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]

Correction to SCR1284 analysis

Earlier, I'd posted a link to Phyllis Bennis' SCR1284 analysis
<>, 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 <>,
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


14 February 2000

Dear friends, 

I made a serious error in my analysis of UN resolution 1284 last month,
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

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

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
Full archive and list instructions are available from the CASI website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]