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]
>Under the Oil For Food Program Iraq had no direct >access and it's impossible they could have "stashed" >any funds from it anywhere. >The money was in a UN bank account and administered >by them. Iraq delivered oil the UN delivered food - >oil for food. That is absolutely true. But IPO, once again, indulges in misinformation and the spreading of US propaganda.. Ahmed Shames, Chairman of IPO, "shames" himself and his organization by intentionally trying to mislead the CASI members with titles of messages that do not reflect the contents of the message itself. The only way Iraq could have "stashed" any sums, was through selling oil outside the supervision of the UN; through Turkey and more recently Syria. Of course the fact that Kurdish factions got their share of the "illegal" sale of oil to Turkey is never mentioned in articles.. It seems IPO members don't know how the sale of Iraqi oil under the Oil-for-Food program worked. First, the UN (more precisely US officials) would decide the price at which Iraqi oil would be sold on monthly basis. That means, the amount of discount below the market prices. American companies of course had a bigger discount than European or Asian companies.. All the money went directly into an escrow account controlled by the UN in a Bank in New York. About 30% of the income from oil sales went to pay the UN inspections activities (including spying on Iraq!) and the fat salaries of the executives; for compensations to Kuwait and third country nationals for losses during the occupation of Kuwait; for compensations to third country nationals who suffered because of the actions of the Kuwaiti government AFTER the LIBERATION (the Palestinians and others who were thrown out of Kuwait; companies that packed and left; employees who were sacked, etc..). An additional 13% was directly allocated for the Kurdish areas. The rest was kept in the NY bank. Iraq had no access to funds from that account at all. Iraq needed cash, which was not allowed to it by the UN resolutions. Iraq can not live by getting food and medicine (also restricted) alone, because it needed to buy spare parts and a whole range of items. Iraqis are not cattle that only need to be fed.. What would Iraqis wear? Even white cotton in which bodies were wrapped for burials needed the sanctions committee's approval! Where would Iraq get the money to pay salaries to employees? Where would Iraq get cash to finance its agriculture and its industry? How would schools, universities, hospitals etc.. be maintained?? And so Iraq tried to make companies pay an extra 15 cents per barrel outside the discount to provide the cash it needed. The US soon forced companies to refuse paying the 15 cents extra per barrel, and Iraq had to give in. I would expect anyone who cares for the Iraqis to support any actions that would provide them with what the US/UK prevented them from having: from medicine, to pencils, to paper, to books, to the spare parts needed to repair damaged oil installations so that Iraq can sell oil and get food... So, it is dishonest to say that that is where the Oil For Food money went. That money was also used to buy things that went into Iraq to provide items necessary for maintaining life which the US/UK prevented. I recently posted the text of a document which shows how the UK prevented a British medicine manufacturer from selling heart medicine to Iraq. Iraq needed cash to buy such things from outside. But that is hardly of any importance to IPO.. After all, it is acceptable to them that a few thousand die in an invasion, as long as Saddam is overthrown.. For many years, we have been told over and again by supporters of sanctions and war that it was Saddam's regime not sanctions that was responsible for the death of over 1.5 Iraqis since 1991. UNICEF's and similar studies were dismissed as "Iraqi propaganda". To prove their point, those apologists cited the lower mortality rates in Kurdish areas (outside the control of the central government) as proof that the central government was the cause of the suffering. If that was the case, why is it so, now that Iraq is "liberated" from Saddam, the health situation in Kurdish areas, especially of children, has deteriorated? Why have mortality rates risen, instead of decreasing, when their alleged cause has been eliminated? While we are told that prior to the imposition of sanctions, Iraq's health system was the best in the whole area, we are supposed to accept the illogical accusation that the same regime is responsible for the deterioration of the health system since 1991, without giving an explanation as to why.. Of course, "Shames" does not explain how the US/UK kept contracts for humanitarian items on hold; how Iraq still has billions of dollars in the escrow account for contracts that the US/UK refused to endorse. We don't know why, almost two months after the mythical "liberation" of Iraq, Iraqi money found inside Iraq has not been used to pay salaries to employees? We are not told why Iraq still suffers from lack of medicines, food supplies, electricity, chlorine, clean water and everything necessary for the maintenance of normal life? We are not offered any explanation as to why child mortalities have not decreased?? Perhaps someone could offer an explanation!! Hassan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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 email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk