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 >'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 that >'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 soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website: http://www.casi.org.uk