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]
Dear CASI:
You may have noticed that UK officials are now as standard
practice saying that the UK only puts about 1% of OFF
contracts on hold, implying that this is only a trivial
number with a trivial humanitarian impact, so there is just
a big fuss about nothing surrounding holds.
Here is a letter I have just sent to the FCO. I'll let you
know the response.
Eric
Jaimie Cooper
Middle East Department
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
London
SW1A 2AH
20 April 2000
Dear Mr. Cooper
Sanctions on Iraq
I have received a copy of your letter of 27 March 2000 to
Ms. A. Sinclair (<snip>) regarding John Pilger’s recent
documentary on Iraq, which appears to be a standard letter
to those writing to the UK Government with regard to that
documentary.
I would like to take to take up one particular point in
your letter. You state that ‘The UK puts only a tiny
percentage of “oil for food” contracts on hold (about 1%
overall).’
***OFF Sanctions Committee holds and blocks imposed by the
UK***
Did you arrive at this by comparing the total number of OFF
contracts throughout the life of the programme with the
total number of OFF contracts currently on hold due to
holds imposed by the UK at the UN Sanctions Commitee?
Between the start of OFF on 10 December 1996 and 31 March
2000, the UN received 12,225 OFF contracts. Of those 1,180
were on hold at that time. UN documents don’t indicate
which country has imposed holds, but, as Jon Davies agrees,
the US imposes about 10 holds for each one by the UK, and
other countries rarely impose holds. It does indeed follow
that, with roughly 10% of OFF contracts currently on hold,
the UK is responsible for only about 1%.
Or did you arrive at 1% by comparing the total number of
OFF contracts throughout the life of the programme with the
total number of OFF contracts on which the UK imposed holds
at any point (that is, which are still in place and which
have been lifted?) An illustrative snapshot (selected by me
randomly from UN documentation) from 12 October 1999
indicated that 23.7% of contracts for that particular OFF
phase (Phase V) were on hold at that time. Assuming the
usual 10:1 ratio of US:UK holds, at that point the UK holds
must have been at least 2% (a figure I agree could
reasonably be accommodated within ‘about 1%’).
***Non-OFF Sanctions Commitee holds and blocks imposed by
the UK***
What is the figure for UK holds and blocks on the UN
Sanctions Comittee for non-OFF contracts? According to
Peter Hain in a House of Commons written answer on 30 March
2000, over 6,000 of such contracts were received in that
category between 1 August 1998 and 20 November 1999, with
2,654 approved, 427 put on hold and 2,823 blocked. Does the
427 on hold refer to the number currently on hold? If so,
how many of the contracts which were approved were on hold
at some point? At minimum, over 50% were put on hold or
blocked. Using the usual ratio, this would suggest that at
least 5% were imposed by the UK.
***National level holds and blocks imposed by the UK***
As you know, all exports to Iraq from the UK must receive
permission at UK level before they may even be considered
by the Sanctions Committee. How many such requests have
been made and how many have been put on hold at any point
or blocked? I presume that such holds and blocks do occur.
They would be in addition to the ‘about 1%’ figure you use.
***Calculating the impact of holds and blocks imposed by
the UK and supported/not opposed by the UK***
Am I right in thinking that you want people to infer from
the 1% figure that holds imposed by the UK are of only
marginal significance for the humanitarian programmes
funded by OFF? If so, I would be interested to have your
response to the following points:
First, looked at by sector in the same snapshot mentioned
earlier, holds were very high in the following sectors:
telecommunications (100%), electricity (65.5%), water and
sanitation (53.4%) and oil spare parts and equipment (43%).
Hence, following the usual US:UK ratio, my estimate is that
UK holds counted at that point for about 10% to 4% of the
total, depending on sector. Is this accurate? What is the
percentage of UK holds by OFF sector?
Second, the imposition of a hold on one contract, even if
it is lifted later, will often undermine the value of other
related contracts, so that 1% holds may undermine the value
of a much higher percentage of the contracts. You give no
indication of this. In May 1999 Kofi Annan pleaded for
‘expeditious approval by the Security Council Committee of
applications in water and sanitation and other key sectors
such as health, which have a direct bearing on the
unacceptably high malnutrition levels.’ Similarly
Executive Director of the UN Office of the Iraq Programme
Benon Sevan complained to the Security Council in July 1999
that 'The improvement of the nutritional and health status
of the Iraqi people through [a] multi-sectoral approach ...
is being seriously affected as a result of [the] excessive
number of holds placed on supplies and equipment for water,
sanitation and electricity.' Giving specific examples,
Sevan argued out that the absence of even one small item
can be enough to stall an entire project.
Third, the FCO figure of 1% also serves to distract
attention away the overall figures for holds and blocks
whoever imposes them. Your letter should indicate the UK
Governments position on the rest of the holds and blocks
imposed (almost always by the United States). Certainly,
the UK Government does not publicly oppose those holds and
blocks.
Overall, an accurate summary of the situation with regard
to holds and blocks would seem to be as follows:
The UK imposes holds on about 1% of OFF contracts
overall and about 4-10% across a range of key OFF sectors
(telecommunications, water and sanitation, electricity, and
oil spare parts and equipment). It also imposes holds or
blocks on at least 5% of non-OFF UN-level contracts. It
imposes further holds and blocks at UK national level. The
overall level of holds and blocks is about 10% for OFF
contracts and over 50% for non-OFF UN-level contracts. The
vast majority are imposed by the United States without the
opposition of the UK. A hold or a block often undermines
the value of a much larger percentage of related contracts
and may wreck entire projects.
Would you agree with this summary or something similar? If
so, why is it not hinted at in your standard letter?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Eric Herring
Lecturer in International Politics
cc: Jon Davies, A. Sinclair.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:
http://welcome.to/casi