Spoils of war

It was back to business as usual at the UN - an attempt by Britain and the United States to persuade those countries on the Security Council which did not support the Iraq war to support the Iraq peace.

The idea is to end UN sanctions and allow what is now called the "Authority" or the Occupying Powers - the US and UK - to manage Iraq's oil money until the Iraqis themselves are up to the job.

So, is this a good way to get Iraq back on its feet as quickly as possible - or is it proof that the conspiracy theorists had a point when they said the coalition wanted to get its hands on Iraq's oil wealth?

Gavin Esler spoke to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's Ambassador at the UN, and started by asking him whether this resolution was a recognition that only the British and Americans could get things done - because the UN was too slow and bureaucratic.

Click here to watch the interview

Sir JEREMY GREENSTOCK:
No, it doesn't say that. It just happens that we're there on the ground because of what we have achieved so far, so we have to be in the lead chronologically and logically. But we are inviting the international community and the United Nations to join us in this huge enterprise of rebuilding Iraq. That's the spirit in which we've tabled the resolution, and frankly, that's the spirit so far in which it's been received in the Security Council. So I don't accept the connotations of your question.

ESLER:
Isn't it true, though, that the UN's role indeed, other international bodies' role - is simply advisory, almost symbolic, because paragraph 13 of the draft resolution says, "The assistance funds shall be disbursed at the direction of the Authority," which is the British and the Americans?

GREENSTOCK:
Yes, because we have to get on with the practical business of implementing improvements on the ground, but it's up to the UN, once it's got its foot through the door, to come and join us and show that it can be entirely constructive and helpful with all the great experience and expertise that the UN has in these areas.

ESLER:
So no-one, not the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, not even the Iraqi's themselves will have a VETO on how this money is spent? It will be the occupying powers who decide, end of story.

GREENSTOCK:
Yes, but it's going to be transparent. It's going to be international. It's going to be a collective exercise. We're going to use that advice from the board constructively. They're going to audit and monitor. It's going to be an arrangement that will work, that will be transparent and that will be fair. But we are in the lead because we have the responsibility. That's the whole point. But I don't think there's anything unusual or hidden behind all of this. We just want to do it in the way that is most efficient.

ESLER:
I was wondering how this squares with the comments made by the Prime Minister before the war began, in the Azores summit on 16th March. He said, "The wealth of Iraq should be used for the Iraqi people. It is theirs. It will remain so, administered by the UN." That's not what's happening here.

GREENSTOCK:
Well, things have moved on, but it is going to be for the Iraqi people. The draft is clear about that. Iraqi resources are only for Iraqis. We wish to serve that purpose. But we're there, on the ground, with the responsibility, and we're now going to get on with it, but there is a role for the international community as well. So let us construct this partnership and get on with it.

ESLER:
I want to move on to other areas, but the reason I'm pressing you on this is, in the lead-up to the war, there were conspiracy theories dismissed by the Prime Minister that the US and the UK wanted to get their hands on Iraqi oil. He said, "We don't touch the money and the Americans don't touch it, without proper UN authority." But it does look as if you have got your hands on the Iraqi oil money, however transparent the process may be?

GREENSTOCK:
But if the Security Council adopts this resolution, then it will have UN authority, so we're arguing in circles, Gavin. I don't think we're trying to hide anything or do anything for ourselves. To the extent that the UN can contribute, which the UK thinks is a huge extent, this is going to be a partnership exercise.

ESLER:
When do you think the Iraqis themselves could take control? Again, looking at what happened in Afghanistan, where some 18 months after that conflict there's still an interim government there. When do you think the Iraqis could manage to manage their own affairs?

GREENSTOCK:
So long as they agree amongst themselves, we suspect that this may be quicker than Afghanistan, because Iraq is a very well- formed and competent country. It's been under a brutal dictatorship, but it has a middle class and a bureaucracy that knows how to do the job. A lot of those people are left, and are not compromised by the previous regime. So we have a lot of people to work with, once they organise themselves and once we get the working ministries, et cetera. I think we can move a lot faster than that.

ESLER:
If we're talking months, it still could be true. Because you want to get on with it, many of the key contracts are already put out, in other words, the Americans and British decide where to spend the money?

GREENSTOCK:
No. I wouldn't worry too much about that. There is an enormous number of contracts still to come through the Oil for Food programme, $10 billion. Much, much more than we are putting out at the moment, or are likely to put out in the next few months. When you add it all up, this will be a very

ESLER:
I wonder what you made of the Russian objections, at least those that we heard from President Putin, when he met Tony Blair, when he said that the sanctions were imposed on suspicion of the possession of weapons of mass destruction. They can be lifted when the suspicion is eliminated.

GREENSTOCK:
Well, let's see about that. We have proposed that we can leave this precise issue until a bit later. We'll see what other members of the Council say about sanctions lift as against the disarmament requirement. My feeling is that we can work something out that does not get in the way of what we are proposing, including the ending of the effective sanctions regime.

ESLER:
Is the implication of all of this that, in taking command even for a short time of Iraq's money, the United States and the United Kingdom are involved, not just in nation building, but in nation running on a massive scale?

GREENSTOCK:
I think it is going to be quite a big enterprise but we're not going to be there for longer than the Iraqis need order. As soon as the Iraqis show that they can run these things, then we are going to back off and let them do it. When you look back, in six months' or a year's time, you will find that we have fulfilled that particular requirement.

ESLER:
Sir Jeremy, thank you very much for talking to us. Thank you very much.

This transcript was produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.