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]
Hello all, 1) On re-reading Drew's message, I don't actually see anything that can be interpreted as 'pro-Saddam'. I am convinced that the al-Takhriti regime is indeed manipulating OFF for its own purposes. I'm also convinced that it's making money out of all levels of sanctions-busting smuggling which pre-dates OFF. The fact that Hussein et al are evil scum has never been at issue, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure that I'd act as if Saddam has gained 'billions' from OFF. I'm not sure that that there are billions to gain. A billion, maybe. But the exact number is *irrelevant* to the campaign against sanctions. Sure the Iraqi govt has been sinned against. But it's also been sinning big time. The Iraqi people, on the other hand, are getting it in the neck from their state and from the so-called 'international community' (ie the G7). It's them we're trying to work with. 2) I would love a list a Labour MPs, broken down into: a) Blairite robots and government minsters. b) People who've rebelled over any vote at all in the current Parliament. c) People who've rebelled or made dissenting noises on foreign policy, development and human rights issues, but have yet to come out against sanctions. d) People (mainly the Campaign Group usual suspects) who already oppose sanctions. The idea being to target Cs first, then Bs, with a view to making it a Parliamentary management issue. If the Whips have to spend time over this issue, this helps to keep it on the agenda. Anyone know who'd have one of these? CAAT? CAABU? Are *all* Parliamentary lobbyists scum? 3) Yesterday's 'Evening Standard' [right-wing London paper] reported the arrival of Galloway's bus in Iraq. It spun the whole thing as a charity exercise, and didn't mention sanctions at all. Grrr. 4) Dave and Joanne from Voices will be speaking at Leicester University (Attenborough LT1) at 7.30 on Thursday December 2nd. regards to everyone, and keep it up, Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Amina Baker [SMTP:AMB71@hermes.cam.ac.uk] > Sent: Friday, November 26, 1999 4:12 AM > To: Hamre, Drew > Cc: 'Iraq-CASI - Discussion' > Subject: Re: 1) More on oil futures 2) Boutros-Ghali on sanctions > > > to drew and all others with the same pathetic naive pro sadam > opinion, i do not know whehter many of you are plain ignorant or you > simply have not read the latest reports published in new york, they found > that saddam hussain has indeed gained billions of dollars by the oil for > food programme. what makes saddam wealthy are a number of factors, one of > which is this!!! we are not assuming that saddam is making money, it is a > fact that saddam and his baathist party are benefiting daily by selling > the food in the black market in asia, s.e asia etc etc. now i am sure that > those of us who actually doo want to help the cause of iraq will agree > that and evil amn of his power, who has and remains to kill his own > people, will do anything and everything in his power to gain all the funds > he can for meeting his needs. so please next time a statement is made, i > suggest it is thought about first... > a very angry AB!! > > > > > On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Hamre, Drew wrote: > > > People sometimes assume that, because of Saddam Hussein's great wealth, > he > > *must* be diverting oil-for-food monies or otherwise bleeding > humanitarian > > resources from Iraq. In countering, it should be stressed that Saddam > has > > absolutely no access to OFF funds. Instead, as noted yesterday, Saddam > can > > resort to other sources of income including the oil futures market. > > Ironically, nine years of sanctions have vested in Saddam a unique > degree of > > individual leverage over oil market prices, as evidenced by this past > week's > > fluctuations stemming from the Iraqi OFF announcement. > > > > This scenario is discussed in the following: > > > > a) http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/books/sanctions/chapter1.html > > Institute for National Strategic Studies "ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST > > IRAQ (1990- )" > > "Some oil traders (claimed) that Saddam and his entourage had also > enriched > > themselves by speculating in oil futures, manipulating the market to > their > > advantage by periodically sending false signals that they were about to > > comply with Resolution 986. The prospect of a substantial increase in > world > > supply resulting from the sale of Iraqi oil would trigger a price drop > in > > oil futures, only for the price to soar up again, each time Saddam > derailed > > implementation of the oil-for-food program with another incident. > > Reportedly, since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam had used $2 billion of > his > > covert income to build huge palaces for himself and his supporters." > > > > <Note: This article also cites Thomas L. Friedman, "Follow the Money," > The > > New York Times, 13 October 1996, E-13> > > > > b) http://www.slate.com/Gist/97-11-15/Gist.asp > > Iraq Since the Gulf War by Franklin Foer > > > > c) "Unvanquished" by Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Random House, 1999 > > Page 209: "Some speculated that Saddam was playing this game > (negotiating > > oil-for-food) as a way to manipulate the world oil market. This was not > > implausible. Whenver the oil-for-food talks were reported to go well, > the > > world market price of oil fell in anticipation of Iraqi oil coming onto > the > > market; when Saddam Hussein broke off talks, the price of oil rose ... > I > > did not, however, accept this theory. Saddam Hussein thinks of himself > as a > > romantic hero confronting the forces of evil. He is totally isolated > and > > shielded from hard information about world affairs." > > > > More generally, here's a great quote from BB-G concerning the Iraq > sanctions > > (also page 209): "Again we are confronted the fundamentally > contradictory > > character of sanctions: the innocent population suffers greatly but the > > oppressive regime feels little or nothing, while the process only > deepens > > its control over the people." > > > > Regarding the reasons for the 2-week OFF turn down, a very believable > (and > > exasperated) explanation comes from Iraq's Ambassador Hasan in the > report at > > http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/991123/bce.html : "What can you export in two > > weeks? What kind of a distribution plan can you submit? What kind of > > commodities can you bring to the country in two weeks? It's ridiculous > to > > extend it for two weeks this program with all of its complexities," > Hasan > > said. > > > > Regards, > > Drew Hamre > > Golden Valley, MN USA > > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. > > To be removed/added, email firstname.lastname@example.org, NOT > > the whole list. Please do not send emails with attached files to the > list > > *** Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html > *** > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. > To be removed/added, email email@example.com, NOT > the whole list. Please do not send emails with attached files to the list > *** Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html *** -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To be removed/added, email firstname.lastname@example.org, NOT the whole list. Please do not send emails with attached files to the list *** Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html ***