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]

responding to events at the SC

Somehow, CASI, H.E.L.P. plus other 'global' groups and organisations could ALL combine
efforts and submit a Proposal via the United Nations' Association through to our British
Government in London, for the UN Security Council - if put in by the deadline of
January/February, aiming to effect changes such as the seperation of ALL humanitarian
aspects and the weapons' inspection matters ?  Please think on this suggestion ?
Also kindly remember *605 third-nationals and Kuwaitis still held by Saddam in Iraq are
part of the solid stance on "sanctions" by UN/UK.
Our own British F.C.O. can confirm this if YOU contact them in London.
Our loved ones are part of the humanitarian issues being considered.
Residents in the UK await *return and/or accountability by Iraq, whilst they persistently
boycott meetings scheduled on their border and in Geneva with the UN Tripartite Commission
charged with locating and releasing listed 605. Held now 9 years - we want our people
released !
> Moonirah
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gabriel Carlyle wrote:
> The following article appeared in yesterdays Financial Times (6th December 1999). It looks as 
>though things are going to come to a head in the Security Council this week.
>  At the National Co-ordinating meeting on Saturday we discussed ideas as to how to respond 
>if/when the resolution gets passed (or doesn't get passed).  Both contingencies are ominous - US 
>officials have stated that the US is prepared to walk away from the negotiations if they don't get 
>there way (Washington Post, 20th November 1999) - and clearly leaving things in their current 
>state is totally unacceptable.
> On the other hand we felt that there was a real danger that, is passed, the resolution (and the 
>spin it will doubtless receive in the media) could deflect the growing pressure for lifting the 
>economic sanctions *without addressing the humanitarian crisis*. This, in many ways, is what 
>happened with the earlier oil-for-food resolutions.
> Here (very briefly) are some of our thoughts :
> We agreed that, if the resolution is passed, the focus of our response [to the media etc...] 
>should be the continuing linkage between weapons
inspections and the humanitarian crisis, which we want to see broken. 
> It appears that measures such as removing of the cap on oil sales under "oil-for-food" are 
>conditional upon the setting up of the new
arms commission (UNCIM). This, presumably, would require the Iraqi
Government to agree to the resolution - which it has said it will reject - and to letting
UNCIM into the country. Similarly the "suspension" of sanctions and the [crucial]
authorisation of foreign investment for Iraq's oil industry could not happen until after a
prolonged period of co-operation with the new inspectorate (perhaps as long as 10 months).
> We should stress that addressing the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is a matter of *great urgency* 
>and that it is deeply immoral to make measures that could make a positive difference conditional 
>upon the Iraqi Government agreeing to - and then co-operating with - a new set of
weapons inspectors.  We also agreed that we should try to nail the British Government down
as to what, exactly, it thinks the impact of the measures contained in the resolution
would be on the humanitarian crisis.  In particular, to what extent could these measures
lead to the
"sustained revival of the Iraqi economy" without which, the UN
Humanitarian Panel noted earlier this year, the humanitarian situation in Iraq would
continue to be "dire" and which, it also noted, "cannot be
achieved solely through remedial humanitarian efforts" ?
It was felt that it would be a good idea to try and flood the FCO with
letters, postcards, phone-calls etc... as soon as the outcome of the
negotiations becomes clear (and we have the necessary information upon which to base our
response !). Similarly we should try to respond, as best we can, to the media coverage.
> Hope these thought are of some use to people. I'll post something more
detailed later in the week. 
> Gabriel.
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> Iraq sanctions deal moves closer By Carola Hoyos at the UN, and Stephen Fidler in Washington. 
> A year of bitter wrangling over United Nations sanctions towards Iraq is expected to come to a 
>head this week.
> The dispute centres on a resolution, supported by most of the council,
that gradually eases UN sanctions on Iraq if it allows the return of arms inspectors and
takes steps to abandon its weapons programmes. The
prospects for adoption of the resolution improved in recent weeks with
indications that Russia, Iraq's strongest supporter among the five
permanent members of the council, would be willing to at least abstain
instead of using its veto. If Russia does abstain, France and China would probably follow. 
> Without Russian and French support for the resolution it is unlikely that these two countries 
>would be willing to try to persuade the Iraqis to go along with the resolution.
> Last week Moscow added uncertainty to its position by proposing amendments to the resolution, 
>some unacceptable to the US and Britain. But diplomats say Moscow is looking for a politically 
>graceful way to accept the resolution.
> Russia's ambassador to the UN, Sergey Lavrov, is due to return to UN
headquarters today after meeting Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, in Moscow. 
> Despite the council's differences, the US and Britain are pushing for a vote on the resolution by 
>the end of the week, using the expiry of the
UN's oil-for-food programme as a lever to introduce the new sanctions
regime. On Friday the council extended the programme, which allows Iraq to purchase food
and medicine using oil revenues, for one week instead of the usual six months. The vote
drew three abstentions and one no-vote in protest.
> Madeleine Albright, US secretary of state, last week discussed Iraq with her counterparts in 
>Moscow, London and Paris. "We would expect those consultations to intensify in the coming week," 
>said James Rubin, US state department spokesman. "We certainly believe that the time has come to 
>move quickly to a vote," he said.
> The US is especially keen to push the resolution to a vote before the end of the year when five 
>new members join the council, four of which are expected to be less sympathetic to the US agenda 
>in Iraq. Additionally, the Clinton administration does not want the issue of sanctions against 
>Iraq to arise during the US presidential election campaign. 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, 
> Full archive and list instructions are available from the CASI website:
This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
Full archive and list instructions are available from the CASI website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]