[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7746-7747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING OCCUPIED IRAQ

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, next week we are going to have a 
supplemental appropriations bill of at least $75 billion before the 
Congress of the United States for the funding necessary for the 
military action in Iraq, at least for the early part of that action, 
which number could not have been decided when we passed the 
appropriations bills in January because at that point there would not 
have been any military action. I raise this issue now in conjunction 
with what there is in international law in regard to a victorious power 
in a nation, after the war is done, of what can be used of the natural 
resources of a country for the victorious country to administer the 
nation as well as to rebuild that nation.
  The reason I raise these points about international law is because 
there is very clear international law about what a victorious nation 
can do and cannot do in regard to the resources of the defeated nation. 
I raise this issue at this point because I want to make sure the 
American taxpayers are not saddled with any of the costs of rebuilding 
Iraq that can be legitimately paid for, under international law, out of 
the resources of Iraq.
  After the first full week of the conflict, the allied forces have 
pushed well into the country, liberating Iraqi populations across 
western and southern Iraq. These developments, then, raise an issue 
that must be explored and discussed before we obligate taxpayers' money 
to rebuilding Iraq; that is, with

[[Page 7747]]

regard to the United States and allied occupation of Iraq, what does 
international law tell us? What does international law dictate with 
regard to our rights as the occupying power to administer Iraq's oil 
resources and our obligations to the citizens of Iraq?
  The Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention provide the 
basis for international law with regard to the obligations and rights 
of an occupying power. They provide specific guidelines for 
administering the resources of the occupied territory and the 
obligations of the occupying power to provide for the welfare and the 
safety of the occupied people.
  With regard to the rights of an occupying power to use public 
property and resources, article 53 of Hague regulations of 1907 
provides that an occupying power can only take possession of state-
owned property, and any seizure of private property must be restored 
and compensation provided when peace is made.
  Further, article 55 provides:

       The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator 
     and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, 
     forests and agricultural works belonging to the hostile 
     State.

  The rules of usufruct provide a tenant--in this case it would be the 
United States or the coalition forces--the right to use and enjoy the 
profits of property owned by Iraq, as long as the property is not 
damaged or altered in any way. In addition, the allied forces may use 
the public assets only for the benefit of Iraq and the Iraqi people, 
and to defray the costs of administration.
  Secretary Powell recently reaffirmed this right. When discussing the 
issue of oil fields, he stated:

       You can be sure that they [meaning the oil fields] would be 
     protected and the revenue generated from any such oil fields 
     would be used in accordance with international law and to the 
     benefit of the Iraqi people.

  The occupying power may also take possession of public movable 
property only if such property can be directly or indirectly used for 
military operations. Clearly, Iraq's oil reserves are susceptible to 
military use and thereby subject to seizure by U.S. military forces 
under the laws of war to restore Iraq.
  In addition, the oil produced from Iraqi wells may be considered 
similar to the produce of public land which, under article 55, may be 
appropriated by the occupying power.
  With regard to the obligations of the occupying power, article 43 of 
Hague regulations of 1907 state:

       The authority of the legitimate power, having actually 
     passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take 
     steps in his power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, 
     public order and safety.

  The Geneva Convention, relevant to the protection of civilian persons 
in time of war, states that the occupying power is also responsible for 
establishing a direct system of administration and maintaining the 
public order.
  The key restriction to the use of Iraq's oil is that the proceeds are 
limited to occupation purposes, which includes measures taken in the 
furtherance of fulfilling that obligation that I just read under 
article 43, to reestablish peace and order to Iraq. Clearly, 
international law provides that the United States is entitled to use 
the money from oil sales to pay for such obligations as long as food 
and water, health care, roads and bridges, schools and airports, as 
examples.
  Once a viable Iraqi government is established, the oil fields must be 
returned to Iraq in a reasonable condition.
  One final issue for debate will be the role of the U.N. in the 
reconstruction and administration of Iraq. For example, what will 
remain of the United Nations Oil For Food Program in post-Saddam Iraq? 
Given the U.N.'s inability to fulfill its obligations with regard to 
enforcing Security Council Resolution 1441, it is unclear whether the 
U.N. will be relevant at all in the reconstruction efforts of Iraq.
  It is my hope that the U.N. will follow the lead of the United 
States, Britain, and the other 40 or more allies currently in Iraq 
enforcing the U.N. resolutions. After all, it must be made very clear 
that the resources of Iraq will finally be available for the use of the 
Iraqi people, for the betterment of those same people.
  For far too long, we know the prisoners of Saddam's regime have been 
deprived of their country's riches and forced to survive as peasants. 
While the responsibility for providing for the welfare of the Iraqi 
people belonged to Saddam Hussein, he was, as we know, more interested 
in spending it on himself in the form of elaborate palaces and in the 
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
  The Iraqi people will finally share in the wealth of their country 
that has always belonged to them rather than Saddam sharing it with his 
family and the cronies of his brutal regime.
  I hope the Congress will take into consideration the rights the 
taxpayers of the United States have under this Geneva Convention, to 
make sure the resources for the rebuilding of Iraq come from Iraqi 
natural resources and not from the American taxpayers. That should be 
fully taken into consideration, as some of the money we appropriate 
next week will probably be used for that purpose of at first 
establishing administration in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________