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]
Per writes: 'While Security Council resolutions state that a favourable report from UMOVIC is the key issue in lifting sanctions, the US has repeatedly linked sanctions to other issues, notably a change of regime in Baghdad.' We must distinguish between the lifting of the export embargo and the lifting of (civilian) import restrictions. They have different conditions attached to them. They also have different impacts on the humanitarian situation. Without a lifting of the import restrictions, the economy cannot reflate, and there can be no recovery in employment and the value of the Iraqi dinar, and therefore no restoration in the purchasing power of Iraqi families, and therefore no solution of the nutritional crisis (see FAO 1995). 1) Export embargo The export embargo is to be lifted once Iraq has been deemed to be in compliance on disarming its nuclear, chemical, biological, and long range missile programmes. 2) Import embargo One can quibble about the terminology used, but UNSCR 687 is interpreted as stating that lifting the import embargo depends on 'the policies and practices of the Government of Iraq, including the implementation of all relevant resolutions of the Security Council'. This is elastic. It can mean implementation of all Iraq-related resolutions AND whatever else the Security Council deems relevant. Or it can mean steps towards compliance with a subset of the demands made in the Security Council resolutions. It all depends. The US position could be interpreted as saying that whatever the set of demands one constructs for the lifting of the import embargo, from the UNSCRs, there is no hope of achieving compliance in these areas (*to the standard that the US demands*) without a change of government. Therefore, to achieve the (elastic) criteria set out in 687 one requires a change of government. The official US position seems to be that (a) in order to lift sanctions, Iraq has to comply in various areas (b) whatever its progress in these areas, the US is committed to changing the regime. My impressions only. Hope this is useful. Cheers Mil -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email email@example.com Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website: http://www.casi.org.uk