U.N. to Iraq: Pay Up, No Excuses

The U.N. Security Council is preparing to do the right thing by emphatically rejecting Iraq’s plea for a five-year moratorium on reparations payments stemming from its war of aggression. A draft resolution now before the 15-nation body instead threatens to maintain sanctions on Iraq indefinitely unless Saddam Hussein’s regime meets the conditions contained in the council’s April 3 cease-fire resolution. That includes paying compensation to the countries, companies and individuals that suffered losses as a result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait last Aug. 2 and the events that followed. While no final accounting of damages has yet been made, claims could total tens of billions of dollars.

Can Iraq afford to shoulder this burden? It can, thanks to its enormous oil reserves, the second-largest in the world. Put another way, an international community concerned about bolstering the rule of law simply can’t afford not to require Iraq to meet its economic and moral responsibilities. The looting of Kuwait, the deliberate destruction of its oil facilities and so much other property, the region-wide environmental damage that resulted, the unprovoked missile attacks against Israel--all are crimes for which restitution must be made.

How much and according to what timetable will be left up to a special compensation commission, rather than being determined by the Security Council. But the outlines of what will be sought are already clear.

Once Iraq agrees to comply with relevant U.N. resolutions and provide for the safe return of Iraqi Kurds to their homes, the way will be clear to lift the international embargo on the sale of its oil. Before long, Iraq’s oil sales could reach $20 billion a year. Reparations would come from these very considerable revenues.

Countries sympathetic to Iraq think it would be proper if no more than 5% to 10% of its oil income went for reparations. That wholly inadequate amount would force those who are now in effect Iraq’s creditors to wait many years, even decades, for what they are owed. U.S. officials have suggested that something on the order of 50% of revenues for reparations would be more appropriate. Britain sensibly suggests that about 25% of oil revenues--equal to what Iraq spent on weapons before the war--ought to be earmarked for paying its victims. Certainly no lesser percentage will do.

The principle at issue here is an ancient one: Crime must not be allowed to pay, or to go unpunished. Thanks to Iraq’s oil wealth, the necessary enforcement of this principle can be insisted upon without harm to the well-being of the Iraqi people.