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 Elias, I hope all is well with you, my friend :-) Let me see if I can answer your questions... > (1) You mention various GDP figures from Iraq. What are your sources The GDP figures I used are from the Economist's Economic Intelligence Unit. But I've also seen other figures (all within a few billion of each other), so I don't know - which is why I qualified them with "roughly" and "around." > (2) You mention that in the debate on SCR 661 (1990) the U.S. > "fought hard to try to get medicine included in the embargo". I never > saw this claim on print. What is your source ? "fought hard" might be a *bit* of rhetorical overreach on my part ;-) but it was proposed & discussed: Conlon, "Lessons from Iraq: The Functions of the Iraq Sanctions Committee as a source of Sanctions Implementation Authority and Practice," 3 Virginia Journal of Int'l Law No. 633 (Spring 1995), at 636. > (3) In addressing the > quantity of oil Iraq is supposed producing, the State Department > provides figures and you provide another figure, but without > indicating the amount or the sources. The reader cannot make up his > mind who is right. You got me again :-) The analysis was getting a bit long, and I didn't want to go into *too* much detail. I did it off the top of my head & not for publication. But... I should have been more careful. The figures I used were from OPEC's Annual Statistical Bulletin. In 1989 Iraq exported around 2.3 million b/d, but in 1980 (their best year to date), Iraq exported around 2.5 million barrels per day. In 1998 it was about 1.5, so 2/3 of their best. But it's been increasing over the last two years. When I double-checked, last year was 2 million b/d, or 80% of their best, and this year might actually top the 1980 figure (although we'll have to see, they've been running at less than capacity, for a number of reasons, and politics may yet keep it down further). > (4) You quote James Baker and Bill Clinton that > sanctions will remain as long as Saddam is in power. What is the > source ? Same for quote on Bill Richardson. My source for all those quotes was the Institute for Public Accuracy: http://www.accuracy.org/new1.htm > A small detail that may have escaped you. In discussion the myth on > import of pencils, books and journals, your comment is correct. But > note that the State Department is not straight. They write: "They > have been sent to Iraq regularly since 1991 and nearly $64 million of > supplies for the education sector, including photocopiers, and > printing and lab equipment, have entered Iraq under the oil-for-food > program.". What is not clear from this reply is how much is "sent to > Iraq regularly since 1991" in monetary terms and what is the evidence > (for I have seen none). For all purposes when the State Department > asserts facts that nobody can check, such evidence can be safely > dismissed. I'm not sure I'm understanding your point, but according to the figures on the OIP website, Iraq's received $150.7 million in supplies for the educational sector under OFF: http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/latest/basicfigures.html But the State Department said $64 million, so I went with it... > Under the Myth "Sanctions on Iraq will never be lifted.", you write > these security "requirements" are vague. This is a conclusion, not a > statement of fact. The uninitiated reader would like to know why you > come to this conclusion and why "vague" is bad. Yes, you're right of course, but - again, this was off the top of my head & I was getting tired. LOL - I guess I should be more careful in the future - people seem to be taking this a lot more seriously than I actually intended. > Regarding the Myth: "The international community has not taken > measures to care for the Iraqi people.", perhaps another point: > Reports by UN agencies and the SG have repeatedly > characterized the oil-for-food programme as "inadequate". > Until 1998 the humanitarian programme was not even intended > to improve the humanitarian situation, but merely arrest the > decline ! This can be verified by reading the Security Council > resolutions. > Many thanks, Ramsey, Thank you, my friend. I do have a tendancy to be a bit too reckless, and I need folks to keep me on my toes! Yours, Ramsey "Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they' ve lost all incentive because we've given them too much money" - George Carlin -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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