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]
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2001/msg00557.html >We need to find a way not to get sucked into calling the sanctions 'smart' sanctions. Voices has been using 'tighter' sanctions, which is useful. The best I can come up with is the phrase 'smart sanctions are still >sanctions', but any suggestions welcome. It is rather important to control the language of the public debate. However, one potential problem with the term "tighter sanctions" is that the U.S. State Department (and presumably Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and the press already use it (or some version of it) to express the following: The U.S. (and presumably the UK) is just trying to 1. "tighten the sanctions on weapons of mass destruction, tighten the sanctions on armaments, tighten the sanctions on the sorts of equipment and other materials that put the people of the region at risk", "tighten up on his [Saddam Hussein's] ability to smuggle". 2. "remove some of the restrictions on the materials that could go to civilians and to civilian use" See below for the above and other select State Department and press examples. One alternative is to add "economic" to Eric's suggestion and make it clear that these "smart sanctions are still ECONOMIC sanctions". They are not exclusively sanctions on individuals (that, e.g., freeze GoI officials' foreign bank accounts or prevent officials from traveling) and/or supplier-side military sanctions on munitions, arms and single-use military goods. They adversely impact, exports, imports, the still "lamentable" civilian infrastructure, and the capacity to pay salaries and increase the purchasing power that so shrank after the enforcement of SCR 661 and is now commonly abysmal. There is every reason to conclude that the humanitarian crisis will continue, as the new sanctions proposals are still economic sanctions. This could be a nice segue to point out that economic sanctions are designed and applied to damage a target economy by disrupting trade and depriving the target economy of resources. By definition and as expected, the resultant economic damage hurts civilians who depend on the target economy, especially the most vulnerable (children, women, the elderly and poor). "While the impact of sanctions varies from one case to another, the Committee is aware that they almost always have a dramatic impact on the rights recognized in the Covenant. Thus, for example, they often cause significant disruption in the distribution of food, pharmaceuticals and sanitation supplies, jeopardize the quality of food and the availability of clean drinking water, severely interfere with the functioning of basic health and education systems, and undermine the right to work". (Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ECOSOC) General Comment No. 8, E/C.12/1997/8, 5 December 1997, para. 3 http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/974080d2db3ec66d802565c5003 b2f57?Opendocument) See also the lengthy list of: 1. "direct effects (immediate)" - * "Decreased Imports" * "Decreased Exports" * "Decrease in Communications" 2. "short term effects (intermediate)" * "Health" * "Food Security" * "Economics" 3. "long-term effects (chronic)" * "Health" * "Economic" * "Social" * "Political" in Eric Hoskins, "The Impact of Sanctions: A Study of UNICEF Perspectives", February 1998. The main report is at http://www.unicef.org/emerg/Sanctions.htm and list at www.unicef.org/emerg/ImpactSanctions.htm ******************* State Department Briefing Richard Boucher, U.S. State Department Spokesman 28 February 2001 Q On sanctions, could we go through it one more time? There are three categories. There are consumer goods, there's military materiel, and there are so-called dual-use things. I take it, while you're easing up on consumer shipments, you say you're tightening the sanctions overall. How do you do that if you're going to be easier on dual-use material, more permissive on dual-use -- MR. BOUCHER: Let me go back to what the secretary said to you yesterday at the European Union. He said we're going to tighten the sanctions on weapons of mass destruction, tighten the sanctions on armaments, tighten the sanctions on the sorts of equipment and other materials that put the people of the region at risk. That is the direction that we're headed in. That is the direction we discussed with people in the region, as well as allies when we got to Europe. That goal, I think, that direction, is one that we found a lot of support for. And it's one that we will work in further detail, again, with the people of the region, with the allies, with the perm five, as well as within our own government, as we go forward. To do that effectively, we know, you have to strengthen the controls we have on the oil-for-food money. And part of the secretary's diplomacy was to talk to the Syrians and others about bringing some of the exports that are not currently under the oil-for-food money and bringing that money into the U.N. accounts so that we have better control on that. Part of the effort has to be to tighten up on his ability to smuggle. The secretary talked to you about that yesterday and that will be another direction that we have to formulate details for. The secretary, after his trip -- as you know, the trip was intended to discuss ideas, to hear views, to gather ideas and to report back to the president. The secretary has talked to the president this morning by telephone, and to fill him in on many of the things he heard and discussed during the trip. I think it's safe to say the president is pleased with where we are on this and we'll continue working to develop the details. As for how those details will affect this category, that category or the other, I'm not in a position to come out with lists of prohibited items or items for further attention or items that are fairly well assumed to be safe. But those kind of details aren't developed at this point. Q You have just spent most of your answer talking about tighter military -- the category of military items. We understand that. We were also told that more consumer goods will be permitted to go to Iraq. And we were also told that dual use would be reviewed with an aim of trying to take some of the burden. Also, some heartfelt things were said on the plane about the way these sanctions are falling on the Iraqi people. So I'm asking how you're going to go about being tougher on military equipment if, at the same time, you're going to take a more lenient view of dual-use material? MR. BOUCHER: I, again, go back -- Q Because there was a reason they would do -- there's a reason they -- (inaudible) -- in the first place. MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let me give you the one-sentence version; the one-sentence version of the longer answer I just gave you. If you tighten the controls on the weapons of mass destruction and further define the dual-use equipment that might be key to that process so that you can further define it and control those as well, then you can remove some of your restrictions; make the smooth -- make the civilian stuff go more smoothly. And that'll be the direction. But as I said in my previous answer, the details are not worked out yet. Eli? Q It sounds like this plan's going to require inspectors on one end to certify in Iraq what kinds of commercial goods are being brought in. I mean, how do you expect to get the Iraqis to agree on inspectors -- MR. BOUCHER: I didn't -- I don't think that's been said, that it's required, necessary to carry this out. It's up to the Iraqi government if they want to invite the inspectors back in and implement the use -- Q No, not -- I'm talking about inspectors for the actual goods themselves. MR. BOUCHER: We will take steps to tighten up on his ability to smuggle. That's clear. There have been cargo inspections in the past, airplane inspections in the past. And making the process work smoothly is obviously something we'll want to look at. **************** Press Availability with Commissioner Christopher Patten at European Commission, Secretary Colin L. Powell Brussels, Belgium 27 February 2001 http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/index.cfm?docid=962 QUESTION: Mister Secretary, do you any have any comment on the Iraqi Foreign Minister's statement that under no circumstances will the Iraqis allow weapons inspectors to return? How does this affect your strategy for re-energizing the sanctions? SECRETARY POWELL: Well that's his choice. The ideas that we are considering -- and of course no decisions have been made -- really are not just re-energized sanctions. They tighten sanctions against those targets of the sanctions in the first place. If we move forward with the proposals that I have been shopping around the region, we will tighten sanctions on weapons of mass destruction material. We will tighten sanctions on armaments. We will tighten sanctions on all those sorts of equipment and other materials that put the people of the region at risk. What we would do, then, is remove some of the restrictions on the materials that could go to civilians and to civilian use, so that he will no longer have an excuse of saying that we are hurting the Iraqi people where the intentions of the sanctions from the very beginning have been for the purpose of constraining his appetite for weapons of mass destruction. We will also do everything we can to strengthen the controls we have on the "oil for food" money that goes to the regime. We have had some success in the last couple of days in discussions with the frontline states in the regions to tighten up on his ability to smuggle out things. **************** Press Briefing Abroad Aircraft En Route to Cairo, Egypt, Secretary Colin L. Powell En Route Cairo, Egypt 23 February 2001 http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/index.cfm?docid=931 Q: I just want to ask about the tightening of sanctions on materials to do with WMD. That means -- how do you do this? You have to have inspectors on every plane going into Iraq? You have bodies all along the border between Jordan and Iraq? What are you going to suggest to the allies in the region on how this can be accomplished? How do you do it? SECRETARY POWELL: The regime that's in place now and the way in which UN members and others have been following that regime have done a pretty good job of keeping out the major arms systems going in. Part of what I'm also going to be looking at – I'm glad you asked it, Jane, because it gives me the chance to make another point. I'll be speaking to the Syrians and the Jordanians and to others in the region how we do a better job of tightening access into Iraq. If we are able, through this consultative process, at some point in the future to all come into agreement that we should modify the regime, then I think part of that modification effort should also include how do we make sure we know what we're doing, how do we tighten what actually goes in. Now, the other issue that will almost certainly come up is how do you ultimately get out of this? Under 1284 I believe he has an obligation – Saddam Hussein – to let inspectors back in and let the inspectors do their job. I think that part of this regime should be put the burden on him, that he'll have to stay under this regime, whatever regime it is -- the current one or anything that's modified -- until the inspectors are allowed in to do their job. ******************* "Diplomats said the aim is to tighten controls on security-related goods while easing the ban on items that could benefit the Iraqi people, who have suffered under more than a decade of sanctions. That suffering has proved to be a powerful propaganda tool for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who has long campaigned for the UN controls to be lifted". (Elizabeth Neuffer, "US Seeks to Shift Iraq Sanctions", Boston Globe, 17 May 2001) "The administration is seeking international support for easing the economic embargo on Iraq while tightening the restrictions on Baghdad's ability to import military goods and materials for developing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons". (Alan Sipress and Peter Behr, "Bush Says Iran, Libya Sanctions to Stay", Washington Post, 20 April 2001) "After lining up support from key Middle Eastern states, Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined a plan to loosen the 10-year-old United Nations sanctions regime and replace it with a "smarter" system that shuts down illegal Iraqi oil exports and tightens controls over militarily useful imports". (Editorial Board, "Forging a New Iraq Policy", Washington Post, 4 March 2001) "General Powell spent his three days in the Middle East soliciting support for his sanctions plan, which he said would tighten restrictions on Iraq so that Mr. Hussein would not be able to arm his nation with weapons of mass destruction". (Jane Perlez, "Powell Proposes Easing Sanctions on Iraqi Civilians", New York Times, 27 February 2001) ******************* Nathaniel Hurd Iraq Sanctions Project (ISP) Associate Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) 162 Montague Street, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 USA Tel.: 718-237-9145, x 21 Fax: 718-237-9147 Mobile: 917-407-3389 Personal E-Fax: 707-221-7449 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.cesr.org/isp *The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of ISP, unless specifically stated* -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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