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]
Earlier, I'd posted a link to Phyllis Bennis' SCR1284 analysis <http://www.leb.net/epic/News/bennis.html>, in which CASI's Colin Rowat subsequently detected an error (which Phyllis graciously corrects, below). In this context, remember also that CASI's own SCR1284 briefing document remains online <http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/briefing/ob2.html>, including the following 'smoking-gun' sound-bite with which to address the question of blame (caps added; remember the wording of SCR1284 was laboriously negotiated by the U.S. and Britain): "The 'fundamental objective' of the suspension is 'improving the humanitarian situation in Iraq'; THE RESOLUTION THEREFORE ADMITS TO THE LINK BETWEEN THE SANCTIONS AND IRAQ'S HUMANITARIAN CRISIS." === CORRECTION! 14 February 2000 Dear friends, I made a serious error in my analysis of UN resolution 1284 last month, "U.S. POLICY TRIUMPHS IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL: The 'Lift the Sanctions' Resolution that Doesn't." The reference to the resolution considering the temporary suspension of the 30% payment off the top of the oil for food funds is incorrect. The resolution does NOT suspend that diversion of oil for food money; it continues. The reference to suspension of the payments appears to refer to a specialized, and quite tiny, interest fund which was also included in early incarnations of the sanctions regime. As a result, since the 30% diversion continues, the impact of 1284 is even MORE serious, more deleterious to the well-being of Iraqi civilians, than it seemed in my original assessment. As well, the paragraph referring to possible reasons for the impenetrable language of that section of 1284 is in error. For those of you using the "U.S. Policy Triumphs..." analysis in your own work, please delete the two paragraphs dealing with the suspension of the 30% reparations fund and the possible reasons for the obscure language. In talking about the impact of economic sanctions and the reasons why oil for food is insufficient, we should CONTINUE to stress that even the funds that do arrive are depleted by 30% off the top to the reparations fund. I am grateful to Colin Rowat, Coordinator of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq in London, for pointing out my error and identifying the correct reference. For those wishing to contact the Campaign, their website is <http://welcome.to/casi>. In the meantime, this weekend's resignation of UN Humanitarian Coordinator Hans Von Sponeck, following that of his predecessor Denis Halliday, provides us with new evidence of and new ways to talk about the murderous impact of economic sanctions. All the best, Phyllis Bennis -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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