(Ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder)

Dear Milan
I will comment on the so-called Dual-use policy as has been implemented
since 91. They can be grouped into:

1- Items that might have in it an ingredient, which theoretically could have
a dual-use irrespective of how small that quantity is. For example the UK
government refused to supply a drug called "Angised" because each tablet
contains 0.05 mg of glycerol trinitrate (this is the active ingredient) a
banned substance. I did a simple calculation. The whole contract
theoretically had 2.5 Kilograms of TNT not enough to blow a small house. The
contract had a value of more than half a million pound. Another silly
example of the dual use is "Mustin" chemotheraputic drug for cancer
patients. Each vial had 10mg of "Mustered hydrochloride". 100 vials
constituted a threat to the world security, so the DTI refused to export it,
because it could be used to produce mustered gas!!. I am sure that DTI was
aware of how many Tones of mustered gas was destroyed by UNSCOM yet one gram
was a threat. A lot of herbicides and insecticides are of similar nature.
Where do you draw the line?

2- Item that could improve the military capabilities of Iraq. Ambulances
were not permitted because it CAN be used by the military. Telephone
exchanges and communication equipment are still not permitted because the
military CAN use them to improve the their communication. For several years
they did not approve the importation of Cell phones for that reason.
Yesterday they were talking about the Chinese installing fiber optics
telephone lines in Baghdad as a threat to the British and the Americans.

3- Item that could have both civilian and industrial applications. For
example it is very well known that whenever you use boilers you need special
water treatment appliances. We have used for years Reverse osmosis (RO )
elements. We used them in large hospitals with the sterilization equipment
and for Air-conditioning. Oil refineries also use them, so is several
industrial establishments. I do not think that the Army us them BUT the UK,
USA, UN think that the sanctions should not allow the Iraqi industry to be
rebuilt so they included this essential item on the dual-use category. The
deliberate effort to weaken the Iraqi industry can be demonstrated by the
fact that they stopped and hindered many contracts for row materials for the
Sammara Drug industries. It is much much cheaper for us to import raw
materials " in bulk " for drugs and "manufacture" them into tablets than
importing them ready for use. Most of the drugs are few milligrams of a
substance and a lot of starch and other filler materials pressed in shape
and packed. We never wanted to "Manufacture" Angisid. We wanted to do the
simple Paracitamol and similar general use drugs. Another good example of
the deliberate efforts of destroying the industry is that the have bombed
the "Disposable syringe factory" 10 years ago and they refused the
importation of equipment to rebuild the factory. Iraq desperately needs
syringes to carry out its immunization plan. Iraq need at least 20-30
million syringes each year for its health service.

4- For more than 60 years successive Iraqi governments have considered
education as a good investment. They sent thousand of students to study
abroad in all kind of fields, social sciences as well as technical fields.
For the last 10 years our scientist were "isolated" by the sanctions. In
response to that the Iraqi government started an intensive program for
postgraduate studies. Such programs need modern scientific equipment and
materials. Some of the essential laboratory equipment and materials they
claim to have a "Dual-use" and are banned. Does the world want us to use 286
computers (if you still can find them) because Pentium 3 in the hands of the
Iraqi's are a threat to the world. Do you remember the Play station fiasco.

The above is only a small drop in the bucket. I am sure that this subject
deserves a lot more. If the past is any indication we are in for a lot of
problems with such thinking. The United States and Britain should stop this
type of ridiculous excuses given for their deliberate attempt to destroy a
nation.Smart sanctions like smart Bombs they kill
Ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milan Rai" <milanrai@trinityroad.free-online.co.uk>
To: "Hamre, Drew" <drew.hamre@rainier.com>; "'Iraq-CASI - Discussion
(E-mail)'" <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Change at the NYTimes: "

> Dear all
>
> Good news that the possible coming shift in US/UK policy is having the way
> paved by
> such stuff. However, the editorial raises an important issue which has to
be
> addressed by the anti-sanctions movement - whether or not we should
campaign
> against the retention of the oil-for-food UN account as a mechanism for
> controlling Iraqi revenues.
>
> My thoughts aren't very clear but go like this:
>
> ARGUMENTS AGAINST RETENTION
> If, in a proposed 'post-sanctions' regime, the basic oil-for-food system
is
> to be kept, whereby Iraq's oil revenues continue to be funnelled via a UN
> account, this could continue to
>
> (a) hinder normal trade which is needed to reinflate the economy and boost
> family purchasing power
>
> (b) hinder the placing of major infrastructure/oil contracts needed to
> provide a healthy environment for Iraq's families and to secure revenues
for
> this purpose
>
> (c) hinder the taking out of international loans needed for both the
economy
> as a whole and for the infrastructure
>
> (d) and, most importantly, continue to place Iraq's economy under the
> control of a body dominated by the US and UK, which hold the lion's share
of
> responsibility for the continuation of the humanitarian crisis.
>
> Apart from the last point, these are empirical matters which we could find
> some answers to.
>
> ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF RETENTION
> In fairness, it should be said that if there is to be no oil-for-food
> structure, it is not immediately apparent how international concerns about

> diversion/dual-use can be addressed, as UN monitoring of the delivery of
> oil-for-food goods would presumably cease when oil-for-food is terminated.
>
> This is not a terribly strong argument, however, as a new UN monitoring
> system could be constructed along the lines already used in the current
> oil-for-food set-up - for suspected dual-use deliveries (chlorine, pipes
> used in sewage works, etc).
>
> This dual-use monitoring system could either be part of UNMOVIC or
> outside/complementary to it.
>
> THE EDITORIAL
> I am concerned by the mention in the NYT article of the need for
>
> > tight financial controls on how Baghdad spends its oil
> > revenues
>
> in a new sanctions regime. The tenor of the editorial seems to suggest a
> modified and 'revitalised' oil-for-food regime as the way forward.
>
> While I do not see this as acceptable, there is a legitimate discussion to
> be had about handling the dual-use issue.
>
> Milan Rai
>
> Milan Rai
> Joint Coordinator
> Voices in the Wilderness UK
> National Office
> 16B Cherwell St, Oxford OX4 1BG
>
> NEW personal contact details
> 29 Gensing Road, St Leonards-on-sea TN38 0HE
> ph/fax 0845 458 9571 (local rate) pager 07623 746 462
>
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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