"Only Iraq can administer this program," Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf told a press conference on Saturday in response to the unanimously-approved Resolution 1472 that gives Secretary-General Kofi Annan sole control over the humanitarian program.

Only on Tuesday, Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammad Mehdi Salah had accused Annan of violating UN Security Council Resolution 986 by unilaterally suspending the program and urged the necessity for immediate resumption.

So why has Baghdad made such a sudden U-turn to reject the renewed program that uses Iraq's oil revenues to feed 60 percent of its 22 million people?

Firstly, the Iraqi government fears that acceptance of the renewed program, strongly backed by Washington and London, would give the United States and Britain the very excuse to justify and legitimize the war.

The newly-adopted resolution marks the first time the United States and Britain have chosen to resort to the United Nations for a solution to a problem emerged in the Iraq crisis since the two countries launched the war, without any UN authorization, to end Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime on March 20.

By rejecting the program, the Iraqi government is trying to avoid the impression that the war might have been "sanctioned" by the United Nations since the humanitarian crisis, caused by the US-led war on Iraq, would be resolved through the UN way.

Secondly, Iraq fears that the marginalization of the current government and even a regime change would become fait accomplice as the revised oil-for-food program denies the involvement of the Saddam regime.

The UN-supervised oil-for-food program, instituted in late 1996to ease the impact of UN sanctions imposed on Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, had been co-managed by the world body and the Iraqi government before it was suspended on March 18 just before the war began.

But the Security Council Resolution 1472 gives Annan sole authority for a renewable period of 45 days to make "technical and temporary adjustments" to the oil-for-food program to allow the resumption of humanitarian aid for Iraq through the program.

Although the resolution reaffirms "the respect for the right of the people of Iraq to determine their own political future and to control their own natural resources," it does not help to dispel Baghdad's fear that the revamped program would presuppose US-British military occupation of Iraq and a change in the country's leadership.

Thirdly, the revised oil-for-food program would deprive the Iraqi government of the opportunity to use the program as "political lever" to win international support.

Never giving top priority to economic interests when implementing the oil-for-food program, Baghdad had been using its multi-billion-dollar contracts to recruit political allies.

Russia and France have been Iraq's top trade partners under the oil-for-food program and both of them have tremendous economic interests in Iraq.

In recent years, Iraq has also been using the program to attract neighboring Arab countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Syria, as potential regional allies.

Finally, the revamped humanitarian program is widely considered as propitious to the United States in view of economic benefits.

Although the newly-adopted Security Council resolution puts Annan in charge of the program, but its implementation can never avoid a strong US influence since the United States is set to control Iraq's future oil production as the US-led coalition forces have seized most of Iraq's oil field.

As a result, US companies will play a dominant role in an oil-for-food program without the involvement of the current Iraqi regime.

Moreover, although the Security Council Resolution 1472 makes clear that the chief responsibility for addressing humanitarian consequences of the war would fall to the United States and Britain, by referring to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on the responsibilities of the "occupying power," the oil-for-food program will in fact reduce the US-British burden.

(Xinhua News Agency April 1, 2003)