US Compromises at UN but Keeps Control of Iraq Oil

Did anyone seriously doubt this? Throughout the 'debate' that led-up to the illegal strike on Iraq I was floored by the countless arguments that the US had no intentions of profiting from it. They were disingenuous at best. I'm now confronted daily by an escalating bravado in which people speak approvingly of what has developed into an obvious occupation.

What I find somewhat new in the article...years?;

But the resolution, expected to be adopted by Friday, still gives the United States and Britain wide-ranging powers to run Iraq and control its oil industry until a permanent government is established, which could take years.

What I find alarming but not surprising at all;

Troubling to international law experts is the rewriting of the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the duties of occupying powers, such as the United States and Britain. They are not supposed to create a new permanent government or commit Iraq to long-term contracts, such as oil exploration, under the Geneva treaties.

"The United States is asking the Security Council to authorize it to do a series of things that would otherwise violate international law under the guise of ending sanctions," said Morton Halperin, a former State Department official and director of the Open Society Institute in Washington.

"The purpose of this resolution is to relieve the United States of both its obligations and the limits of what it can do as an occupying power under international law by having the Security Council supersede the requirements of the Geneva Convention," he said in an interview.

Further reading:
Will International Law Shape the Occupation, or the Occupation Shape International Law?