now patent: diametrically opposed American and European views of the objectives of international law and organizations. ...

...between America and the European democracies there are irreconcilable differences concerning constitutional democracy. ... 

  • American constitutionalism does indeed check democracy, but remains accountable to democracy, to elected representatives and legislatures that can amend it, and to presidents and senators who nominate and confirm the judges who construe it. 
  • European constitutionalism speaks with a Paris accent, using the language of universal truths defined by intellectual elites and presented to publics which are expected to be deferential.
Europe likes to think of itself as ancient Athens, supplying wisdom to muscular America, the modern Sparta. But it is more illuminating to think of today's tensions as arising from differences between two 18th-century cities, Philadelphia and Paris. "
(from G.E. Will, Paris vs, Philadelphia, Newsweek, Oct. 13, 2003)
Jed Rubenfeld

Jed Rubenfeld

Anne-Marie SLAUGHTER: "... the people who had horrors of democracy, as you put it, were our own Founding Fathers who were very concerned about democracy per se, and spent most of their time putting in checks and balances to guarantee liberal democracy, which of course ensures protection of minority rights, exactly because we have principles that cannot be trumped. To that extent, the EU and we both agree that you need liberal democracy. And the notion that the EU is built--is designed to avoid fascism--the EU is designed to avoid war between France and Germany in part. That war had happened plenty of times before you had fascism and Nazism. And it was an economic means to peace. It was not designed as a check on democracy, and to the extent there are checks, it's--as I said, let's start with Madison.

But then let's stick to some facts of the current EU, because I think this is really quite important.

  • The first point is that the entire EU bureaucracy is the size of the government of a good-sized American city. That's the commission.
  • The real power in Brussels lies with the Council of Ministers, [which is made up of] all their national ministers. And indeed the real struggle in Europe is persistently between those who want a more federal vision and those who insist on keeping the power among the nation-states. You will have noticed, those of you from the financial community, that the European Central Bank does not seem to be able to keep Germany within the guidelines. Well, that's remarkable for this anti-democratic powerful institution.
  • The European Court of Justice, unlike our own Supreme Court, has 12-year terms--not for life. Why do they have 12-year terms? So that judges who get too activist can be dismissed and then new ones appointed. And that's exactly what happened when Germany and England decided the European Court of Justice was a little too activist for its taste, unlike our own system where judicial activism is up to the Supreme Court and they are there for life.

... on universal principles, we are the ones that preach universal principles, founded in the Declaration of Independence. We preach them worldwide. We insist that countries all over adopt those principles as part of the liberal democratic heritage. And we may allow them in the room when we draw up their constitutions, but the constitutions are still recognizing the same bill of rights we have.

Finally, and back to international law, the great irony of this is that the European tradition of international law is completely grounded in state consent.

For those of you who are not lawyers, this is what is called the positivist tradition. It says no natural law, no law founded in a higher reason, [but instead] law grounded on the consent of states.
It's American international lawyers who insist on universal human rights, led by Jed's dean, Harold Koh at Yale. It is American international lawyers who insist that international law is shot through with politics, and in the end we should simply recognize what is right for the protection of human dignity, and to advance that.

So there are critiques to be made here. But there's no connection to the EU, to European countries themselves, or to international law.

... I strongly suspect that the reason no Kosovars were on the commission is because Kosovars want a separate country, and we do not want them to have a separate country, and that that was a starting point that could not have gotten over. ..."

(from: "Is International Law a Threat to Democracy?", Speakers: Anne-Marie Slaughter (dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University), Jed Rubenfeld (Robert R. Slaughter professor of law, Yale Law School), Moderator: Fareed Zakaria (editor, Newsweek International), transcript of a debate, Council on Foreign Relations New York, New York, February 27, 2004)

Anne-Marie Slaughter

Anne-Marie Slaughter

I. Problem of Dual-Use Items


In the old sanctions system, many supplies, desperately needed to repair the infrastructure, are banned or restricted as "dual-use" items, capable of use as military supplies. This includes chlorine, needed for water purification.,

The general direction of the sanctions was changed

1. Fact Sheet on the "Goods Review List" for Iraq, 14 May 2002, US Department of State, International Information Program.
2. Revised U.N. Goods Review List Strengthens Scrutiny over Exports to Iraq, 14 January 2003,  US Department of State, International Information Program.

I. 1 In Detail

Firms make it -sometimes apparently on purpose- hard for these new targeted export controls to work. I. 2 UN Documentation

UN documentation seems intransparent. It appears time consuming to extract from UN documents on the internet information such as presented by the US State Department, i.e. the development over time of how much was allowed for import (import ceiling) vs. how much was actually bought by Iraq from proceeds of oil sales under the OFF program, deposited on UN escrow account.
Data I found on the OFF program

Excerpts from these documents I. 3 Iraq: The Day After

"Iraq: The Day After" is a Report of an Independent Task Force on Post-Conflict Iraq, Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, Thomas R. Pickering and James R. Schlesinger, Co-Chairs, Eric P. Schwartz, Project Director, March 2003.

Testimony of Eric P. Schwartz Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Tuesday, March 10, 2003. These five questions are addressed:
  1. What is the extent of our long-term political commitment to Iraq? What are we prepared to spend, and when will the administration describe this in detail to the American people?
  2. What specific actions will the U.S. military take to protect Iraqi civilians in the context and the aftermath of conflict?
  3. What action is the administration taking to ensure that international organizations and other governments will contribute meaningfully to the post-conflict transition effort?
  4. What actions are being taken to ensure the Iraqi character of the political transition process?

  5. As a government, are we well organized to meet this challenge?
Eric Schwartz
Eric Schwartz, Senior Fellow, Peace and Conflict,
US Council on Foreign Relations
Former national security official in Clinton administration and director of a US Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored independent task force on Post-Conflict Iraq. 

The US government will contribute to the post-conflict transition process in Iraq via the US Agency for International Development (USAID) - much as it has been doing during the war. The Schwartz-Report will be one of the documents on which this work will be based.

I.4 The Tradition of the Marshall Plan

USAID was founded in 1961 by John F. Kennedy in the tradition of the Marshall Plan. This aid for Japan and Europe rested on the practical interest of many Americans in the furthering of democracy, on "how the taste for physical gratification is united in Ameica to love of freedom and attention to public affairs" (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1834). This is behind the many organizations in which Americans meet and -mostly after the day's work- develop new ways of life.
Such an organization ist the Religious Society of Friends ("Quaker"). One of the most known "Friends" was William Penn. The "Friends" are a religious community with headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 
"Its work is based on the belief in the worth of every person, and faith in the power of love to overcome violence and injustice. 

Founded in 1917 to provide conscientious objectors with an opportunity to aid civilian victims during World War I, today the AFSC has programs that focus on issues related to economic justice, peace-building and demilitarization, social justice, and youth, in the United States, and in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East (e.g. Iraq) , and at the United Nations (Geneva and New York)."
(About AFSC).

William Penn

William Penn (1644-1718)
"No pain, no palm; 
no thorns, no throne; 
no gall, no glory; 
no cross, no crown." 
- from No Cross, No Crown

Arthur R.G. Solmssen, a lawyer and novelist from Philadelphia, has written a novel about this: Following his time driving French ambulances at the front  in 1917, Peter Ellis, a young Quaker, spends some years in the turbulent Berlin of the 1920's among two German cultures.  His own tradition is the basis for his compassionate forms of friendship and help (Summary, "How can I describe Miss Susan Boatwright?", "Silence with Voices").
Gustav Klimt: Dame mit Federboa - Der violette Hut

Arthur R.G. Solmssen: 

A Princess in Berlin


II. Germany's Accountability

II. 1 Compliance of German/Austrian Firms with the Spirit of Nonproliferation

Companies make export controls difficult

II.2  Deficits in German Peace Research
German Peace research seems to limit its work on the Iraq problem to In view of the impact Germany's contribution to world politics has today, this seems to reflect a lack of accountability on the side of research that is supposed to advise the public and government.
  • Example: Although widely discussed in the German public, the issue of foreign aid to a post-Saddam Iraq seems to lie beyond the scope of German research. Contrary to that, the US Council on Foreign Relations independent Task Force on post-conflict Iraq has addressed 5 questions in its study Iraq: The Day After

  • (more)

    Examples of unconcerned German Peace Research Institutes

    Analyses of German research are heavily tainted by ideology and do not develop possible options of action. Example: IFSH-Report "Krieg mit dem Irak", 12. February 2003:
    1. The list of facts is incomplete,
    2. the analyses are not based on original research performed by IFSH or other German institutions.
    3. no course of action for Germany is offered.
    In particular: Examples of US research institutes (more) The consequences of this apparently deficient research are detrimental, e.g.

    III. Transatlantic Partnership: A Proposal
    Excerpts from Urban Ahlin, (Member of the Swedish Parliament) Mensur Akgün (Turkish Economic and Social Science Studies Foundation) Gustavo de Aristegui (Member of the Spanish Parliament), Ronald D. Asmus (The German Marshall Fund of the United States), Daniel Byman, (Georgetown University) et al, "Democracy and Human Development in the Broader Middle East: A Transatlantic Strategy for Partnership Istanbul Paper #1", German Marshall Fund of the United States(gmfus) and the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (T.E.S.S.F.), 25-27 June 2004 (download document from Centre For European Reform (CER) website)

    In the fall of 2003 the German Marshall Fund of the United States formed a working group to debate what a transatlantic strategy toward the broader Middle East might look like. We did so as part of our commitment to fostering greater understanding and common action between the United States and Europe on new, global challenges facing both sides of the Atlantic in the 21st century. ...

    Retooling the Transatlantic Relationship to Promote a Partnership for Democracy and Human Development

    To prepare to meet this longterm challenge, the United States and Europe must focus on reorganizing themselves in three key areas.

    1. Upgrading Our Knowledge
    2. We need to create a new generation of scholars, diplomats, military officers, and democracy builders who know the region's religions, languages, history, and cultures, and who have the skills to advise our leaders on the best policies and how to pursue them appropriately.

        American and European levels of knowledge and understanding of the broader Middle East have been declining for years. That trend now must be reversed. Just as the West had to create a new generation of experts to better understand Europe and the USSR after 1945, we now need to create a new pool of expertise and talent to better analyze the broader Middle East. What can be done? While we do not face the kind of monolithic bloc or single threat we faced from the USSR during the Cold War, nevertheless, the manner in which the West organized itself then offers lessons for today. In the United States, for example, the federal government provided funds to establish new studies centers at leading American universities to systematically study both Europe and the USSR as well as to teach the language skills needed to understand a part of the world about which we still knew little. Through exchange programs, Americans and Europeans were able to gain firsthand expertise in the countries that were top foreign policy priorities. Regional expertise and strategic studies were brought together to provide an integrated understanding of the region and the key strategic issues governments were grappling with.

      In addition, the United States and leading European allies set up special programs to bring young leaders and legislators from both sides of the Atlantic together to foster a common view and approach on the major strategic challenges of the day.

      In both the United States and Europe, competence on these issues deemed central to America's or Europe's national security became a prerequisite for a successful career in national security as well as for anyone aspiring to national office. Today we need to think in similarly bold and ambitious terms. We need, first and foremost, to deepen our knowledge of the broader Middle East and of the complex historical and cultural background to the current problems in the region. On both sides of the Atlantic, we need a new generation of experts who combine knowledge of the Middle East, democracy promotion, and strategic studies. Today it is rare to find a program at any leading American or European university that produces this combination of expertise. Neither the department of government at Harvard nor the department of political science at Stanford University has a tenured faculty member specializing in the region. The situation at leading European universities is little different.

      In addition, we need to expand contacts with key leaders in the region representing an array of societal actors, including both governments and civil society.

        Today many American and European government officials, legislators, diplomats, or military officers have not only a cursory understanding of the region, but also of their counterparts.

      A parallel effort is needed to bring American and European leaders together to discuss what a common transatlantic strategy to the region should be.

        The same programs and institutions which promoted a common view on how to deal with core European security issues in the past must now be reoriented to face these new issues. Academia and the think tank world will not fill this void unless prompted by government or private foundations on both sides of the Atlantic.
    3. Reorganizing Our Structures
    4. A strategy to promote democracy and human development in the broader Middle East will also require us to reorganize our national security and foreign policy establishments to highlight this new priority.

        At the moment, the task of democracy promotion is buried down in the second, or even third, tier of our foreign policy bureaucracy. Promoting democracy and political reform is often considered something slightly exotic - a distraction even from the daytoday exigencies, as opposed to a core priority - especially when it comes to the broader Middle East. If this issue is to become a top national priority for decades to come, then it needs to be treated as such in our own policymaking structures. As mentioned earlier, both American and European governments have started reorganizing themselves in response to the new threats we face from the broader Middle East.
        • The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, for example, is one of the largest governmental reorganizations in the United States in decades.
        • In Europe, the pace of change has been slower but is now accelerating as the EU has stepped up its intelligence and lawenforcement coordination and has also created a new coordinator for terrorism.
        • Both sides of the Atlantic are debating potentially far reaching reforms of their intelligence communities and defense establishments.
        Thus far, there has been no equivalent effort to upgrade the task of democracy promotion and human development in the broader Middle East to an equivalent national priority. This needs to change.
        • Doing a better job at penetrating terrorist cells,
        • stopping the terrorists at our borders, or
        • having a better capability to defeat them in those cases where we actually confront them militarily is not enough.
        • We need to be as good at supporting democratic transitions and/or engaging in nation building as we are at toppling despotic or tyrannical regimes.
        The need for more effective strategies and capabilities in this area has been obvious for some time. In recent years, successful military operations ranging from the Balkans to Iraq have been followed by much weaker efforts at political and economic reconstruction. We urgently need to improve our postconflict reconstruction performance. More important still, we need to improve our ability to affect peaceful democratic change. Acquiring that capability requires a reorganization of our current national security institutions.

      There are different ways in which one can approach this key task. We believe that governments on both sides of the Atlantic should consider separating the task of democracy promotion and human development and elevating it to a senior level where it will enjoy highlevel political support and can command the resources necessary for the task.

      • In the United States this would mean creating a cabinet level Department for Democracy Promotion and Development.
      • The Europeans for their part should create an equivalent EU Commissioner with the same responsibilities in the new European Commission. When the EU appoints a new Foreign Minister under the new Constitutional treaty, this Commissioner for democracy and human rights should become one of his or her deputies.

      The rationale for this step is simple. In the United States,

      • the State Department's mission is diplomacy between states, not helping the transition to democracy or promoting human development.
      • The Pentagon's mission should remain defense;
      • its assets for regime reconstruction should be moved into this new department, which would also appropriate resources from the U.S. Agency for International Development and other government departments and agencies. This new department must be endowed with prestige, talented people, and, above all, resources. The point of creating these highlevel posts is to give leadership and political accountability to both American and European efforts to promote democratic change.

    5. Reforming the Transatlantic Partnership
      These changes would also help to build a better foundation for creating a common transatlantic strategy vis a vis the broader Middle East. Despite the breadth and depth of the transatlantic relationship, currently there is no place where the two sides meet on a regular basis to develop and coordinate a common strategy along such lines. While NATO is the strongest institutional link across the Atlantic, it is a military alliance whose focus is too narrow to serve as the forum to coordinate our policies in the areas laid out in this paper. The Alliance can make an important contribution to such a strategy but it will not be the central player.

      On paper, the U.S./EU relationship potentially could become a key forum for both sides of the Atlantic to coordinate polices and build a common approach.

        The EU has experience and a number of assets in the area of promoting democracy, even if its track record has, thus far, been often timid and inconsistent. However, it would require a significant overhaul and upgrade of a relationship that neither side has heretofore used as a key venue for issues of such importance. At the same time, such an overhaul is long overdue
        • as the United States looks for a venue to coordinate strategy on nonmilitary issues and
        • as European nations turn over responsibility for policy on these issues to Brussels.
        The relative weight of the three elements of the transatlantic relationship - NATO, relations with capitals, and U.S./EU - is changing. In years to come more transatlantic 'traffic' will have to go through the EU/U.S. channel, especially when it comes to the broader Middle East.

      In the 1990s, the United States and its European allies took a transatlantic relationship that was forged during the Cold War and designed to contain Soviet power and transformed it into a new partnership focused on consolidating democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, halting ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and building a new partnership with Russia. Today this relationship and its key institutions must again be overhauled to meet a new set of challenges centered in the broader Middle East. A strengthened U.S./EU relationship and a transformed NATO can become key instruments in developing and pursuing such a strategy - if our leaders today are as creative and bold in adapting them as the founding fathers were in establishing them a half century ago.


    Promoting democracy and human development in the broader Middle East is a historic imperative - for the peoples and societies of the region as well as for the United States and Europe.

    The democratic reform and transformation of this region would be a critical step forward in ensuring a more peaceful and secure world. Assisting this region in meeting the challenges of human development, modernity, and globalization would be a critical step in combating terrorism and in providing an antidote to the radical fundamentalist movements that employ it.

    Meeting this challenge is first and foremost a challenge for the peoples and governments of the region itself. But the outside world -and North America and Europe in particular- can and should help. Developments in the region today have a direct impact on our security and wellbeing. The threats emanating from radical terrorist movements constitute one of the greatest dangers to our societies and to world order. Both strategically and morally, our own interests are tied up with this region's future.

    That is why we believe that American and European interests are best served by pooling our political strength and resources to pursue a common strategy of partnership with the region.

    At the moment, there is a danger that Europeans and Americans will pursue competing democratization strategies. Whilst both sides bring different things to the table - and there are real advantages in complementarities - it would be far more effective to pool the best proposals available on both sides of the Atlantic and to coordinate their implementation in a joint endeavor. One of the great historical lessons of the 20th century is that the world is a much safer, more peaceful and democratic place when America and Europe cooperate. That is as true today as it was in the past.
    There is perhaps no more fitting task than for the democracies of North America and Europe to come together to help promote democracy and human development in a part of the world where it is most absent and most needed. Our governments have taken the first steps in recognizing the failings of our past policies and in accepting the need to steer a new course vis a vis the region. We welcome these initial steps. At the same time, we believe there is a need for bigger and bolder thinking about the specifics of a future Western strategy. This paper is meant to stimulate discussion on this issue - on both sides of the Atlantic as well as in dialogue with our partners and interlocutors in the region.

    We hope it will be received in that spirit. We look forward to a dialogue on these ideas.


    IV.1  The Present: Assistance to Iraq After the 2003 War - Inadequate Grants from Germany

      "This is a moment of historic opportunity in Iraq, it's something that we need to move on quickly, it's something that if we don't move on quickly there will be very, very bad consequences in the future. And we hope that other governments will see it the same way, that they will make an extra budgetary effort recognizing the importance of this particular task." (Alan P. Larson, US Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs; Preview of Iraq Donors' Conference in Madrid, October 23-24, 2003, Foreign Press Center Briefing, Washington, DC, October 22, 2003).

    "And by focusing the effort on this window of opportunity, we could make a huge difference for them [the people in Iraq], but also for the security of the entire world." (John B. Taylor, US Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs, Preview of Iraq Donors' Conference in Madrid, October 23-24, 2003, Foreign Press Center Briefing, Washington, DC, October 22, 2003).

    "This has been a historic occasion for my country, which a little over six months ago was the black sheep of the international community. When Iraqi delegates made speeches or asked for support, the conference halls emptied and the silence was deafening.

    "Today I am again proud to be an Iraqi. My colleagues and I came to Madrid to ask for support in the huge task ahead of us in reviving our country, and the support has been outstanding. Iraq has made many new friends. In the last few days I have met with representatives of dozens of countries who have offered to help us build a secure and stable future for our country. In years to come the Iraqis will remember who came forward to help them and to help us in our time of need.

    The pledges made today will help us get back on our feet. Iraq should not need help. As others have said, we are a rich country made temporarily poor. We are a proud people who want nothing more than to stand proud again and to reach our huge potential. We will return to Iraq confident that the reconstruction needs of Iraq will be met. The pledges made today represent a huge investment by the international community in Iraq.

    A very significant portion of the overall reconstruction needs are identified by the UN and by the World Bank in their research report. As this investment starts to pay dividends in Iraq, we expect to be able to start funding more and more of these needs through our auditors and once we have fully repaired the criminal damages done by the former corrupt regime, we look forward to joining future conferences on the other side of the table as a donor, not a recipient." (Ayad Allawi, President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Press Conference following the International Donors Conference for the Reconstruction of Iraq, Madrid, 24 October 2003)
    F or each announced German Iraq-aid US$
    the US citizen has given already 14 US$ Iraq-aid
    (as of April 22 2003).

    An American gives 14 times more a German promises


    "International sanctions against the Iraqi regime led to the collapse of the economy, and over half of the country's population has become totally dependent on food rations distributed by the government under the UN Oil-for-Food program. Humanitarian agencies have been trying to prepare for the human cost of conflict for months, yet difficulties obtaining access for assessment missions and preparedness activities and lack of funding have hampered and delayed these efforts. Two million people may become internally displaced, leaving them in search of food and shelter, adding to the 1 million people who are already without homes. Refugees--as many as 1.5 million--could flee to neighboring nations. 10 million Iraqis--40% of the population--may need immediate food aid. 5.2 million of those who may need immediate food aid are children younger than five or women in some stage of childbearing or infant care. The potential costs of humanitarian assistance for just the first six months are likely to run as high as $800 million." (American Council For Voluntary International Action, Emergency Relief in Iraq, April 2, 2003).

    Relief Web
    ReliefWeb is a project of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

    Public Donation Information
    The most effective way people can assist relief efforts is by making cash donations to humanitarian organizations that are conducting relief operations. A list of humanitarian organizations that are accepting cash donations for their activities in the Gulf can be found in the "How Can I Help" section at [].

    U.S. Outlines Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq


    Donor and International Organization Assistance to Iraq
    (mostly Governments)
    Total Volume as of April 4, 2003: $1.2 Billion
    (was drawn from ReliefWeb and may be not comprehensive)
    assistance for Iraq:  $1.2 billion - breakup
    click on graphics for legend

    Assistance for Iraq (see also: Relief Web - Iraq)

    Total Volume: $1.2 billion

    • total US State/USAID assistance to Iraq in FY 2003: $530 million
    • rest of the world (as of April 4, 2003): $714 million

    Total volume as of April 22, 2003: $25 billion

    assistance for Iraq:  $25 billion - breakup

    Total volume = $25 billion, i.e.
    • $1.2 billion as of April 4, 2003 
    • plus USA
      • $2.5 billion in additional U.S. spending in the current fiscal year, a gift of the people of the United States
      • "US President's request to the Congress for $20 billion of assistance to come to Iraq in 2003 as a supplement to 2003's budget, the largest the US ever done for any country" (Colin Powell, Sept. 14, 2003.)
    • plus $1.3 billion in assistance pledged by other donors.
    Update summary as of October 20, 2003
    • > 20 billion from USA
    • > 1.5 billion from Japan
    • 0.9 billion from UK
    • 0.3 billion from Spain
    • 0.1 billion from Germany. 
    Update summary as of October 24 and November 6, 2003
    • Total grant volume: $33 billion
      • US: $ 20 billion
      • more than $13 billion from other countries and international organizations, including
        • Japan: $ 5 billion
        • European Union: $1.44 billion, including: 
          • Spain: $300 million 
          • Denmark: $27 million +
          • Italy: $235 million 
          • Germany: $ 0.1 billion
        • Republic of Korea: $200 million 
        • Canada: over $150 million 
        • World Bank: between $3 and $5 billion in loans 
        • International Monetary Fund: between $2.5 and $4.25 billion in loans
    Of related interest: the issue of grants versus loans.

    IV.2 The Past: Search for the Cause of the Humanitarian Misery
    The common argument against the disastrous humanitarian consequences of the sanctions is that Saddam himself caused the misery.

    1. M. Ignatieff, Containment of Iraq: Status and Challenges, March 2001
    2. US Dept. of State material released September 13, 1999, updated March 24 2000.
    3. Joy Gordon, Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction

    International Information Programs
    Middle East/North Africa | Iraq Arabic version
    This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Office of International Information Programs.
    IP Home | Index to This Site | Webmaster | Search This Site | Archives | U.S. Department of State
    PDF version - 2.62MB
    Executive Summary
    Impact of Sanctions
    Iraqi Obstruction of Oil-for-Food
    Misuse of Resources by the Regime
    Repression of the Iraqi People
    Evading U.N. Resolutions and Failure to Disarm
    Iraq is a Regional Threat
    U.S. Policy
    War Crimes
    Holds On Oil-For-Food Contracts
    Iraq Omnibus Resolution
    Palaces and Oil Smuggling
    Support for the Mujahedin-e Khalq

    Iraqi Oil Export Revenue and Oil-for-Food Purchases a
    Iraqi Oil Exports

    Chart 1: Revenues from oil sales continue to increase under the oil-for-food program, yet the Iraqi regime refuses to use them to buy food for its people. (Phases of the Oil-for-Food program: Each phase lasted 6 months, phase I started on Dec. 10, 1996. Dividing the Money)

    IV. 2. a Iraq Didn't Agree to Targeted Sanctions

    "    the need to regain the moral high ground given the widespread criticism that sanctions have caused a humanitarian disaster. Most efforts have centred on developing more targeted sanctions while simultaneously improving the provisions for humanitarian aid. The British Government played a constructive part in this process by negotiating UN Security Council resolution 1284, 17 December 1999 [24]. This resolution provided for sanctions to be suspended for renewable periods of 120 days so long as Iraq co-operated with a new UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace UNSCOM.[25] The resolution also lifted the ceiling on the volume of Iraqi oil exports for humanitarian purchases, while easing the import of some agricultural and medical equipment. Although the UK government signalled that resolution 1284 would restore international consensus on Iraq, only the UK and the US voted in favour, while Russia, China and France all abstained. This fragmentation might explain why Iraq rejected resolution 1284.

    17.  The UN again attempted to resolve this crisis in November 2001 with UN Security Council resolution 1382 [26]. Resolution 1382 restates the central provisions of resolution 1284 that suspension of sanctions remains dependent on Iraq's compliance of its obligations under UN resolutions and its agreement to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors. In addition, the resolution  contains arrangements for targeted controls on Iraq by introducing a Goods Review List, under which Iraq would be free to meet all of its civilian needs, while making more effective the existing controls on items of concern, such as military and WMD related goods. According to the UK Foreign Secretary: "The UN decision will soon mean no sanctions on ordinary imports into Iraq, only controls on military and weapons related goods. Iraq will be free to meet all its civilian needs. The measures leave the Baghdad regime with no excuses for the suffering of the Iraqi people." [27] In addition, the resolution aims to build greater co-operation with Iraq's neighbours through an expanded trade regime. This resolution came into force on 30 May 2002. The expanded trade regime is especially important to strengthen the waning support of those countries like Jordan and Turkey, which have experienced significant trade diversion as result of the sanctions regime. This trade diversion has encouraged an illicit cross border trade, the depth of which remains uncertain.

    18.  The Iraqi Government has consistently refused to accept these new resolutions. Iraqi foreign policy is driven by the attainment of two goals—an end to sanctions and the survival of the regime. Its skilful manipulation of the concerns of the original members of the Gulf War coalition has seriously, and perhaps terminally, undermined the present sanctions regime.

    IV. 2. b Saddam's Obstruction

    The Iraqi government obstructs the Oil-for-Food program (OFF) and diverts goods delivered under OFF.

    Child Mortality

    Source: Chart 2 of U.S. Department of State paper "Iraqi Obstruction of Oil-For-Food". 

    Additions (thin lines) by J. Gruber with data from Table 1, Global trends in 5-year estimates of under-five mortality rate, 1955?99, and WHO estimates for 1999, O,B. Ahmad, A.D. Lopez, M. Inoue, The decline in child mortality: a reappraisal, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000, 78 (10):1175-1191.

    • Stark evidence of the government's callous policies was documented in a recent UNICEF survey, which found that child mortality rates doubled in South and Central Iraq, where Saddam Hussein controls distribution of humanitarian assistance, but child mortality rates actually dropped in the North, where the UN controls distribution.
    • We are proposing that the U.N. 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.
    • The United Nations has reported that $200 million worth of medicines and medical supplies sit undistributed in Iraqi warehouses. This is about half the value of all the medical supplies that have arrived in Iraq since the start of the oil-for-food program.
      3. von Sponeck sees multiple reasons for that.

    American Friends Service Committe (AFSC), Iraq Timeline (in cache)

    • 1997 - UNICEF reports that more than 1.2 million people, including 750,000 children below the age of five, have died because of the scarcity of food and medicine.
    • 1998 - A 1998 World Health Organization (WHO) report states that each month, out of the 5.2 million Iraqi children under 5 years of age between 5,000 and 6,000 children die because of sanctions.
    Oil-for-Food Goods Remaining Undistributed in Iraq

    Undistributed Food

    Chart 3: The Iraqi Government has refused to distribute to the people of Iraq billions of dollars worth of supplies delivered by the oil-for-food program.(Source: Iraqi Obstruction of Oil-For-Food)

    version: September 10, 2013
    Address of this page
    Joachim Gruber