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]
Hello all, Scandinavian press yesterday reported about a Norwegian proposal in the Security Council to lift restrictions on civilian goods to Iraq. I have been unable to find any references to this in British or US press and therefore summarise the proposal as reported below. Norway holds the chairmanship in the (661) Sanctions Committee, and its Foreign Ministry is reported to have gone through all goods which have been denied entry to the Iraq over the last few months. The proposal is that '80% of those goods which currently are prohibited for export be allowed to enter Iraq'. The aim to allow civilian goods to enter, while having tighter controls on 'dual use' and military goods. The proposal is reported to have been well received by the UK, US, France, and Russia, and will form the basis for discussions in the Security Council next week about possible changes in the sanctions regime on Iraq. Apparently, the proposal was discussed when the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Thorbjørn Jagland, met with Colin Powell in New York last week. This seems to be the first hint of what might lie behind the US and UK talk of 're-energisíng' or 'refining' sanctions. However, it seems very confused. Above all, there is no list of prohibited goods from which 80% could be removed. Every contract submission is considered individually by the sanctions committee, except those which are pre-approved by appearing on the 'fast-track' lists. These lists, however, aim to contain 100% of all goods which have already been approved for import. Is the proposal an attempt to increase the use of the 'fast-track' mechanism? Or does it pertain to items which previously have been classified as 'dual use' (notably on the 1051 lists) and which now will be allowed to enter the country even if there is no monitoring of their use? Alarmingly, there is no mention in the press about the definition of 'dual use'. Arguably, the biggest problem with the current sanctions regime is that it disallows industrial and infrastructural reconstruction, and therefore serious inhibits reinflation of the Iraqi economy. Unless the Norwegian proposal addresses this issue, it seems unlikely to contribute significantly to improving the humanitarian situation in Iraq. If anyone finds more information about this Norwegian or other concrete 'smart sanctions' proposals please do forward it to the list. So far, I have not seen any concrete proposals relating to tighter border controls, financial sanctions, targeting the elite's personal possessions, or other possible 'targeted sanctions'. Mostly, there has been talk of tinkering with the present approval mechanisms under 'oil for food'. If there is any substance in the recent talk about imminent changes the nature of sanctions, we will have to very carefully analyse the potential effects these might have. Thanks, Per Klevnäs --------------------------------------------------------- Research Co-ordinator, Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq http://www.casi.org.uk fax 0870 063 5022 --------------------------------------------------------- Girton College, per.klevnas@casi.org.uk Cambridge CB3 t: +44 (0)79 905 01 905 England f: +44 (0)87 016 96 390 -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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