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]
Point 2 is not without some foundation, but it has a context that should not be omitted: Saddam argued that the Arab countries were sending small amounts of aid to assuage their consciences, and therefore this detracted from the effort to lift the sanctions entirely. There is much to be said for this argument, particularly when we consider how galling it must be to receive limited "charity" from Saudi Arabia, which continues to benefit from Iraq's technical and political difficulties by essentially picking up the bulk of Iraq's lost customers, meaning many billions in additional oil sales. To turn around and give a small amount of humanitarian aid to a nation from whose destitution it is so richly benefiting is truly a pathetic effort, and one which the Baghdad regime finally rejected as serving to prolong the sanctions rather than end them, just as the oil-for-food deal served to do. -----Original Message----- From: soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk [mailto:soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk]On Behalf Of Hamre, Drew Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 10:25 AM To: 'Iraq-CASI - Discussion' Subject: The Years 1991-1995, the Refusal of Arab Aid, and Delays Ordering Protein Biscuits > Does anyone have information which rebuts the following arguments for > Saddam's complicity in the humanitarian disaster: > (1) Saddam refused oil-for-food for five years > (2) Saddam has recently refused Arab aid > (3) Iraqi administrators have consistently delayed ordering protein > biscuits permitted under oil-for-food > > Believe the issue with (1) had to do with Iraqi sovereignty and the > relatively small amounts being tendered. (A collection of communications > between the UN and Iraq for the period 1990-1996 is available as a UN > 'Blue Book'; perhaps this would be helpful?) > > Apparently, (2) stems chiefly from a Barbara Crossette article in the > NYTimes, which contained the assertion but few details. > > In the overall scheme of things, (3) is a relatively minor issue. > However, it remains a sore point among OIP administrators and receives > coverage as a result. > > Any information would be sincerely appreciated. > > Regards, > Drew Hamre Minneapolis, MN USA -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- 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 -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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