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]
Dear Andrew, All I think the long quote from Sarah Graham-Brown clarifies matters. I'm sorry I was not clear enough in my original contribution. <1>IMPORT/EXPORT Briefly, I read the resolution in this way: IRAQI IMPORT SIDE OF SANCTIONS Para 20: Imposes ban on exporting to Iraq, ie Iraqi imports (with 'humanitarian' exemptions) Para 21: Makes lifting of ban on exporting to Iraq conditional on 'the policies and practices of the Government of Iraq, including the implementation of all relevant resolutions of the Security Council'. IRAQI EXPORT SIDE OF SANCTIONS Para 22: Makes lifting of ban on Iraqi exports conditional on disarmament in the four areas (nuclear, biological, chemical, long-range missiles). Andrew suggested that 'There is no (explicit) mention of the other half of the sanctions' i.e. Iraqi imports, in the resolution. But that is precisely what is dealt with in Para 20: 'Decides, effective immediately, that the prohibitions against the sale or supply to Iraq of commodities or products other than medicine and health supplies... shall not apply to foodstuffs notified to the Committee established by resolution 661'. As I said last time, strictly speaking this Decision sets out an _exemption_ from the import ban, and is not an explicit _continuation_ of the import ban, but the operational meaning is clear: exporting to Iraq is to continue to be prohibited, with this new exception. <2>PARA 19 What I said in relation to the Compensation Fund was that Iraqi payments to the CF are not a condition of the lifting of the oil embargo. Para 19 does not involve actual payments, it just sets up the machinery of the CF, and setting up mechanisms for ensuring Iraqi payments. So half the sanctions could be lifted once the CF was set up, but the other half (the ban on imports by Iraq) would not be lifted until later, and no doubt Iraqi payments to the CF would be one of the policies and practices relevant to the decision to end the import ban. <3>LASTLY -----Original Message----- From: andrew loucks <email@example.com> Date: 16 May 1999 00:06 >Lastly, and I think most importantly, if the conditions of these "relevant" >resolutions must be met before the SC can "reduce or lift the prohibitions >referred to therein" , then why does it say in the very next paragraph that >half the sanctions can be lifted when the disarmament conditions are met and >when the paragraph 19 program is set up? Does this mean that Iraq gets to >export once it disarms and then other countries are allowed to sell to Iraq >once all those other "relevant" resolutions are taken care of? Maybe. At >this point I'm a little lost. > >Andrew Loucks >The Global Movement to End the War >against Iraq - www.leb.net/globalmewi >Hamilton, Ontario, Canada If my reading of the resolution is correct, and it is substantially that of Sarah Graham Brown, para 21 says that relevant resolutions must be met and policies and practices approved by the UNSC before the Iraqi _import_ ban is lifted; and para 22 says that disarmament conditions must be met and the CF set up under para 19 before the Iraqi _export_ ban is lifted. Therefore, assuming the latter conditions are less onerous than the former, and were foreseen as such, the idea was indeed that Iraq would first of all be allowed to sell oil (and maybe dates and a few other items) and earn foreign exchange from such sales, and then at some point further on would be allowed to engage freely in other forms of trade, importing other goods. This is not totally irrational on the face of it, because of the other exemption also contained in para 20 of 'materials and supplies for essential civilian needs as identified in the report of the Secretary-General dated 20 March 1991 (S/22366), and in any further findings of humanitarian need by the Committee'. This means that Iraq's oil earnings after disarmament could be used for 'essential civilian needs' (as identified by the Ahtisaari report or later agreed by the Sanctions Committee). <4>PERSONALLY I must say that I've only reached this reading of the resolution in the last few weeks after several years of going around very confidently with a series of totally wrong analyses. My first major error (for about five years) was to read only para 22 and not paras 20 and 21. My second major error (this last year) was to miss the tail end of para 21 which sort of jerks the resolution into making sense after a very confusing one and a half paragraphs. After these and a string of other misreadings, I remain hopeful that someone will find the mistakes in the current reading, and illuminate a more enlightened policy. Milan Rai -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To be removed/added, email firstname.lastname@example.org, NOT the whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html