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]

Re: Latest oil-for-food report (90 day report) and Iraqi non-cooperation

Per writes

>'It seems to indicate that Iraq has taken new steps in refusing to
acknowledge the current arrangements of oil-for-food.'

I don't think this conclusion follows from GOI's refusal to cooperate with
the new humanitarian panel inquiry or the framework for the cash component
being pursued by the Security Council.

The proposed cash component of oil-for-food will either be under Baghdad's
control or it will be under the control of UN agencies operating in Iraq
(making inroads on Iraqi sovereignty in the process). Baghdad's refusal to
contemplate the latter and its noncooperation with the latest humanitarian
panel inquiry does not compromise either the programme as a whole or the
information gathering capacity of the UN agencies within Iraq (recall that
the original Humanitarian Panel actually gathered no new info and that
statistics on child malnutrition and child mortality have been gathered by
UNICEF quite independently of any Security Council initiatives.

Therefore the evidence does not yet seem to exist to justify the conclusion
>'Whichever way, this seems like worrying development for the anti-sanctions
movement. Independent UN reports have, after all, been the sources which
most effectively have enabled us way to rebut FCO/State Department claims
about sanctions.'

This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]