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]
Subject: Re: Banned Goods Dear Colin and others, thanks for this thoughtful post, Colin. As you point out, in Sept. 97, a full 8 months after oil-for-food came into effect, the secretary-general mentioned "expected" arrival of chlorine, rather than the arrival of chlorine itself. Several questions arise. . a. How long did it take Iraq to convince the Committee that imports should be allowed or how long did it take the Committee to decree the same? b. what has the Committee been doing since the end of the Gulf War(circa '91), if not deliberately preventing the import of this and other life-saving supplies? I don't want to labour this issue unnecessarily. I agree with the Voices position that abolition of the Sanctions Committee would be no of little use to the Iraqi people, without the lifting of sanctions. However, the people on this Committee, which has been in effective control of Iraq's ecenomy for 10 years are responsible for the genocidal effects of the policies they pursue. It's secrecy and unnacountability means we cannot dot the i's and cross the t's, but the Committee's inaction itself(in the face of mass disease, malnutrition and starvation) suggest to me that those who control it have been trying to accelerate the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, rather than relieve it. How is it possible for UN agencies to do genuine humanitarian work in Iraq when at a higher level there is obviously a completely different agenda? Any further info on the chlorine issue would be gratefully received. In peace, Tim > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Colin Rowat <email@example.com> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 7:26 AM > Subject: Re: Banned Goods > > > > Hi Tim and others, > > > > You ask: > > > > > Can anyone confirm [that chlorine imports have been > > > blocked by the Sanctions Committee] and refer me to > > > details? > > > > I don't have evidence of this (in part perhaps due to > > the secretive operation of the 661 Committee), so > > don't know whether and to what extent chlorine imports > > have been blocked. > > > > What I do know is that, since the early stages of "oil > > for food", provisions have been made to import > > chlorine to Iraq. The 90 day report for Phase II of > > "oil for food" (the "oil for food" programme has run > > in 180 day phases; the UN Secretary-General issues a > > report every 90 days, therefore at the half way point > > and end point of each phase) is available at: > > > > http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/reports/1997/s1997685.htm > > > > You will see that paragraphs 19 and 37 of this report > > (dated 4 September 1997) mention expected arrival of > > chlorine and protocols developed for tracking it in > > Iraq. (A complete list of Secretary-General's report > > can be found at > > > > http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/un.html) > > > > More recently, I have heard from a member of Unmovic, > > the new UN weapons inspectors, that there has been > > debate about removing chlorine gas from the "1051 > > lists" of potentially dual-use items. His explanation > > was that there is so much chlorine being imported into > > Iraq that (i) it takes up one and a half staff > > people's time just to file the applications; (ii) most > > of the sites receiving chlorine in Iraq (c. 900?) are > > then never inspected; and (iii) the chlorine tracking > > protocol has never worked anyhow. > > > > This doesn't answer the question of whether there is > > enough chlorine in Iraq, whether due to imports or > > domestic production. I don't have an answer to that. > > Conversations with UN and NGO staff that I had in > > Baghdad in December did suggest that the main problem > > with, say, delivering clean drinking water was NOT the > > problem of purifying it in a plant: that was > > reasonably easy. Problems arose because (i) the staff > > couldn't afford to be at work to maintain and use the > > plant properly; (ii) the distribution system was badly > > damaged, etc. (I don't recall my clothes smelling of > > diesel, but don't have enough experience to know > > whether my experience is typical. I do know that our > > hotel would clean its floors with some form of petrol > > product.) > > > > I hope that this is of some help. > > > > Best, > > > > ===== > > Colin Rowat > > 274 Vanderbilt Ave., #2 > > Brooklyn NY 11205 > > USA > > (m) 917 517 5840 > > (f) 707 221 3672 > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email firstname.lastname@example.org Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website: http://www.casi.org.uk