The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Foreign Office stance (fwd)





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:07:18 +0000 (GMT)
From: "P.E. Ronan" <per21@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
To: Seb Wills <saw27@cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Foreign Office stance

Looks like this is essentially self-jusifying. UNSCOM wants a reason
to perpetuate their presence in Iraq and keep Iraq under sanctions,
as is indicated in the speculation that Iraq would rebuild its arsenal as 
soon as it was able to sell its oil on the open market. Seems like
UNSCOM and the Foreign Office don't then have to ever give Iraq its full
autonomy, or at least not while Saddam Hussein heads the government. 
-PR


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To be removed/added, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk, NOT the
whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]