The following are two letters written to Stephen Byers MP concerning Iraq (note - I'm not sure if these are the final drafts, but if they differ from the letters I sent it is only by a few words). As well as these two letters, I wrote a short letter to Byers asking for details about the DTI blocking vaccines from going into Iraq.
4 Osborne Place
Palmersville
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE12 9EY
Stephen Byers
7 Palmersville
Great Lime Road
Forest Hall
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE12 9HNDear Mr Byers
As you advised me at the constituency surgery, I have put my questions to the Foreign Secretary into writing. Thank you for agreeing to pass these questions on.
According to several reports, British and US delegates to the UN blocked 15 medical contracts intended for Iraq on January 14th, despite UN officials in New York and Baghdad having checked that the contracts were for humanitarian purposes only. I wish to learn, firstly, what reasons were given by UK and US delegates for blocking these contracts and, secondly, why the New York and Baghdad officials were overridden.
On a related matter, I have searched the FCO website, but can find no reference to Hans Von Sponeck’s resignation as Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, and little attempt to address his concerns. I have seen US press releases which describe Mr. Von Sponeck as a ‘misguided’ individual, and which dismiss his concerns out of hand with the usual rhetoric. (I refer in particular to a press release given by James Rubin on behalf of the US State Dept. on 29th February)
I would like to see a statement from the Foreign Secretary answering the concerns of Hans von Sponeck. The International Development Committee in its report regarding sanctions shares his concerns, at least in part. Like myself, the Committee is ‘concerned that the Government has published insufficient information to allow for an informed debate on international sanctions policy’. A statement concerning Mr. Von Sponeck’s resignation would be a step towards addressing this.
Yours sincerely,
Ronan T Dodds
7 Palmersville
NE12 9HNDear Mr Byers
I hope you will accept my apologies for asking you to forward another letter to the Foreign Secretary, for the second time in the space of a few days, but I consider this matter to be of importance.
On March 6th, The Guardian newspaper carried a story about the banning of George Galloway’s flight to Iraq. I am concerned about the accusations made by the Foreign Office, namely that the mission was a “Saddam Hussein publicity stunt”.
Admittedly, I know little about Mr. Galloway and the Mariam Appeal organisation, but even so, I believe the Foreign Office has misunderstood, and misrepresented, their position. A Foreign Office source is quoted as saying “If this was a genuine mercy mission, as opposed to a Saddam Hussein publicity stunt, then nine-tenths of the plane would be filled with medical and other humanitarian supplies. Instead we have the entire cabin filled with hangers-on when all the space could be used for equipment to help the people of Iraq.”
I would like to explain my main reason for saying that the FCO has misunderstood the point of the mission. Firstly, it is assumed that the ‘humanitarian’ nature of the mission is confined to merely taking medical supplies to Iraq. This is not so. What is of prime importance is that the suffering of the Iraqi people is put onto the media agenda, and that people at grass-roots level are educated about Iraq. The FCO is, justifiably, concerned about propaganda from Baghdad. People like myself are equally concerned about UK and US propaganda. The first step towards solving this is to create a dialogue between the Government and anti-sanctions lobbyists, which can best be achieved by open debate in the media. The passengers, who were taking up valuable space on the flight, can bring back an even more valuable insight into the situation in Iraq. They can encourage debate and awareness among their communities, church groups, youth groups and so on. Once the suffering in Iraq is widely known about, many people will want to send aid missions, which will be more substantial than the one in question. I suspect, also, that many people will start to question the morality of UK policy on Iraq, and many will think that this episode was an attempt to prevent that questioning.
To say the flight was a publicity stunt would, in my view, be an accurate assessment. To say that it is a “Saddam Hussein” publicity stunt is only accurate if you see no distinction between the people of Iraq and the Government of Iraq. If you believe that Mr Galloway is a tool of Iraqi propaganda, and therefore an enemy of Britain, will he lose membership to the Labour party? Or will his dissent be kept quiet, because you are aware that if the truth was widely known, there would be public outcry?
I hope you will consider these points carefully.
Yours, with best wishes,
Ronan Dodds
Reply from Robin Cook
This reply was recieved from the Foreign Secretary on (28/3/00)
 email |
visitors to this site |
|
|