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]

Tough on Iraq


This wonderful Letter-to-the-Editor, from our good friend, James P. 
Rubin, appears in Monday's Washington Post. You can get in 
touch with Mr. Rubin at: (202) 647-7191 &
You can also write a letter for the State Department's in-house 
magazine at:

Tough on Iraq 
Monday, February 28, 2000; Page A14 

I respectfully disagree with the headlines on a Feb. 25 
front-page story: "U.S. Looks at Easing Sanctions on Iraq" 
and inside, "U.S. Studies Easing Curbs on Trade With Iraq." 
In December the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 
1284. A full 17 paragraphs in that document relate to 
improvement of the humanitarian programs run by the 
United Nations in Iraq--the "oil-for-food" program. Saddam 
Hussein is far from complying with international obligations, 
and thus sanctions will continue, a judgment endorsed by 
the Security Council when it passed the resolution. 

It is right and responsible to ease the plight of the people of 
Iraq while using sanctions to deny money, weapons and 
dual-use technology to the regime in Baghdad. This is 
precisely what we are doing. This is smart policy, not 
easing sanctions. The United States is, and will remain, 
second to none in enforcing sanctions and exercising 
vigilance over the oil-for-food program. 

Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs 
U.S. Department of State
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]