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]
The following article appeared in today's Washington Post (9th December).
The following points are of note.
1) The piece states that "the draft resolution on weapons inspections
would *reward Iraq for cooperating* by allowing it to sell as much oil as
it is capable of pumping" (emphasis) suggesting that the lifting of the
cap can occur *only* when Iraq agrees to co-operate with the new weapons
inspectorate.
2) The piece states that "The resolution also would give the
secretary-general an expanded role in overseeing the distribution of food,
medicine and humanitarian goods. Annan has criticized the United States
for using its position on a monitoring committee to hold up about $500
million of imports under the existing oil-for-food deal."
Now, the last available copy of the draft text (available
on the CASI web-site) directed :
"the Committee established by resolution
661 (1990) to delegate to the Secretary-General responsibility with regard
to receipt of notifications for and approval of supplies of medicine,
health supplies, foodstuffs and educational material under the
arrangements set out in resolution 986 (1995), except for items subject to
the provisions of resolution 1051 (1996), and requests the
Secretary-General to inform the Committee in a timely manner of all such
notifications received and approvals made".
Thus it did *not* cover the electricity, agriculture or telecommunication
sectors. In his November 17th briefing to the Security Council OIP
Executive Director, Benon Sevan, noted that :
(a) there were $377.7 million worth of applications in the electricity
sector remained on hold and that "According to UNDP ... Iraq could
potentially achieve a 50 per cent increase in electricity supply if these
holds were released".
(b) there were "around $73 million worth of contracts on hold from phases
IV to VI in the agriculture sector" and that the UN FAO estimated "to the
best of [its] ability - that some of these holds have resulted in
significant reductions in the use of land for grain crops and the loss of
as much as 20,000 tons of wheat production. [The] FAO also estimates that
delays in the arrival of vaccines have resulted in the loss of around
seven million kilogrammes of meat."
(c) and that in the telecommunications sector - which "has significant
implications for other sectors, in particular the efficient distribution
of food and medicine" - there were over $100 million worth of applications
on hold.
Thus, unless there has been some substantive change in the text it would
appear that, even if implemented, the measures contained in the resolution
would have very little impact on the "about $500 million" worth of imports
that "[Kofi] Annan has criticized the United States for using its position
on [the Sanctions] committee to hold up".
3) The piece states that the resolution "would call on Secretary-General
Kofi Annan to prepare recommendations within 60 days on the needs of
Iraq's oil industry ; a panel of experts appointed by Annan would consider
whether foreign companies should be allowed to invest in Iraq's oil fields
and pipelines".
This seems to be very close to the formulation in the last available copy
of the text of the resolution. As we pointed out in the September voices'
newsletter, this was a very weak statement.
Thus, while the Post article
states that the resolution "would permit Iraq to rebuild its oil industry
if it submits to renewed inspections by a UN weapons monitoring team" all
that
The resolution (again, in the last available draft) requests the
Secretary-General to establish a group of experts to "make
recommendations on alternatives" to increase Iraqi oil exports "including
on the options for involving foreign oil companies in Iraq's oil sector".
The Council (according to the text) "expresses its intention to take
measures" based on these recommendations, after being notified by UNCIM
(and the IAEA) that Iraq has demonstrated "full cooperation" with the
inspectors for a period of 120 days.
This is *very* different from the Post's gloss that the resolution "would
permit Iraq to rebuild its oil industry if it submits to renewed
inspections by a UN weapons monitoring team". Of course the wording may
have been changed to make it more explicit. In the absence of such changes
the Iraqi Government is
supposed to be tempted by the promise that the Security Council will
*consider* acting on the recommendations of UN experts on how to boost
Iraqi oil exports.
Remember : if it isn't written down explicitly there'll be plenty of room
to wriggle and prevaricate.
But enough talk here's the article from the Post.
Gabriel
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Britain Pushes Resolution Aiding Iraqi Oil Industry
By Colum Lynch
Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, December 9, 1999; Page A38
UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 8
The United States backs the resolution and is pushing for a vote on it by
the end of the week. "We are coming to closure," said Peter Burleigh, the
deputy U.S. representative at the United Nations. "Some of us need to make
a political decision about how they stand on the resolution, and the
council needs to move forward."
Burleigh appeared to be referring to Russia's position, which remains
uncertain. Although the resolution has broad support on the 15-member
Security Council, Western diplomats said they feared a Russian veto, which
effectively would end the Clinton administration's effort to get U.N.
weapons inspectors back into Iraq as well as dash Iraq's hopes of
obtaining relief from nine years of economic sanctions.
The trade embargo was imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the first
act of the Persian Gulf War. The United States and Britain have refused to
lift the sanctions until Iraq complies with the terms of the Gulf War
cease-fire, which included a pledge to halt its development of chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons.
Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov has been seeking assurances that the
Security Council will swiftly ease sanctions if Baghdad allows the return
of U.N. weapons inspectors after an absence of nearly a year. Without such
assurances, Lavrov said yesterday, the resolution is "not implementable."
Burleigh said high-level discussions were continuing in an attempt to
narrow the gap with Russia.
Meanwhile, diplomats said the council was close to agreement on a separate
resolution renewing the oil-for-food exemption to the sanctions, which
allows Iraq to sell $5.2 billion of oil every six months to pay for
imports of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies. Burleigh said
the United States will introduce a proposal to renew the exemption
Thursday.
The draft resolution on weapons inspections would reward Iraq for
cooperating by allowing it to sell as much oil as it is capable of
pumping, but would continue to place stiff controls on how the money is
spent. It also would call on Secretary-General Kofi Annan to prepare
recommendations within 60 days on the needs of Iraq's oil industry; a
panel of experts appointed by Annan would consider whether foreign
companies should be allowed to invest in Iraqi oil fields and pipelines.
The resolution also would give the secretary-general an expanded role in
overseeing the distribution of food, medicine and humanitarian goods.
Annan has criticized the United States for using its position on a
monitoring committee to hold up about $500 million of imports under the
existing oil-for-food deal.
Responding to Iraqi allegations that the United States and Britain pulled
the strings of the previous weapons inspectors, the draft resolution would
place a new layer of bureaucracy between the weapons inspectors and the
Security Council. The chairman of the new arms control agency--the United
Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC)--would be required to seek "professional advice and guidance"
from a "college of commissioners" before reporting to the Security Council
or making "significant policy decisions." An ill-defined "management
board" also would oversee the commission.
If Iraq cooperates with the new inspection team, the Security Council
would suspend sanctions for renewable periods of six months, although it
would still forbid military imports and purchases of equipment with dual
military and civilian uses.
Diplomats involved in the negotiations say the United States and Russia
remain deadlocked over a few key issues, particularly the question of what
would "trigger" a suspension of sanctions. The United States has insisted
that Iraq demonstrate "full compliance" with a series of "key disarmament
tasks" before sanctions can be eased. Russia has argued that sanctions
should be suspended as soon as Baghdad begins cooperating with weapons
inspections.
"The major issue is the trigger," said Qin Huasun, China's ambassador to
the United Nations, adding that Beijing would like to vote in favor of the
resolution, but will do so only if Russia's concerns are addressed.
France, which has sought to narrow the differences between Russia and the
United States, has not said whether it will vote for the current draft.
Russia also wants the suspension of sanctions to be accompanied by an
amendment allowing Baghdad to resume commercial air traffic in and out of
Baghdad. The United States has indicated it will consider some Russian
amendments, but only if Moscow supports the basic resolution.
The United States and Britain are eager for a vote this week because they
face the prospect of losing support at the end of the month, when five new
members, including Ukraine, will rotate onto the council.
Iraq, however, has given no indication that it will agree to the
resolution even if Russia backs it. "Why should Iraq accept such a joke?"
asked Baghdad's U.N. ambassador, Saeed Hassan. "It gives Iraq nothing."
) Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk
Full archive and list instructions are available from the CASI website:
http://welcome.to/casi