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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Corrections to response to the State Departments factsheet on Iraq

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 

> (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 I did it off the top of my head & not for 
publication.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 

> 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:
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!


"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
Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]