the new British proposal

["Voices uk" <voices@DELETETHISviwuk.freeserve.co.uk>]

Here's a collection of pieces on the new British proposal

1. UN set to consider easing Iraqi sanctions, FT (letters.editor@ft.com )
2. Allies Work to Modify U.N.'s Iraqi Sanctions, Washington Post
(letters@washpost.com)
3.  U.S.-British Plan Seeks to Restore Trade With Iraq, New York Times
(letters@nytimes.com, all letters should be exclusive to the NYT and not
more than 150 words)
4. Brits Seek to Ease Iraq Sanctions, AP
5. How smart are smart sanctions?, BBC (unfortunately doesn't actually
attempt to answer the question).
6. Britain Wants to End Bans on Iraqi Civilian Goods, Reuters
7. Britain and US plan looser trade sanctions on Saddam, The Independent
(letters@independent.co.uk )
8. Sanctions eased on Iraq, The Times (letters@the-times.co.uk, all letters
must be exclusive to The Times)
9.  Britain and US aim to 'refocus' Iraqi embargo, Daily Telegraph
(dtletters@telegraph.co.uk )
10. Britain and US urge end to Iraq sanctions, Guardian
(letters@guardian.co.uk )

Followed by a letter of my own to the FT and a useful analysis of these
much-anticipated proposals that appeared in voices' March newsletter. It
looks like there'll be another press flurry next week when, with any luck,
we'll know more details. Here are a few highlights of the current coverage:

The British proposal is 'aimed at shifting the blame for the suffering of
the Iraqis' (FT) with US and British officials British and American
officials 'hop[ing to], kill off the widespread perception that sanctions
cause great suffering for ordinary Iraqi people' (BBC). 'If our proposals
are adopted by the Security Council Iraq will have no excuse for the
suffering of the Iraqi people' (anonymous British official, New York Times).

The 'main aim' of the proposal is to 'reduce the number of holds', the UN
escrow account will be maintained and 'foreign investment and credits would
continue to be prohibited' (FT).

According to the New York Times 'the plan would require Iraq to let
international arms inspections resume before any sanctions could be lifted'
but it's unclear whether relaxing the controls on civilian imports is
included here (none of the other reports indicate this, so my guess would be
that they are not so covered).

The US 'has sought to reach agreement on the contours of a new sanctions
policy before June 4, when the United Nations is scheduled to decide whether
to renew the oil-for-food programme' and 'US and European officials ...
expect negotiations among council members about whether to allow the
resumption of international investment in Iraq's oil industry' (Washington
Post).

The US wants the UN to be able to 'compensate countries neighbouring Iraq
with money from the escrow account if Baghdad retaliate[s] against them for
co-operating with [planned] import restrictions' aimed at reducing oil
smuggling (Washington Post) - a proposal which Iraq is very unlikely to take
kindly to.

Gabriel
voices uk

***************************************
UN set to consider easing Iraqi sanctions
By Roula Khalaf in London and Carola Hoyos in New York
Published: May 16 2001 19:36GMT | Last Updated: May 17 2001 03:12GMT

Britain is to introduce a United Nations security council resolution on Iraq
based on new "smart" US sanctions and aimed at shifting the blame for the
suffering of Iraqis on to the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The initiative, expected next week, follows Washington's unveiling of new
ideas to the five permanent members of the security council. If a consensus
can be reached on amendments to the 10-year-old sanctions, the new system
would go into effect on June 4 after a vote expected at the end of this
month.

The US plan calls for improvements in the oil-for-food programme, which
allows Iraq to sell unlimited amounts of oil to buy humanitarian goods.

Civilian goods would be allowed into Iraq without prior UN approval while
military-related items would be put on a controlled list and denied access.

But the composition of the list will be a contentious point in discussions
between security council members. According to UN diplomats, the US wants it
to include chemicals necessary for water sanitation and computing and
telecommunications equipment.

"The essence is now that nothing is allowed in except that which is
approved. We are going to change it to everything is allowed in except that
which is stopped," a British official said.

The new sanctions regime would maintain strong controls over the Iraqi
government. Iraq's oil exports would still be deposited into a UN escrow
account, denying Mr Saddam access to his funds. Foreign investment and
credits would continue to be prohibited. To win a full suspension of
sanctions, Iraq would have to comply with UN disarmament requirements.

The US plan, now backed by the UK, is likely to face resistance from Russia
and China, which have lobbied for a total lifting of the embargo.

France, also sympathetic to Iraq, has indicated that the US ideas were a
step in the right direction, but it is studying the details.

The US, and to a lesser extent the UK, have delayed 17.8 per cent of the
contracts submitted to the UN by putting as many as 1,690 "on hold" on the
grounds that they can be used for military as well as civilian purposes. The
main aim of the resolution would be to reduce the number of holds, though UN
diplomats remain sceptical that the amended rules would bring a substantial
change.

The proposed US sanctions regime calls for more vigorous customs inspection
in states bordering Iraq to ensure that military-related items are kept out.

It would also seek to bring current smuggling under the control of the UN,
including a pipeline carrying oil illegally to Syria.

A legal framework, meanwhile, would be set up for the resumption of civilian
flights to Baghdad.

It remains unclear, however, how much co-operation can be expected from
frontline states.

Earlier this week Iraq threatened to cut oil exports to Jordan and Turkey if
they went along with the US plan.

******************************************************

Allies Work to Modify U.N.'s Iraqi Sanctions
U.S., Britain Want to Ease Pressure on Civilians

By Colum Lynch and Alan Sipress
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 17, 2001; Page A17


UNITED NATIONS, May 16 – The United States and Britain will launch a
diplomatic campaign next week to overhaul the 11-year-old sanctions on Iraq,
marking the first substantial step by the Bush administration to carry out a
new policy for confronting Baghdad.

British officials, working with their American counterparts, said today they
were preparing to offer, as early as Monday, a draft Security Council
resolution that would eliminate most restrictions on Iraq's civilian imports
while tightening controls on military goods and oil revenue.

"This is a very big shift. We are effectively ending sanctions on ordinary
civilian imports and replacing it with a very tightly focused control
regime," a British diplomat told reporters. "If our proposals are adopted by
the Security Council, Iraq will have no excuse for the suffering of the
Iraqi people."

In recent months, U.S. envoys have been meeting in Europe with British,
French and Russian officials to lay the groundwork for the resolution. The
Bush administration has sought to reach agreement on the contours of a new
sanctions policy before June 4, when the United Nations is scheduled to
decide whether to renew the oil-for-food sanctions program.

"We have been working on this for a long time," said James B. Cunningham,
the acting U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "We hope to adopt the
resolution by the end of the month."

While pushing for "smart sanctions" that could win renewed international
support, the Bush administration also has been reviewing other elements of
its Iraq policy. U.S. officials said they expect to complete an evaluation
this month of how best to enforce the two no-fly zones over Iraq and provide
support for opposition groups trying to oust President Saddam Hussein.

The broad outlines of the sanctions plan have gained a "reasonably positive
response" from France, Russia and China, Iraq's traditional advocates on the
15-member Security Council, according to the British official. U.S. and
European officials have said France is upbeat about the overall proposal,
since it could satisfy a longstanding French demand for the lifting of
civilian sanctions, while Russia and China have withheld detailed comments.

But U.S. and European officials said they expect intense negotiations among
the five permanent Security Council members over the specifics of the new
plan, in particular the list of items that would still be barred from Iraq.

Under the proposal, Iraq would be free to import any goods not specifically
designated for the council's review. Last week, after an internal Bush
administration debate among State Department and Pentagon officials over
which items could pose a military threat, the United States and Britain
agreed on a proposed list and presented it to Russia, China and France.

The list would include all military imports and many "dual use" items, such
as high-powered computers and advanced telecommunications equipment, that
have both civilian and military applications. "There will effectively be no
sanctions on all other goods entering Iraq," the British official said.

U.S. and European officials said they expect negotiations among council
members about whether to allow the resumption of international investment in
Iraq's oil industry, a step that could benefit French, Russian and Chinese
companies. They also anticipate tough bargaining over whether Iraqi revenue
deposited in the U.N. account could be used to pay off Baghdad's debts, a
change favored by Russia, which is owed several billion dollars.

The draft resolution would maintain the existing escrow account into which
Iraqi oil revenue is deposited and then spent on imports that meet Security
Council conditions. It would also likely allow the resumption of
international commercial flights to Baghdad.

The Bush administration plan would authorize Iraq to export oil through
Syria under U.N. auspices in an effort to halt the smuggling of more than
100,000 barrels a day outside international control. It would also allow the
U.N. to compensate countries neighboring Iraq with money from the escrow
account if Baghdad retaliated against them for cooperating with the import
restrictions.

Iraq has asked Russia to oppose the new resolution and has put its neighbors
on notice that it will punish them if they support the plan. Iraq's Deputy
Prime Minister Tariq Aziz warned Jordan and Turkey on Monday that Iraq will
cut off trade with them if they cooperate.

Alan Sipress reported from Washington.

*******************************************************************

May 17, 2001

U.S.-British Plan Seeks to Restore Trade With Iraq

By BARBARA CROSSETTE

UNITED NATIONS, May 16 — Britain, backed by the United States, will propose
next week that the United Nations lift the 11-year ban on international
trade with Iraq, British officials said today.

The long-awaited British-American proposal, if adopted by the Security
Council, would prohibit only the sale of a specific list of arms and
weapons-related items to Iraq.

But the plan would require Iraq to let international arms inspections resume
before any sanctions could be lifted, and it would reject Iraqi demands to
return to Baghdad the control over money Iraq earns from oil sales. That
money would still be deposited into a United Nations-supervised escrow
account, to be drawn on for imports. Iraq has already said it would accept
nothing short of an end to the embargo, and it expelled international
inspectors in 1998, so it is likely to reject the plan as inadequate.

"The measures that we are proposing in effect will mean the end of sanctions
on ordinary civilian imports into Iraq," a British official said today. "We
are trying to agree on more focused controls on Iraq's weapons and illegal
oil exports," he said.

Although the new proposals, representing a fundamental shift in the way the
United Nations will deal with Iraq, were developed jointly, Bush
administration officials appeared reluctant to comment publicly on the plan,
leaving the British alone out front today.

The administration's approach has many critics in Washington, especially
among conservatives who believe Mr. Bush should increase pressure on
President Saddam Hussein in the hope of bringing down his regime. But Mr.
Bush, in an interview with The New York Times in January, likened the Iraqi
sanctions to "Swiss cheese" and went along with a proposal by Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell to focus on enforcing sanctions on military transfers.

"You undercut all sanctions if you try to stop everything," one State
Department official said. "It simply doesn't work to try to lock up the
country, especially when so many other countries are willing to turn the
other way when goods are smuggled across the border. So it's time to try a
different approach."

The proposal comes several years after deep fissures developed in the
Security Council over the usefulness or ethical justification for the
sweeping embargo that the Security Council imposed under the last Bush
administration and which the Clinton administration demanded it keep in
place. In recent years, rising oil prices also gave Mr. Hussein enhanced
economic power that helped reduce his diplomatic isolation, as old and new
trading partners joined in calls for a lifting of sanctions.

A long and difficult council debate is expected. The other permanent members
of the council with veto power, China, France and Russia, which have argued
for a quicker suspension of sanctions, did not comment on the proposals
today.

In Washington, Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said that
the administration was in "a sort of intermediate stage" of consultations
with Security Council members and nations near Iraq. "We don't have a
proposal at this point to present."

Mr. Boucher did indicate, however, that the administration supported the
plan in principle. "The goal of this process is to control effectively
Iraq's ability to buy weapons, to control Iraq's ability to threaten its
neighbors, especially to control Iraq's ability to threaten its region with
weapons of mass destruction," he said. "So, on the one hand, you will have a
set of controls that do that. On the other hand, we will smooth out the
process and enable civilian goods to reach the Iraqi people."

The British official briefing reporters said that the basic plan was ready
to be presented to the Security Council as a resolution as early as next
week.

"We've been consulting other Security Council members and key states in the
region, and have proposed some ideas, and so far we are receiving a
reasonably positive response," the British official said.

Ambassador James Cunningham, the acting American representative on the
Council, said today that he hoped to see the resolution adopted by the end
of this month, but refused to discuss the proposal in detail.

A review and renewal of the existing "oil for food" program in Iraq is due
by June 4, and British and American officials would like to replace that
with the new plan at that time.

There has been a steady erosion of the isolation of Iraq, as neighboring
countries and other nations began to increase trade and send flights to
Baghdad's newly reopened airport. At the same time, Arab nations and other
opponents of sanctions continue to criticize them for causing unacceptable
hardship to the Iraqi people.

"Under this system, Iraq will be able to meet all of its civilian needs,"
the British official said. "If our proposals are adopted by the Security
Council, Iraq will have no excuse for the suffering of the Iraqi people."

The new plan for Iraq marks another stage in a long-running attempt by the
Security Council to deal effectively with an Iraqi government noted for its
record of trying to create nuclear, chemical and biological weapons before
and possibly since its invasion and occupation of neighboring Kuwait in
August 1990.

After the war to free Kuwait that followed in early 1991, Iraq was told by
the Security Council that it would remain under a strict embargo on oil
sales and weapons purchases until it had been fully disarmed to the
satisfaction of United Nations inspectors. Goods like food and medicine were
never included in the embargo.

By the end of that year, when much of Iraq's arsenal was being destroyed but
it was clear that Mr. Hussein was neither going to cooperate with the
inspection system in ferreting out undeclared arms nor use what money he had
to alleviate civilian hardships, the Security Council offered Iraq the
chance to buy more civilian goods through controlled oil sales. Iraq
refused, and it was not until 1996 that a revised oil- for-food program was
accepted.

That program has been steadily expanded, until Iraq is now free to import a
wide range of goods and equipment. But it is still required to present a
list of proposed purchases to the United Nations periodically. That rule
would now be lifted.

Under the new British-American proposal, Iraq is still required to readmit
arms inspectors, who have not been allowed to work in the country since
1998, and to be declared free of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons or
components as well as missiles with a range of over 150 kilometers. Until
then, the sanctions imposed in 1990 and reaffirmed repeatedly since remain
in place.

The proposal requires that two concrete lists of prohibited weapons and
weapons-related goods be drawn up, one for weapons of mass destruction and
the other for conventional arms. Such purchases could not be made by Iraq,
and questionable contracts could still be referred to the Council's
sanctions committee. That panel, the British official said, could deny a
sale entirely, exercise a line- item veto or ask that United Nations
monitors track the ultimate destination and use of a suspect item in Iraq.

In general, the new proposals rely heavily on United Nations monitoring,
which could be problematic. Britain and the United States have pressed for
more monitors in Iraq, but this has been rejected by some of Iraq's
supporters. The Iraqi government could simply bar monitors.

The free flow of civilian goods into Iraq would place a heavy responsibility
for vigilance on Iraq's neighbors, since arms inspectors of the United
Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission are concerned
about the possibility of Iraq's hiding material for arms programs in
civilian shipments.

On a recent visit to the Middle East, General Powell discussed these next
steps with countries in the region. Diplomats say that Jordan, Turkey and
Syria would have to be reassured that they would not suffer economically if
they cooperated with the United Nations.

*******************************************************

Thursday May 17 6:03 AM ET
Brits Seek to Ease Iraq Sanctions

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - In a major policy shift expected to get U.S. backing,
Britain has proposed lifting U.N. sanctions on civilian goods entering Iraq
but toughening enforcement of the decade-old arms embargo against Saddam
Hussein's government.

The British proposal, which is being incorporated into a Security Council
resolution, was developed in consultation with Washington and is part of a
broader review of Iraq policy by both countries, a British official said
Wednesday.

But on Thursday, the Iraqi army newspaper Al-Qaddissiya rejected any U.N.
resolution ``America tries to pass under any pretext.''

Full sanctions still can't be lifted until U.N. weapons inspectors certify
that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed. For nearly 21/2
years, Baghdad has barred inspectors.

But if approved by the powerful Security Council, the British proposal would
mark the first significant easing of sanctions that have been in place since
the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Britain said it got a positive response from the three other council members
with veto power, France, Russia and China, as well as from Iraq's neighbors.

The United States and Britain seek to prevent Iraq from reviving its
weapons-building programs while ensuring that sanctions don't hurt Iraqi
citizens, the British official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday that talks
were still going on in capitals and at the United Nations.

``The goal of this process is to control effectively Iraq's ability to buy
weapons, to control Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors ... with
weapons of mass destruction,'' Boucher said in Washington.

``So on the one hand, you will have a set of controls that do that. On the
other hand, we will smooth out the process and enable civilian goods to
reach the Iraqi people,'' he said.

The British plan would allow all goods to enter Iraq except those on a U.N.
list of military-related items, and it would allow the resumption of all
commercial and cargo flights in and out of the country as long as they are
inspected at the departure points, the British official said.

At the same time, the proposal seeks to restrict Iraq's ability to rebuild
its military arsenal by tightening border controls and cracking down on
Baghdad's efforts to get control of its oil money through smuggling and
illegal surcharges, the official said.

In its front-page editorial, the Al-Qaddissiya newspaper rejected such
``smart sanctions'' and said Iraq will ``move on the path of breaking the
chains of the embargo.''

``All Arab and other neighboring countries are duty bound to realize the
dangers entailed in the American game of smart sanctions,'' it said. ``Their
national interests lie in consolidating their political, economic and trade
bonds with Iraq and sidestepping any behavior which will harm Iraq.''

Iraq's neighbors - Turkey, Syria and Jordan - have expressed concern about
the impact of Iraqi sanctions on their economies.

Under the British plan, the United Nations will continue to maintain strict
control over the billions of dollars Iraq earns annually from oil sales and
will pay all suppliers of humanitarian goods to Iraq.

The Security Council initiated a program in 1996 to help Iraqis cope with
sanctions by allowing oil sales as long as the money was strictly controlled
by the United Nations and went primarily for food, medicine, humanitarian
supplies and oil spare parts.

But there were delays in deliveries under the oil-for-food program because
goods entering Iraq had to go through a U.N. approval process. More than $3
billion in contracts were held up - mainly by the United States but also by
Britain - because of suspicions that the items could have a military
purpose.

Under the British proposal, Iraq will be able to import any goods unless
they are on a U.N. list of items that must be reviewed because of possible
military use. No ``holds'' on contracts will be allowed, the official said.

The current six-month phase of the oil-for-food program expires June 3, and
the British want their proposal incorporated into the extension of the
program. The official said a draft resolution will be circulated to Security
Council members next week.

Iraq has campaigned for an end to the sanctions, saying the embargoes have
perpetuated the suffering of Iraqis- a claim that has received sympathy in
many quarters. The British proposal is in part a response to this growing
criticism, Western diplomats said.

Aid officials have said child malnutrition was a serious problem, and that
people often sold their rations on the black market to raise money for other
needs in Iraq, where a junior civil servant earns less than $3 a month.

Iraq has eroded sanctions in the last year - resuming commercial and
diplomatic ties with many countries, getting more than a dozen countries to
start commercial flights to Baghdad, reopening a long-closed oil pipeline to
Syria and illegally imposing a surcharge on its oil customers.

*****************************************************
How smart are smart sanctions?

By BBC News Online's Tarik Kafala
The United States and the United Kingdom have promised to unveil a new syste
m of sanctions against Iraq.

_______________________________
Possible smart sanctions
Strict embargo on military imports
Retain control of Iraqi oil
Travel restrictions on top officials
Target regime's finances abroad
Improve humanitarian image of sanctions
 ________________________________

Faced with the failure and growing international unpopularity of the current
sanctions, London and Washington are proposing what they are calling "smart
sanctions".

These are supposed to be better targeted. Nobody is talking about a new UN
Security Council resolution - the council is so divided on Iraq that this
would probably be impossible - but a substantial shift in emphasis is
anticipated.

They will aim to hamper and inconvenience the Iraqi Government's leading
officials and prevent Baghdad acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Need for change

The smart sanctions will, British and American officials hope, kill off the
widespread perception that sanctions cause great suffering for ordinary
Iraqi people.

Analysts say the blanket embargo on Iraqi imports has widely discredited
economic sanctions because of the constant hold up of essential goods
because they could have military applications.

In the past Baghdad has ridiculed the embargo by claiming that pencil
imports, for example, were banned because of the possible military use of
the graphite.

Critics of smart sanctions say teh authorities will be less concerned about
the measures being genuinely smart, and more concerned with making the
sanctions regime more presentable.

Targeting the regime

US officials are considering trying to impose travel restrictions on Iraqi
officials close to President Saddam Hussein.

This appears to have worked to some extent in the case of Serbia, where the
European Union banned 600 named supporters of President Slobodan Milosevic
from travelling in Europe.

 The freezing of foreign bank accounts could seriously cramp the foreign
business activities of Iraqi officials, but this might have limited impact
because of Iraq's tremendous oil wealth.

It has also been suggested that war crimes indictments might be pursued
against President Hussein and some of those close to him.

Arms

The smart sanctions are supposed to shift the emphasis from monitoring
everything that Iraq imports, to allowing all imports except specific items
with clear military applications.

This, the reasoning goes, will stop a build up of weapons and the
development of weapons of mass destruction.

The new sanctions are not likely to give Iraq control of its oil

 Such an embargo would need the co-operation of all of Iraq's neighbours as
well as weapons and military technology manufacturers around the world.

After a recent tour of the Middle East, US Secretary of State Colin Powell
said that his ideas for new sanctions on Iraq got a warm welcome in the
region.

If this means Iraq's neighbours - Jordan, Syria and Turkey in particular -
are seriously committed to helping block arms sales to Iraq, a targeted and
strict arms embargo might be effective.

Oil revenues

British officials say it is very unlikely that London and Washington will,
in the short term, give Iraq control of its oil revenues.

The UN skims off money from an Iraqi oil revenues account to feed Iraq's
Kurds, compensate Kuwait, and, when they were in action, pay for the weapons
inspectors.

It is estimated that that $24bn dollars of Iraqi oil revenues were under UN
supervision last year, and that despite increased smuggling, only $1.5bn was
under direct Iraqi control.

Tighter border controls aimed at stopping arms imports could also clamp down
on the oil smuggling.

*************************************************************
Wednesday May 16 12:35 PM ET
Britain Wants to End Bans on Iraqi Civilian Goods

By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Britain, with backing from the United States, on
Wednesday proposed an end to all decade-old sanctions on civilian goods to
Iraq except for weapons-related materials, its officials said.

A British-drafted resolution, expected to be circulated next week to all 15
Security Council members, is the first translation into concrete measures of
new policies toward Iraq by the administration of President Bush, disclosed
earlier this year.

Britain is drafting the measure after lengthy negotiations with the United
States and other council members.

``In essence we are ending sanctions on ordinary imports to Iraq but
replacing them with a tightly focused set of controls on military and 'dual
use' goods,'' a British official said.

``Iraq will be free to meet all of its civilian needs without impediment,''
he added.

However, the new resolution would keep financial controls in place and still
compel suppliers to Iraq to be paid from an account controlled by the United
Nations that contains revenues from its oil sales.

But the document may not include any details on what countries bordering
Iraq, such as Jordan, Turkey and Syria, are expected to do. Secretary of
State Colin Powell, who visited the region earlier this year, proposed
placing monitors along their borders to control smuggling and banning
contraband items.

``We are talking to the neighboring states on how that will work and there
is a degree of sensitivity on that,'' the British official said. ``The
neighboring states are very worried about economic retribution from Iraq.''

ONE AIM TO PLUG SMUGGLING

One aim is to plug the widespread smuggling under the current sanctions
regime, as well as to make Baghdad responsible for the suffering of ordinary
Iraqis under sanctions, which have devastated the economy.

``Iraq is free to import what goods it wants but it is wholly responsible
for the goods inside of Iraq,'' the British official said.

The aim is to get a vote in the 15-member Security Council on the resolution
before a next six-month phase of the oil-for-food program, which begins on
June 4.

That plan, instituted in late 1996, allows Iraq to sell unlimited amounts of
oil, with proceeds put in a U.N. escrow account. The funds are then used to
purchase food, medicine and other goods Baghdad has ordered to ease the
impact of the sanctions, imposed in August 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Currently, food and medicines as well as some other items, such as bricks
for construction and educational materials, are allowed to reach Baghdad
without being approved by the council's sanctions committee.

Under the British plan, other goods, from bicycles to sewing machines, would
be allowed to reach Baghdad without approval from the committee.

But Britain and the United States have no intention of relinquishing the
escrow account, which means Iraqi contracts for supplies probably will still
move through the United Nations' machinery, albeit at a faster place, the
envoys said.

Nevertheless, London and Washington want to shift gears and wind down parts
of the oil-for-food program so civilian supplies can go to Iraq without
approval by a council sanctions committee except for items that also can be
used for weapons.

LIST OF CONTRABAND CONTENTIOUS

Agreeing on a list of contraband goods, already being compiled by the United
States and Britain, is expected to be a point of contention. Currently, more
than $3 billion worth of contracts are blocked, most of them by the United
States, because of possible dual-use purposes or faulty paperwork.

Gone, however, will be the complicated procedures Iraq goes through at the
United Nations every six months in presenting a so-called distribution plan
on the type of goods it will allocate and purchase, from food to oil
industry equipment.

The United States and Britain have been at odds for years with France,
Russia and China, which want the embargoes suspended. Their reaction was
described as ``reasonably positive'' to the new plan but all three may want
changes.

The new proposals, however, would forbid foreign investments and loans to
Iraq, except those already approved for upgrading Baghdad's oil industry,
the diplomats said.

But council sources said a big question was whether Iraq's neighbors could
be persuaded to cooperate.

Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tareq Aziz said on Monday Baghdad would halt
oil exports to Jordan and Turkey if they cooperated with U.S. sanctions
plans.

``We will close the pipelines, stop the trucks and there will be no trade,''
he said, according to extracts of his speech broadcast on Iraqi television.

**********************************************************
The Independent

Britain and US plan looser trade sanctions on Saddam

By David Usborne in New York
17 May 2001

British diplomats in New York yesterday released long-awaited proposals
amending the 10-year-old sanctions regime on Iraq to concentrate their
impact directly on trade in weapons-related goods and to free the flow into
the country of imports meant for ordinary consumption by its people.

"We are removing sanctions on all normal civilian goods, but applying very
focused controls on military and related items," a British official at the
UN confirmed. The proposal, backed by the United States, was submitted to
the other members of the Security Council.

The change in stance was signalled soon after President George Bush arrived
at the White House. It will reverse the public relations advantage long held
by Iraq's Saddam Hussein who has effectively portrayed the West as the
persecutors of his people.

But the approach may do little to end the antagonism between Iraq and the
UN. Iraq is unlikely to respond by allowing UN inspectors to resume
monitoring of its weapons programmes.

Sanctions will be ended entirely only when the UN certifies Iraq is free of
weapons of mass destruction. There have been no UN inspectors in the country
for 15 months. And Baghdad is already bristling at behind-the-scenes
activity by London and Washington to apply pressure on its eastern
neighbours, Turkey and Jordan, to stop the flow of Iraqi oil into the
countries in contravention of the UN embargo.

Ending the embargo-busting is a crucial part of the proposed new US-UK
measures against Iraq, which have been dubbed "smart sanctions". But Iraq
warned Turkey and Jordan that it would halt all sales of oil to them if they
co-operated with the new sanctions. Under the UK plan, officials would list
items that could be used in weapons production. Attempts would be made to
ensure those items were kept out of Iraq. All other goods would flow in
without impediment. Even then, financial restrictions would force suppliers
to Iraq to get their money through UN-controlled accounts.

"If Iraq values the welfare of its people, then it should welcome the plan,"
the British official suggested. "This is a big shift. Everyone wants to
ensure that the Iraqi people are able to be supplied with the goods they
need while everyone equally agrees that Iraq should be prevented from
rearming."

The United States and Britain have been at odds for years with France,
Russia and China, who want the embargoes suspended. Their reaction was
described as "reasonably positive" to the new plan but all three may want
changes.

*****************************************************************
The Times
THURSDAY MAY 17 2001

Sanctions eased on Iraq

FROM JAMES BONE IN NEW YORK

IN AN effort to court sceptical world public opinion, Britain has agreed
with the United States to drop sanctions on all non-military imports by
Iraq.
The policy concession, expected to be approved by the UN Security Council,
will enable President Saddam Hussein to import not just food and medicine
but unlimited quantities of luxury goods. “If Saddam wants to buy
Mercedes-Benzes, he can import as many as he wants,” one diplomat said.

Military imports will still be banned outright, and “dual-use” items will
require specific authorisation and may be subject to UN monitoring. The UN
will continue to control Iraq’s finances through the existing escrow account
that handles payments for Iraqi oil.

Restrictions will also be eased on civilian flights to Iraq from designated
locations.

The new policy is intended to make clear — particularly in the Arab world —
that the Iraqi people’s suffering is the fault of Saddam rather than the UN
sanctions imposed after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The concession is
one part of a policy overhaul by the Bush Administration. The second is
meant to be a tightening of border controls to prevent Iraq smuggling weapon
components and oil into and out of the country. “Our approach is based on
trying to build international consensus around the existing UN resolutions,”
a British official said.

Britain and the United States are ready to go ahead with one side of the
bargain before any action is taken to clamp down on arms and oil smuggling.

US and British officials are reconsidering the “no-fly-zones” over northern
and southern Iraq after a Pentagon recommendation that fighter patrols be
stopped or cut because of the danger to pilots.

****************************************

Daily Telegraph
ISSUE 2183 Thursday 17 May 2001

Britain and US aim to 'refocus' Iraqi embargo
By Anton La Guardial, Diplomatic Editor

BRITAIN and America have proposed a radical dismantling of many of the
economic sanctions imposed on Iraq in an attempt to regain the initiative
against President Saddam Hussein.
After months of talks behind the scenes, Britain will formally submit a
United Nations Security Council resolution next week to ease the sanctions
while tightening controls on the Baghdad regime's ability to build chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons. But Iraq has threatened to cut off supplies
of cheap oil to Jordan and Turkey - the main outlets for Iraqi oil - if they
co-operate with the "smart sanctions".

Britain and America have become isolated amid criticism that the decade-long
sanctions have only caused appalling suffering among Iraqi civilians,
without visibly weakening Saddam.

The proposal to "refocus" the embargo is designed to win back political
support, especially in the Middle East, where anti-Western emotions are
running high because of the renewed conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians. It amounts to a tacit abandonment of the American policy of
deposing Saddam by economic pressure.

One British official last night said: "The idea is to target the sanctions
on the real threat, which is weapons of mass destruction. Iraq will have the
means to address the suffering of its own people. If it fails to do so, it
will be clear that it is because of its own choice."

The British-American plan calls for removing most controls on Iraqi civilian
supplies, while placing military or "dual-use" goods on a list of banned
imports. This would go hand-in-hand with plans to tighten up inspections on
Iraq's borders to reduce smuggling, which has given Saddam a source of
income outside the control of the UN oil-for-food programme.

It is likely that restrictions on civilian flights to Baghdad - now openly
flouted - will be formally eased. There has been no response so far from
other members of the Security Council - especially Russia, China and France
which have been most critical of the sanctions policy.

It is not clear whether Iraq's neighbours will agree to co-operate in
clamping down on the lucrative smuggling trade with the country, which
British officials estimate earned Saddam about £600 million last year.
Jordan, Syria and Turkey have benefited from Iraqi oil at heavily discounted
prices. The rise in the price of crude has given Iraq renewed economic
clout, and it has steadily emerged from its isolation in the Arab world.

British officials said there was no question of abolishing Security Council
resolution 1284, which promises to lift sanctions entirely once Iraq is seen
to co-operate with international weapons inspectors. "Iraq is still a
threat," said one Whitehall source. "If its weapons programme is not
checked, Iraq could develop an offensive chemical and biological capability,
and a crude nuclear device within five years."

At the moment, Iraq's oil revenues are paid into a UN escrow account and
contracts for Iraqi imports must be vetted by the UN's oil-for-food
programme. Under pressure to relieve humanitarian suffering, the UN allowed
Iraq to export as much oil as it wants, and placed some imported goods on a
"pre-approved" list to speed up the process. Iraq has long complained that
the system is tortuous, and needlessly delays delivery of essential
supplies.

About $3 billion (£2.1 billion) worth of goods ordered by Iraq are currently
"on hold" by the UN sanctions committee, mostly at the request of America
and Britain, because of faulty paperwork or because they are suspected of
being "dual-use" items that have an ostensible civilian purpose but can be
used to develop Iraq's military capability.

British officials say the new proposals invert the priorities: instead of
scrutinising everything except a list of "fast-track" goods, the UN will
allow Iraq to import anything except goods on a list of banned military
equipment or "dual-use" goods.

All Iraqi revenues would still have to pass through the UN's escrow account.
London and Washington believe that controlling the finances of Iraq is the
best way of preventing it from rebuilding weapons of mass destruction.

 ******************************************************
Britain and US urge end to Iraq sanctions

UN resolution seeks to ease plight of civilians by lifting ban on all
exports to Baghdad, except for arms

Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday May 17, 2001
The Guardian

Britain, backed by the US, yesterday proposed the end of all sanctions on
exports to Iraq, with the exception of weapons related materials .
A British-drafted UN security council resolution, to be tabled next week, is
the first concrete plan to emerge after President George Bush's
administration indicated earlier this year that it wanted a new policy
towards Iraq.

"In essence we are ending sanctions on ordinary imports to Iraq, but
replacing them with a tightly focused set of controls on military and 'dual
use' goods," a British official said. "Iraq will be free to meet all of its
civilian needs without impediment."

However, the new resolution will maintain existing financial controls on
Iraq and still compel exporters to be paid from a UN-controlled account
which contains Baghdad's oil revenues.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies yesterday urged the UN to
drop sanctions on all commercial exports to Iraq, abandon restrictions on
civil flights to and from Baghdad, and for Britain and the US to suspend
their air patrols over the no-fly zone in southern Iraq.

In its latest annual strategic survey, the London-based thinktank - known
for its cautious approach - called for a new policy towards Iraq, including
extra foreign investment in its oil industry.

The report says that the UN should shift from a "presump tion to deny" to a
"presumption to permit" exports of dual-use goods to Iraq - products with a
civilian and potential military use.

The report coincides with new attempts at the UN by Britain and the US to
redefine their policy amid growing opposition to sanctions, most notably
among Iraq's neighbours. The measures would include relaxing controls on
exports of civilian goods.

Though the institute says that most commercial contracts submitted to the UN
sanctions committee are approved automatically, trade restrictions when
applied "spur the black market, which increases the price of commodities to
the further detriment of an already impoverished [Iraqi] middle class".

The report says the policy also contributes to perceptions that the Iraqi
people are the real target of sanctions, and says increased civilian trade
would provide a much-needed economic boost for Jordan and Turkey.

"It is true that some money will pay for cigars and champagne for Saddam and
his cronies", the report says, "but this is a trivial reason to maintain a
sanctions policy that undermines the regional public support required to
sustain long-term containment of Iraq's revanchist ambitions."

It says that as long as President Saddam remains in power, the US and
Britain must at least be prepared to use force to prevent a return to his
programme of building weapons of mass destruction.

To be able to use such force when "absolutely essential" they must forgo
their attacks against Iraqi air defences. In practice, this means suspending
the southern air patrols whilemaintaining their bases in Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia.

Greater efforts should be made to freeze the assets of members of the Iraqi
regime and to thwart contraband, it says. The UN should also insist on tough
guidelines on weapons inspection.

The survey also discusses the "new security agenda", including terrorism,
ethnic strife, food and energy scarcities, drug trafficking, population
growth and organised crime. It describes global warming and the "ceaseless
flow of refugees and economic migrants" as major threats.

**************************************************************
Excerpt from the March 2001 voices newsletter (see www.welcome.to/voicesuk)
:

3) SAME OLD "STUPID" SANCTIONS

The so-called "smart sanctions" package that Colin Powell is about to
announce cannot solve the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

All Powell is doing is promising to stop hindering oil-for-food. But
oil-for-food cannot solve the humanitarian crisis.

When we compare what is being proposed with what is needed, we must agree
with the Economist's verdict that 'the British proposal of "smart sanctions"
offers an aspirin where surgery is called for.' (editorial, 24 Feb. 2001)

Iraqi families need purchasing power. Iraq's health infrastructure needs a
major development effort. And Iraq's oil industry needs massive investment.

None of these needs can be met under Powell's proposals.

What Is Proposed

As far as we know, the US Secretary of State is about to announce:

The release of a large amount of humanitarian goods so far blocked (on
'hold') by the US in the UN Sanctions Committee;
A promise to impose fewer 'holds' in future;
Tighter border controls in countries bordering Iraq aimed at preventing
smuggling to Iraq;
And, perhaps, measures targeting the movement and finances of members of the
Iraqi government.
As far as the humanitarian side of his proposals go, all Powell is going to
do is promise to stop sabotaging the UN's oil-for-food programme. But
oil-for-food is totally inadequate to the crisis.

Private trade between Iraq and the rest of the world will still be outlawed
('comprehensive economic sanctions'); government trade with the outside
world will still go through a UN-controlled supply system (the
"oil-for-food" deal); and private foreign investment in key sectors in Iraq
will still be banned.

What Is Needed

Colin Powell has talked about the 'three baskets' of US Iraq policy:
sanctions; no-fly zones; and the Iraqi opposition.

There are also three 'pillars of strength' that millions of Iraqi families
need desperately.

The First Pillar - Income

The first requirement is family purchasing power: jobs, and wages paid in a
currency that is worth something.

The UN Food and Agricultural Organisation reported in 1995 that the solution
to the nutritional crisis in Iraq required (apart from 'adequate food
supplies in the country') restoring the 'viability' of the Iraqi Dinar, and
'creating conditions for the people to acquire adequate purchasing power'.

'But, these conditions can be fulfilled only if the economy can be put back
in proper shape enabling it to draw on its own resources, and that clearly
cannot occur as long as the embargo remains in force.' ('Evaluation of Food
and Nutrition Situation in Iraq', 1995)

Infrastructure

The second requirement is for basic services, such as clean drinking water,
sewage and sanitation services, education and health services, and
electrical power generation (to enable all these other sectors to function).

But reconstructing essential civilian infrastucture will cost $50 to $100bn,
according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, discussing the matter last
year.

So far, only $10.3bn worth of humanitarian goods have been delivered to Iraq
under oil-for-food (over $6bn spent on food).

The Third Pillar - Oil

To breathe life into the economy, and to finance social provision on the
scale that Iraqis used to enjoy, Iraq needs earnings from a safe, dependable
supply of oil.

But a decade of sanctions has left the oil industry in a dismal condition,
and foreign investment to open up new oil fields is banned under the present
arrangements. Colin Powell doesn't appear about to change that. conclusions

The Economist points out that most Iraqis ('the new booming elite apart')
are still 'barely above survival level': 'To recover from its 11 years under
the sanctions battering-ram - which has crushed the country's industrial and
agricultural infrastructure - Iraq needs the freedom, and overseas
investment, of a huge reconstruction effort.'

If the US really is willing to let oil-for-food function as intended, that
is welcome. But oil-for-food cannot solve the humanitarian crisis, as was
pointed out by the UN Security Council's own expert 'Humanitarian Panel' in
March 1999.

The Panel said 'the humani-tarian situation in Iraq will continue to be a
dire one in the absence of a sustained revival of the Iraqi economy, which
in turn cannot be achieved solely through remedial humanitarian efforts.'

The Panel wrote that, regardless of the improvements that might be brought
about - in terms of 'approval procedures', 'better performance by the Iraqi
Government', or higher 'funding levels' - 'the magnitude of the humanitarian
needs is such that they cannot be met' by oil-for-food.

This is the programme that the USA is finally going to permit to function.
It's the same old stupid sanctions. Milan Rai

4) SMARTER HOLDS  Return to top

Neil Partrick, of the Royal United Services Institute in London, points out
that Colin Powell's new proposal regarding sanctions on Iraq 'is not so much
genuinely smart as an attempt to make sanctions appear smarter and more
presentable.'

'Sanctions that were genuinely smarter would shift the situation from saying
that everything is forbidden, with certain exceptions, to saying that
everything is permitted except some items, such as those with seriously
potential dual use.' (Guardian, 26 Feb. 2001)

"Smart sanctions" are targeted against particular groups of people.
Comprehensive economic sanctions close down the entire economy and hurt the
general population.

The package about to be announced by Colin Powell is NOT a "smart sanctions"
package. It is a reform of the current comprehensive economic sanctions.

(voices uk doesn't campaign for "smart sanctions" - we campaign for the
immediate and unconditional lifting of economic sanctions - but we believe
it is important for people to know that the US initiative is not what people
mean by "smart sanctions".)

Select Committee

The House of Commons Select Committee on Development issued a report on
"smart sanctions" last February. Noting US epidemiologist Richard Garfield's
estimate that over 200,000 children had died as a result of the economic
sanctions, the Committee 'recognise[s] that sanctions, unless carefully
targeted, have the capacity to kill more children than armed warfare.'

'If sanctions are to be retained as a credible instrument of foreign policy,
they must increasingly seek to target the assets of specific groups or
individuals responsible for breaches of international law'. The Committee
recommended 'financial sanctions' and 'arms embargoes'.

Advantages

A Department for International Development (DFID) conference pointed out
that financial sanctions are better than economic sanctions:

By hurting the regime more than the general population they are morally more
acceptable;
They avoid the humanitarian costs of comprehensive trade embargoes;
They therefore make the UN less vulnerable to the accusation that its
policies violate human rights and subvert its own humanitarian obligations;
They therefore make it more difficult for the target regime to rally
domestic and foreign support against the sanctions; those hurt are those
with international money which is a minority of the population;
They minimise the costs to the close trading partners of the target state;
They deny the target regime the black market that enables the elite to
profit from sanctions;
They deny the target regime the opportunity to extend its control over the
population by taking control of humanitarian aid; and
They have fewer long term social costs and do less damage to the
institutions of the targeted country.
Powell's Proposals

Colin Powell says he favours tightening sanctions 'on all those sorts of
equipments and other materials that put the people of the region at risk,'
while removing some of the restrictions on goods 'that can go to civilians
for civilian use.' (BBC News Online, 27 Feb. 2001)

'Even so-called dual-use items, those with possible military application,
such as water pumps and refrigeration equipment, may be cleared, he said.'

'Powell said he was convinced in talks with Arab leaders in Egypt, Jordan,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Syria that the sanctions regime could be modified
for consumer and even some dual-use goods. He admitted to risk in the second
category, but said such items as water pumps are vital to poor villages but
are banned under the sanctions.' (AP, 27 Feb. 2001)

'Britain's partners have been told that [the new policy] would also be in
the framework of the oil-for-food programme, in order to ensure that
military items would be under strict control, while civilian goods would be
waved through more expeditiously.' (Independent, 21 Feb. 2001, p. 8)

Conclusion

It seems that a large amount of holds may be released soon - perhaps over
$1bn. While welcome, it demonstrates that there never was a justification
for these holds in the first place.

And there has always been, as the Secretary-General has repeatedly stated,
adequate UN monitoring to ensure that allegedly 'dual-use' goods do not go
to nefarious purposes.

The package Powell is proposing continues the comprehensive economic
embargo. It does not have the advantages identified in the DFID conference
report. It's about slightly smarter holds rather than smarter sanctions.

Milan Rai


***************************************************************

The Editor
The Financial Times

Roula Khalaf and Carola Hoyos correctly note that the new British 'smart'
sanctions resolution is 'aimed at shifting the blame for the suffering of
Iraqis' (UN set to consider easing Iraqis sanctions, 17 May). Unfortunately
it is not aimed at ending the appalling humanitarian crisis in Iraq and,
contrary to Government spin, it will not do so.

Indeed, in March '99 the UN's own Humanitarian Panel concluded that the
humanitarian situation in Iraq would 'continue to be a dire one in the
absence of a sustained revival of the Iraqi economy.' The new British
proposal - by maintaining rigid control of Iraq's finances - prevents such a
revival. Instead the UN will continue to run Iraq's economic life on the
model of a gigantic refugee camp, albeit one with a slightly
smoother-running bureaucracy.

Similarly, according to Save the Children UK 'the deterioration in Iraq's
civilian infrastructure is so far-reaching that it can only be reversed with
extensive investment and development efforts.' The British proposal
continues the prohibition on such efforts.

Setting PR considerations aside then, it's not 'smart' sanctions but the
same old 'stupid' ones.

Gabriel Carlyle
46 Rymers Lane
Oxford

tel. 01865 - 714 036










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