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]
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, >email firstname.lastname@example.org > Full archive and list instructions are available from the CASI website: > http://welcome.to/casi > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email email@example.com Full archive and list instructions are available from the CASI website: http://welcome.to/casi