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]

RE: responding to events at the SC

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.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moonirah - Voluntary Co-ordinator:H.E.L.P.
> []
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 10:40 PM
> To:   Gabriel Carlyle
> Cc:
> 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
> > 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:
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]