Oil for What? Illicit Iraqi Term Paper

The results found are very credible. Looking at simply the correlation between rotating countries on the Security Council and the purchase of oil contracts, even a layperson becomes suspicious. As an example, both Nambia and Gambia only received oil contracts during their tenure on the Council. Even permanent Council members, like France and Russia, are not above suspicion, with their call for adjustments to the retroactive pricing system established by the Sanctions Committee to prevent Iraq from earning kickbacks by underpricing oil, when both countries are the two largest recipients of said contracts. Lastly, it is shown statistically significant that there is a relationship between countries who have shown strong Iraqi support and the receipt of oil contracts. The author uses appropriate data methods in addressing these questions.However, there is very little evidence to support the surmation that Hussein was using this kickback money and oil contracts to purchase weapons. The only evidence provided by the author is an increase in contracts to Jordan and Syria during times of air strike escalations. Although it is entirely likely that this is what occurred, this could simply be a coincidence, and is an assumption that simply cannot be made. To remedy this flaw, data needs to be retrieved specifically on weapons stockpiles, during the times in question.

References

Heaton, P. "Oil for What? Illicit Iraqi Oil Contracts and the U.N. Security Council." Thesis, University of Chicago, no date......