After its failure to avert war in Iraq, the United Nations Security Council last week put up an united face for reaching emergency and humanitarian relief to Iraq, but the decision drew flak from experts.

The 15-member Council unanimously adopted an adjustment to the Oil-for-Food programme for Iraq, giving Secretary General Kofi Annan more authority to administer the program for the next month-and-a-half.

The Council has already identified about $1 billion worth of medicines, health supplies, foodstuff and other material for shipment to be shipped to Iraq. It gave Annan the authority to run the humanitarian part of the program and to prioritize the deliveries to meet the urgent needs of the Iraqi people.

The Oil-for-Food programme, created in 1995 to ease the impact of sanctions imposed on Baghdad following its invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, permitted Iraq to use part of its oil revenues for food and medicine and has been the only sustenance for some 60 percent of Iraq's population. The programme was suspended on March 17 when Annan withdrew UN personnel from Iraq ahead of the US-led military action in Iraq.

The Council approval came on March 28 after a series of closed-door consultations. Diplomatic sources said following  the Council's failure to arrive at a consensus regarding the war against Iraq, Council members were keen to put up a united front in terms of giving humanitarian assistance. The unanimous adoption of the adjustment to the programme was as an indication of that effort.

While the United States described the decision to modify the Oil-for-Food programme as a positive step, both France and Germany welcomed the fact the Council was able to find its unity of purpose. The US said it would coordinate the programme on the ground and distribute assistance as circumstances permitted.

Such show of unanimity notwithstanding, the Council drew flak from experts for alleged violation of international laws and the Geneva Convention. Phyllis Bennis of the Washington, DC-based Institute for Policy Studies and author of the just published Understanding the US-Iraq Crisis: A Primer said oil-for-food funds should not have been released to pay for emergency supplies because international law, especially the Geneva Convention, requires the occupying power to pay for humanitarian needs of the civilian population under occupation.

"What is appropriate at this moment is for the occupying powers, the US and the UK, to pay for all humanitarian necessities in Iraq. That is a legal requirement," she told rediff.com "When the hostilities end, the oil-for-food money can be used, but relying on the same Iraqi decision-making process that was in place before."

At the United Nations, Deputy Secretary General Kenzo Oshima, who is the emergency relief coordinator, acknowledged that the occupying powers have the responsibility. When asked during a press conference why the US and UK were not fulfilling their legal responsibilities, Oshima said there is a desire on the part of many members of the international community to contribute to international humanitarian organizations, particularly the UN.

"Our appeal does not in any way reduce the responsibility that the belligerent forces have under the Geneva Convention. Indeed, some of these countries may very well decide to fulfill their obligations by providing funds for humanitarian relief through the UN system," he said.

Bennis said the reason why the United Nations is unable to make members comply with rules is because of pressure.
"Clearly, the US pressure is relentless on the UN and there is an atmosphere of fear in the world body," she said. 

Terming it a very dangerous development, she asked whether the Non Aligned Movement and the Organisation of Islamic Countries will take on the US. "Countries like India that are powerful enough to stand up to the US should be taking the lead. Countries like India will have to take the lead because countries like Chad cannot. Obviously India will have to do more," she said.

According to her, what was important was to get the issue out of the Council into the General Assembly. "You cannot expect any of the five permanent members beyond making some statements. Therefore, actions need to be taken to countries that are outside the Security Council, yet powerful," she said. "I think countries like India and South Africa can really play a meaningful role."