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]
During the past seven days of the war the US Navy detained all ships in the Persian Gulf going to Iraq under the US "Oil for Food" program. Since yesterday all these ships are being unloaded in Kuwait. Unloaded food is being delivered by the US military to Iraq and is being distributed as "American humanitarian aid" and as a part of the "rebuilding Iraq" program. These US actions have already cause a serious scandal in the UN. The US explained its actions by its unilateral decision to freeze all Iraqi financial assets, including the Iraqi financial assets with the UN. These assets the US now considers its property and will exercise full control over them. Captains of the detained ships have already called these actions by the US a "piracy." (source: iraqwar.ru, 03-27-03, translated by Venik) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel O'Huiginn" <do227@hermes.cam.ac.uk> To: <casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:11 PM Subject: [casi] oil for food coverage > > BBC is still referring to oil-for-food as 'aid' - see for example > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2897047.stm > > we should get complaints to them as soon as possible, because there will > probably be substantial coverage of this in the media later this evening > and tomorrow morning. BBC complaints emails can go to > newsonline.errors@bbc.co.uk or there's a form at > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/services/feedback/html/errors_form.stm . > > Per's earlier email is a good template for comments - obviously the more > you change the wording, the better: > > The 'oil for food' programme is the use of Iraqi funds for the > purchase of commodities. By no stretch of the imagination is it > 'financial > or material help given by one country to another', a common dictionary > definition of 'aid'. This is not linguistic sophistry, but an important > part of the controversy that has surrounded the resumption of the > programme. Quite apart from the logistic problems of delivering supplies, > the funds committed by the United States and United Kingdom for > humanitarian assistance have been grossly inadequate to cover for the > damage and disruption of the war they are waging. Instead, Iraqis are > being made to bear all the cost and risk, and the fact that the UN assumes > the authority to administer the funds proceeding from Iraqi exports does > not make it 'aid'. I look forward to seeing this corrected. > > > ------------ > Daniel O'Huiginn > do227@cam.ac.uk > 07789 260207 01223 564613 > O9, Queens College > ------------ > > "We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak > and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is > a serious threat" > Robin Cook > > "if there are continuous sandstorms for the next year and a half then they > won't be able to start the war" > Jonathan Stevenson > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. > To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss > To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk > All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk