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]
Regarding Clinton's Democracy Now interview with Amy Goodman, Hugh wrote : >Apparantly, Saddam Hussein is now getting $19 billion whereas he was >getting only $16 billion before the gulf war, from oil. > >What I think it's important to know is whether this is a lie, >a misleading statement, or true. Some comments : Due to the high oil price there are now much larger revenues being made available through the oil-for-food programme than was the case previously (though 33% are still currently being deducted for war reparations and UN expenses - a figure that should shift to 28% with the next phase). Clinton does not spell out for which period he's claiming $19 billion will be available eg. is this supposed to be a figure for the current year (ie. phases VII and VIII) or a projected figure for a one-year period at the current oil price ? (The assumption that the oil price remains at its current high level is quite a big one. Such a "projection" would also have to assume that Iraq is able to maintain its current oil export levels - again, no small assumption given the limited amounts available for oil spare parts under oil-for-food and their obstruction by the US in Sanctions Committee). As for the revenues available during phases VII and VIII : - total revenues for the first half of this year (phase VII) came to : $8.285 ("Basic Figures" for the oil-for-food programme, OIP web-site (www.un.org/Depts/oip), 3rd November 2000) - so far (November 3rd) Iraq has pumped over $8bn worth of oil in Phase VIII. On the 21st September oil-for-foods Executive Director estimated total revenues for Phase VIII at "about $10 billion". Adding these two figures together we get $18.285. Deducting 33% we arrive at a yearly figure of $12.25 bn for the the purchase of humanitarian supplies (throughout Iraq) - considerably less than Clinton's $19 bn. This seems to support the "projection" interpretation (Incidentally the British Government currently uses a figure of "$16 billion" as opposed to Clinton's "$19 billion".) More importantly Clinton argues that if Iraq is currently raising more money though oil exports than it did before the 1991 Gulf War then any child malnutrition etc... in Iraq are the fault of Saddam Hussein. (This is separate from his claim that Iraq *is* currently raising more money though oil exports than it did before the 1991 Gulf War.) This argument is obviously flawed. Iraq's needs now are radically different from what they were prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Indeed, prior to sanctions Iraq had spent *decades* developing : lowering levels of child mortality, improving literacy and water sanitation etc ... Much of this progress has been destroyed - "rolled back" - by the devastation wrought by the 1991 Gulf War and its aftermath and, of course, by ten years of sanctions. The question is clearly not what level of funds Iraq needed in 1990 but what it needs now. According to the current UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq,Tun Myat, "the overall well-being of the people [of Iraq]" will "not improve" unless "the basics - housing, electricity, water and sanitation - [are] restored" (Press Briefing, 19th October). The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates the cost of reconstructing Iraq's essential infrastructural utilities at $50 - $100 billion. In fact they described this as a conservative estimate. There are also major problems inherent in an like "oil for food". Indeed, Human Rights Watch recently (August 4th) noted that : "An emergency commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, *no matter how well funded or well run*, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and ten years of virtual shutdown of Iraq's economy ... The deterioration in Iraq's civilian infrastructure is so far-reaching that is can only be reversed with extensive investment and development efforts." (emphasis added) Ramsey's point about the Iraqi economy is also crucial. As the Economist Intelligence Unit have noted (March 2000), for normality to return to Iraq "sanctions will have to come to an end. (Of course, there is also little value to Iraq in having an abstract right to import humanitarian goods, if in practice they're going to be blocked in the Sanctions Committee. As I'm sure we're all aware there are currently more than $2 billion worth of goods placed "on hold". There's a useful summary of material on the Sanctions Committee in voices' briefing "Strangle Hold" which is available from the voices uk office.) Finally, Hazim writes that the "Iraqi Government has absolutely no control over" oil-for-food monies. In one sense this is true : the money is paid into a bank account in New York and Iraq has to obtain permission from the UN for each item it wishes to purchase with that part of the monies allocated (by the UN) for humanitarian supplies. However it is the Iraqi Government that draws up the distribution plan for the 53-54% of funds allocated it (by the UN) for purchase of humanitarian supplies in south/ central Iraq. This plan then has receive the UN Secretary-General's seal of approval. Richard Garfield put it the following way (CASI Nov. '99 Conference Proceedings, page 39) : "[oil-for-food] reduces the Iraqi government to the status of domestic governor under an external sovereignty : it's an occupied country where nationals continue to manage civil administration but an international force controls everything else" I hope these remarks are useful. Best wishes, Gabriel. voices in the wilderness uk tel. 01865 - 243 232 -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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