# UN: Crucial and Irrelevant? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844 "2003-09-20T20:38:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/1 "2003-09-20T20:38:59Z")
Despite the advice of noted Liberals such as former VPotUS, former PotUS, and one time CIA chief, George Herbert Walker Bush, we engaged in the invasion of Iraq w/o a clear UN mandate. It turns out that someone with so little experience in foreign affairs was right. I guess we didn’t heed his advice because… The US’re now in the position of seeking tens of billions of dolars and thousands of troops from the very countries we couldn’t successfully negotiate with earlier. Somehow, the reconstruction estimates from industry analysts turned out to be more accurate than those of the Pentagon’s [Office of Special Plans](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199309). Even as recently as a week ago, the canard that Iraq’s oil wealth will somehow be capable of paying for a signifigant portion of Iraq’s reconstruction was being bandied about on national talk radio. Too bad the numbers don’t add up that way. For an irrelevant organization, the UN seems to be pretty crucial to the US’s success in Iraq now. Does someone have a good idea as to how we can do this in a manner acceptable to the American electorate w/o UN help? ---
**Author:** ![FoamChomsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8dc957/32.png) [@FoamChomsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoamChomsky)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/2 "2003-09-20T20:55:00Z")
Has someone in a position to know said that Iraq’s oil reserves (10% of those in the world, as I understand it) will NOT provide sufficient revenue to defray a “significant portion” or the cost of Iraq’s reconstruction? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/3 "2003-09-20T21:02:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FoamChomsky \* > \*\*Has someone in a position to know said that Iraq’s oil reserves (10% of those in the world, as I understand it) will NOT provide sufficient revenue to defray a “significant portion” or the cost of Iraq’s reconstruction? \*\* The rebuilding of Iraq’s petro infrastructure to the point where it will meet more than domestic needs will have to come first. Currently, Iraq is importing deisel and other petro products to meet domestic needs. There’s an expected heating fuel shortage for this winter. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/4 "2003-09-20T21:40:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > Currently, Iraq is importing deisel and other petro products to meet domestic needs. To the tune of about 900 million US taxpayer dollars over the next year. [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1045333,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/5 "2003-09-20T21:45:45Z")
> [@](#): > > [Auntie Beeb](http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3071159.stm) > **Iraq rebuilding 'could cost $90bn’** > > Iraq needs **up to** $90bn (£57bn) in investment to restore its economy to health, according to the latest assessment by experts. > > The investment, which would focus on re-building infrastructure, will take a decade, said Achmed al-Shahrabani, who is leading a special Iraq initiative by management consultants McKinsey. > [Achmed al-Shahrabani] said that **oil revenues would not be enough to cover Iraq’s economic rehabilitation**. > > Iraq’s oil industry would need $35bn-40bn…to increase production to 6 million-7 million barrels a day (b/d) by 2010… > …healthcare system would need $10bn-20bn to restore facilities to pre-1980 standards. > > Since the end of the war, incomes and spending have picked up, while the private sector has shown some signs of revival. > “The economy should grow quite fast,” Mr Gantley said. "The challenge is sustainable high domestic growth. > “But if Iraq fails, there will be high levels of unemployment for a generation, which could be socially destabilising.” > > “It is hard to overstate the mess Iraq was in before the war,” [Mr Gantley] said. > > …barriers to a long-term recovery are restrictions on foreign investment and the lack of a proper legal system to safeguard investments by international companies. > [@](#): > > Iraq’s estimated investment needs Utilities Reconstruction of basic infrastructure such as transport facilities, telecommunications and utilities (power capacity currently at 1,800 MW compared with 9,500 MW pre-1990) $10bn-15bn just for electricity and telecoms Oil & gas Re-establishing and increasing oil production capacity to 6 million-7 million barrels a day by 2010 $35bn-40bn Healthcare Re-establishing pre-1980 health care facilities and standards $10bn-20bn Education Rebuilding and upgrading of primary, secondary and tertiary education institutions $6bn-12bn Transport infrastructure Rebuilding 40,000 km of paved roads, three main railway lines, three main airports, two ports Several billions > _Source: McKinsey_ **AND** > [@](#): > > [Iraq: Oil For Reconstruction After Oil For Food Middle East Economic Survey](http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=27144) - 25/08/2003 > > The following paper was delivered by Ramzi Salman at the workshop on “Iraq and the Region after War - Issues of Economic and Social Reconstruction” held at UN House, Beirut, 9-11 July. Dr Salman is Advisor to the Minister of Energy and Industry in Qatar. He formerly served as Deputy Secretary General of OPEC and Head of Iraq’s State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO). > "Many talk of developing Iraq’s production capacity to 6mn b/d or more. The question, however, is not to what capacity but when and how. > Given the present state of the Iraqi oil industry, bringing production levels to recent pre-war levels then to 1990 levels is a lot more complex than many seem to realize. In my opinion, the issue is more of replacement, at least of substantial parts of the existing facilities, rather than repairs. Repairs and rehabilitation of the old infrastruc-ture and equipment might be more costly and time consuming than building a new parallel production system in some areas and fields. What is remaining is old and has been over-stretched in every respect and for a long time. > > Cannibalization and inadequate maintenance have taken their toll and it was indeed a miracle how some facilities continued performing for so long. A lot of credit is due to the Iraqi technicians who, in very difficult conditions and under immense pressure, managed to maintain production and exports even at the reduced pre-war levels. There are also some invisible subsurface and reservoir problems. Bad production management caused a lot of damage to most of the oil reservoirs, with huge losses to ultimate recoverable reserves; losses that could be salvaged in part but at a much higher cost. > > When it comes to financing the so-called “Reconstruction of Iraq”, observers consider the income from oil ex-ports in the foreseeable future will not be adequate. Besides the funds needed for rebuilding, modernizing and expanding the oil sector, which many place high on the agenda, there are other sectors that deserve equal if not higher priority. Compare and contrast this [Iraq’s estimated 2002 GDP of $58bil and external debt of $120bil](http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html). ---
**Author:** ![FoamChomsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8dc957/32.png) [@FoamChomsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoamChomsky)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2003, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/6 "2003-09-20T22:43:35Z")
Excellent. But do any of these commentators say, suggest, imply or even hint that Iraq’s oil > [@](#): > > will NOT provide sufficient revenue to defray a “significant portion” of the cost of Iraq’s reconstruction? Clearly it may not, indeed probably will not finance the whole ball of wax. But the issue here seems to be those two lovely little words, “significant portion.” ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/7 "2003-09-21T00:08:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FoamChomsky \* > \*\* > Excellent. But do any of these commentators say, suggest, imply or even hint that Iraq’s oil will NOT provide sufficient revenue to defray a “significant portion” of the cost of Iraq’s reconstruction? > \*\* Yes, Ramzi Salman says: “When it comes to financing the so-called “Reconstruction of Iraq”, observers consider the income from oil ex-ports in the foreseeable future will not be adequate. Besides the funds needed for rebuilding, modernizing and expanding the oil sector, which many place high on the agenda, there are other sectors that deserve equal if not higher priority.” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FoamChomsky \* > \*\* > Clearly it may not, indeed probably will not finance the whole ball of wax. But the issue here seems to be those two lovely little words, “significant portion.” \*\* Given that pre-war GDP was only $58bil, (not gov incomeor budget, but the GDP), and that Iraq already has $120bil of external debt to be paying on, and that the invasion, subsequent looting and subsequent sabotage have caused incredible damage to the country’s capacity to export oil, thus delaying the arrival of income, a reconstruction bill of $90bil is massive. Now, of course, not only is the GDP this year is greatly reduced from pre-war levels, but the GDP itself is not the amount of money avalailable to be spent on reconstruction. For comparison, the Iran’s GDP was $456bil, but gov budget revenues were only $29.5bil. For a thumbnail sketch, if we took this ratio of very roughly 1:20 for Iraq, we end up w/ bugdget revenues being less than $2.9bil. Some of this $2.9bil will have to go to the day-to-day expenses of running the country and it’s services. Just how much I can’t say, but there’re ~24mil people who live in Iraq and need it’s services. Maybe Iran’s not a good model for making the comparison. The US has roughly a 1:5 ratio of budget revenue vs GDP. This would make the revenue for Iraq at still less than $11bil. These’re some of the reasons that the White House is fishing for somehwere in the neighborhood of $50bil in foreign donations to go w/ the $20bil from the US instead of relying on Iraq. $70bil from foreignl sources to cover a $90bil seems like Iraq is only expected pick up less than a fifth of the bill. Outside analysts are on record saying that the WH estimate is another low-ball estimate. ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/8 "2003-09-21T00:52:13Z")
As for the “oil will pay for the reconstruction argument”, there’s no way that can happen. Partly because of reasons already stated above. But most importantly, even with a production capacity of 6 million barrels a day (which would be by far the highest in the world) this amounts to only $54 billion per year - GROSS. (6 mill. barrels a day / 365 days / an average price of $25 a barrel). That’s gross! How much would the Iraqi government get from that? Let’s say 10%-20%. That’s only $5-10 billion a year - coming sometime in the next decade. And they will have to pay for at least some government programs before they pay for anything else. And I’m not even going to suggest what an additional 4-5 million barrels a day of oil dumped on the market is going to do with the price of oil. As for the OP, **simonX** are you asking how this could be solved without UN involvement? If you do, I cannot see any other solution than that the US would have to pay for the most of it themselves. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/9 "2003-09-21T01:26:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alien \* > \*\*As for the OP, **simonX** are you asking how this could be solved without UN involvement? If you do, I cannot see any other solution than that the US would have to pay for the most of it themselves. \*\* I suspect that this won’t be acceptable to the American electorate. ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/10 "2003-09-21T02:15:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > \*\*I suspect that this won’t be acceptable to the American electorate. \*\* The way I see it, this is how it goes. Europe and the rest of the world cannot contribute financially or provide a substantial number of soldiers without some sort of UN approval, because by doing that they will de facto agree to the current US opinion: That the UN is irrelevant. Agreeing to the US positition would be the same as undermining the UN. Imagine the next time there is showdown between UN and someone else, the UN wouldn’t be taken very seriously anymore. However, I have taken notice of European politicians, and almost all of them appear quite ready to contribute for “the good of the Iraqi people”. In other words, this is kind of a Catch 22. The answer would have to be some sort of middle ground, but I don’t think Europe/Asia would accept anything less than UN civilian control of Iraq. US control over troops, maybe, civilian control, no. But I have to say that if the US believes that a great chunk of the cost of reconstruction will come from the UN or other countries, they are probably wrong. We are talking about so much money here that, at least for Europe countries, they can only make up for a small amount of that. European countries has budgets too, and they don’t run huge deficits. Hey, they cannot run huge deficits because of the EU agreement, and even if they could I think there’s a limit for what European citizens, in their current mood, would contribute to the US. I’m running some historical numbers from the top of my head, and I’m guessing $10 billion would be max from Europe, probably far less. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/11 "2003-09-21T04:41:24Z")
The US has waged wars in the past without UN help several times. But almost every time we did ask. People act as if this is somehow unprecedented. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/12 "2003-09-21T06:03:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*The US has waged wars in the past without UN help several times. But almost every time we did ask. People act as if this is somehow unprecedented. \*\* Could you elaborate please? Which ‘this’ are you referring to? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/13 "2003-09-21T10:36:02Z")
\>\> The US has waged wars in the past without UN help several times. Every time before 1945, and many times after that. What’s your point? \>\> But almost every time we did ask. Ask for what? \>\> People act as if this is somehow unprecedented. What is unprecedented? You might want to clarify and expand. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/14 "2003-09-21T11:07:58Z")
\*\*Ask for what? \*\* A Security Council resolution approving the action. \*\*What is unprecedented? \*\* Two things: 1. That this is the first time we’ve attacked a nation that didn’t attack us first. 2. That this is the first time we’ve done it without UN approval. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/15 "2003-09-21T11:48:34Z")
The USA has almost every time asked for UN approval for its wars? I don’t know about that one way or another. The UN has only existed for about 1/4 of the history of the USA. But, anyway, that’s neither here nor there. I suppose that any country would try to use all means to gain support for their actions and the UN is a good place for that. I am still uncertain of what your point is with this. Were you responding to something which was said? > [@](#): > > What is unprecedented? > Two things: > > 1. That this is the first time we’ve attacked a nation that didn’t attack us first. > 2. That this is the first time we’ve done it without UN approval. You might want to think that over. I am quite sure the USA has attacked first in quite a number of cases but I do not feel like going over the whole list of conflicts. Irak has never attacked the USA. The first Gulf war was caused by Iraq attacking Kuwait, not the USA. What about Vietnam? I do not recall Vietnam attacking the USA. How about Korea? Grenada? Panama? The several interventions in Central America? What about the Spanish war in 1898? Spain did not attack the USA, rather, the USA attacked Spain for no other reason than it wanted Spain’s possessions. I do not find your post convincing and I am not quite sure what your point is anyway. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/16 "2003-09-21T11:54:18Z")
I was responding to the posters who were expressing outrage that we had done something we’d never done before when in fact we’d done this as recently as 1998. We also did it in 1989 and 1983, to cite the most recent examples of going to war without being attacked or without UN approval. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/17 "2003-09-21T13:17:18Z")
What will be more acceptable to the US electorate ? (remember its the stupid ones that have more votes) - Leaving Iraq soon and in shambles and wish them good luck. vs - Spending $200 billion+ and 100-150+ extra more dead ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/18 "2003-09-21T13:28:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > \*\*… In either case Bush is losing. First he made people think it was a quick, easy and clean job… second he said he wouldnt leave until the job was ready…(OP asked without UN) \*\* What did GW ever say to make you think that Iraq was going to be ‘easy’? In other words, cite? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/19 "2003-09-21T13:35:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > I was responding to the posters who were expressing outrage that we had done something we’d never done before when in fact we’d done this as recently as 1998. We also did it in 1989 and 1983, to cite the most recent examples of going to war without being attacked or without UN approval. I am having a hard time making any sense of your posts. Where are the posts “expressing outrage that we had done something we’d never done before”? If you are responding to previous posts you might want to use the “quote” function so that we are all clear on what you are referring to. I see this thread is about the reconstruction of Iraq and about the role the UN may or may not have in the reconstruction. Maybe I am missing something. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2003, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844/20 "2003-09-21T13:43:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rashak Mani \* > What will be more acceptable to the US electorate ? (remember its the stupid ones that have more votes) > > - Leaving Iraq soon and in shambles and wish them good luck. > > vs > > - Spending $200 billion+ and 100-150+ extra more dead There is another choice and my guess is it will happen: Fumble around in Iraq for months not spending enough to do anything useful and just tell the Americans everything is going just fine. The fact that life in Iraq is not improving makes no difference to Americans. As long as they are told things are fine and objections are waved away many Americans will choose to believe that. People prefer not to have to face uncomfortable truths. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-crucial-and-irrelevant/202844.md?page=2)