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]

Please write to the British Ambassador

Please write to the British Ambassador, Sir Ivor Roberts in Dublin, Ireland.
He must hear from you all!!

Address :
Sir Ivor Roberts
British Ambassador
Merrion Road,
Dublin 4.

(Please also send us a copy:

In last three weeks, the British Ambassador to Ireland has written as many
as three letters to one of Ireland's main national newspapers, The Irish 

The letters consist of the usual misrepresentations and lies that we have
repeatedly heard from spokespersons and senior government officials of the
US and UK.

For example:

1) "The sanctions are not about choking-off legitimate civilian trade
or humanitarian assistance. We have consistently sought to
liberalise the sanctions regime to allow trade and aid to get
through to the Iraqi people." (July 21)

2) "The Oil for Food (OFF) programme was designed to allow the Iraqi
regime to export oil, through a UN-controlled account, to fund the
humanitarian programme" (July 21)

3) "The argument that the UN is causing the humanitarian situation
to deteriorate is false. If that were so, why are Kurdish areas of
Iraq, which are self-governing, better off than those controlled by
Baghdad? " (July 21)

4) "There are no restrictions on legitimate trade with Iraq." (July 21)

5) "The humanitarian situation in Iraq is appalling, but the guilt rests
not with UN nor the UK. It rests squarely with the government
of Iraq for failing to use its many resources for the benefit of its
people. Instead it has sought to manipulate international public
opinion by cynically parading the suffering which it has caused."
(July 21)

6) "That is why we have spent so much time and effort trying to
refine them. We want to achieve our objectives with the
minimum effects on ordinary Iraqi people getting on with their
lives" (2 Aug)

7) "But sanctions protect Iraq's neighbours and they protect us......
How else can we seek to ensure the safety of minority populations
in Iraq? " (2 Aug)

8) "We must not allow Saddam to exploit our morality to force us
into lifting sanctions. He wants us to do this so that he will be
free to develop weapons of mass destruction. We know him to
be capable of using such weapons - he did so against the Kurds.
The result will be that the region will be in peril. And many of the
Iraqi people (especially the Kurds and Shias) will be no better
off."  (11 Aug)

There are more misleading claims in the three letters. I have posted them here.

The Irish Times has already published about 5 to 6 letters in response to 
EACH of the first two letters by the Ambassador. All of them were highly 
critical. One of the response was from Hans Von Sponeck. He and Bishop 
Thomas Gumbleton were in Dublin at the time and were outraged by the letter 
of July 21. (See )

It is now time to flood the Ambassador with protest letters. most of the 
points made in the letters are easily refutable. Please take time to send 
him even a short note and let him know what you think of the sanctions and 
the British government policy of bombing Iraq and the no-fly zones.

Please also, send us a copy of your letters at:

I have appended to this email the 'talking points' by Rahul Mahajan which 
were posted recently in an EPIC email.  Our website also has two responses 
by the Campaign to End Iraq Sanctions and one by Hans von Sponeck.

Campaign to End Iraq Sanctions - Ireland

TALKING POINTS on North vs. South Iraq and Sanctions
1. Northern Iraq, with 13% of Iraq's population, gets 13% of Iraqi oil
revenues. The rest of the country, containing 89% of the population, gets
only 59% of the revenues. This reduced rate is the result of deductions
taken out to compensate victims of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (25%) and to
cover administrative expenses for various UN programs (3-4%). Thus, thanks
to these deductions, inhabitants of south and central Iraq get 68% as much
(per capita) as those living in the north.

2. 10% of money going to northern Iraq under OFF is in cash, so that cheap
local goods and services (instead of expensive foreign ones) can be bought
and salaries can be paid.  In Southern and Central Iraq, no cash component
is provided under OFF.

3. $3.4 billion out of the $17.9 billion in OFF contracts have been placed
on indefinite "hold" (over 20% of the total value). Items currently on hold
include toilet soap, vaccines, and blood bags. This causes tremendous
hardship and dislocation even after the holds are released. The U.S.
Mission to the UN is responsible for over 95% of all holds. Few contracts
for northern Iraq are ever placed on hold.

4. The north is the traditional breadbasket of Iraq, with a far higher
percentage of arable land. The rest of the country has to import most of
its food. (The above figures can be found in the latest report of the UN
Office of the Iraq Program -

5. Sanctions help to insulate the GOI from public accountability. During
the Iran-Iraq war, the GOI went seriously into debt trying to retain public
approval by simultaneously maintaining high social spending while financing
the war. Right now, the Iraqi public rightly blames its suffering on
sanctions, not on the GOI, so the government is under less pressure to
serve the needs of its citizens.

6. Oil revenues, foreign investment, infrastructure repair and the return
of Iraqi professionals are needed in order to rehabilitate Iraq's shattered
economy and infrastructure. Without such a recovery, the Iraqi government
cannot pay adequate wages to civil servants. As a result, many Iraqis will
continue to leave the country. Government oppressions and fears of
reprisals for the 1991 failed uprising also account for this trend. Since
1990, over 20% of Iraq's population has left the country. "An emergency
commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, no matter how well funded
or well run, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and then
ten years of virtual shut-down of Iraq's economy." (Human Rights Watch,
August 2000

7. People in the North are better off because they don't need to import as
much food, because they get over 1.5 times as much money per capita, and
because contracts there aren't subject to U.S. holds.

8. On a microeconomic level, many families in Iraq will sell some of the
Oil-for-Food goods they receive in order to survive. The excess goods are
then resold on the black market for goods that are scarce and in higher
demand. However, no report from the Secretary General corroborates the
claim that the GOI resells Oil-for-Food goods before they are distributed.


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]