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]
Going through the UNA might be an option. However, I disagree with Moonirah over where the 'de-linking' line should be drawn. As far as I'm concerned, the non-military sanctions imposed by the US/UK should be lifted unconditionally. And that includes making no conditions with regard to the POWs. As far as I'm concerned, this is a separate issue. Separate in this context does not mean unimportant. Currently, the UN and Saddam are both playing 'hostage politics'. Saddam holds people as a bargaining chip, the UN is destroying a country. In both cases innocents are suffering. Playing hostage politics is wrong, and the UN sanctions should be lifted regardless of what Saddam does. It is wrong to kill 50,000+ people in a (so far vain) attempt to secure the liberty of less than a thousand. The de-linking should be unconditional. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Moonirah - Voluntary Co-ordinator:H.E.L.P. > [SMTP:email@example.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 10:40 PM > To: Gabriel Carlyle > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: 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, email email@example.com > > 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 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