Talking Points On Smart Sanctions

5/24/01

http://www.endthewar.org/smartsanctions.htm
iraqnetwork@endthewar.org

1. SMART SANCTIONS ARE STILL SANCTIONS Iraq is suffering from the effects of one the largest, most destructive bombing campaigns in history, one that deliberately and successfully targeted key infrastructure, like water treatment and electrical power, as well as fertilizer, seed stock, and key industries. That is compounded by the effects of almost 11 years of enforced neglect because of the sanctions. The proposed changes are nowhere near what is needed. As The Economist, the conservative British weekly, said, "The British proposal of 'smart sanctions' offers an aspirin where surgery is called for" (The Economist, 24th February 2001).

A. There are still too many banned items in the new proposal. While the Secretary General has clearly called for the allowed list of items to include everything not on the so-called "1051 list" of possible dual-use items which might require end-use monitoring or outright bans (Secretary-General's report, 14 May 2001, para 125 http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/reports/S2001_505.pdf), the new proposal has a new 30-page list of banned items, which Security Council members were only recently allowed to see (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010523/wl/un_iraq_13.html)

B. The British proposal would allow more commodities into Iraq, but will not address the fundamental problem of low purchasing power of the vast majority of Iraqis. Presently, and also under the "new" sanctions, Iraqi people who are employed are paid low wages, with a greatly devalued currency. In 1989, 0.31 Dinar = $1. In 2001, 1780 dinars = $1 (http://www.timesofindia.com/300301/30mide4.htm) In the center and south of Iraq, no money is allowed to Iraq from the Oil-for-Food program. This does not appear to change with the "new" sanctions, even though the Secretary General has repeatedly stressed the need for a "cash component" in the Oil for Food program (S-G report, 14 May 2001, para 127 http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/reports/S2001_505.pdf)

C. More commodities will not address the need to rebuild the country:

1)" ... the humanitarian situation in Iraq will continue to be a dire one in the absence of a sustained revival of the Iraqi economy which in turn cannot be achieved solely through remedial humanitarian efforts" (UN Humanitarian Panel Report, March 1999 http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/panelrep.html).

2) Oil-for-food "does not contain the elements of comprehensive planning and economic revival that we believe to be essential in order to reverse the dangerously degraded state of the country's civilian infrastructure and social services" (Human Rights Watch, January 2000 http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/01/iraq-ltr.htm).

3) "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 http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/08/iraq0804.htm).

4) Oil-for-food was "never intended ... to be a substitute for normal economic activity" (UN Secretary-General's Report, March 2001), the absence of which "has given rise to the spread of deep-seated poverty" (Secretary-General's Report, 29 November 2000 http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/reports/phase8_180.html).

D. Smart sanctions do not lift the almost complete ban on foreign investment, necessary because Iraq's infrastructural and reconstruction needs are so severe:

1) Concerns about Iraq's civilian infrastructure, expressed since 1991, were dramatically underscored last August when Iraq's Mussaiyab power station failed completely, bringing the national power grid close to "a catastrophic system failure" (S-G report of 29 November 2000, para 99 http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/reports/phase8_180.html)

2) "The deterioration in Iraq's civilian infrastructure is so far reaching that it can only be reversed with extensive investment and development efforts.' (Human Rights Watch, and others, August 2000 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/ngo.htm).

3) "Regardless of the improvements that might be brought about - in terms of approval procedures, better performance by the Iraqi Government, or funding levels - the magnitude of the humanitarian needs is such that they cannot be met within the context of [the oil-for-food programme] ... Nor was the programme intended to meet all the needs of the Iraqi people ... Given the present state of the infrastructure, the revenue required for its rehabilitation is far above the level available under the programme.'(UN Humanitarian Panel, March 1999 http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/undocs/sanct31.pdf).

E. Oil for Food imposes on Iraq an externally-controlled centrally-planned economy. Attempts at planning are handicapped by constant holds on computers and telecommunications equipment necessary for coordination (S-G report of 14 May 2001, para 105 http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/reports/S2001_505.pdf). The difficulties of this central planning for the Iraqi government are insurmountable:

"With the increased funding level and the growing magnitude and scope of the programme, the whole tedious and time-consuming process of the preparation and approval of the distribution plan and its annexes are no longer in step with current realities." (S-G report, 14 May 2001, para 129 http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/reports/S2001_505.pdf)

The result is that the Iraqi government bureaucracy is completely unable to keep up with needed procurements.

F. Under these "new" sanctions, Iraq will still not have control over its own major source of income -- oil. The UK proposal requires that money Iraq earns from oil sales continue to be deposited into an escrow account controlled by the UN Security Council. Thus the US and the UK would retain the power to make decisions about when, where and most importantly, whether resources could be purchased to restore the health of Iraq's people and economy. At the present time, the US and UK have $3.71 billion in goods on "hold," preventing them from reaching the Iraqi people (S-G report, 14 May 2001, para 18 http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/reports/S2001_505.pdf)

Iraq cannot use funds placed in the escrow account to contract for goods and services locally, but only for contracting with foreign companies. The result is often that it pays far more than necessary and that local enterprise is discouraged.

2. SMART SANCTIONS ARE AN EFFORT TO RESCUE THE SANCTIONS, WHICH HAVE LOST NEARLY ALL SUPPORT

Most of the world is no longer ready to tolerate the sanctions. The resumption of plane flights into Iraq and the signing of trade agreements between Iraq and its traditional trading partners are signals that if the policy continues countries will start to openly violate it. Furthermore, thanks largely to the efforts of anti-sanctions activists, the world has realized that the sanctions regime and specifically the United States are to blame for most if not all of the suffering in Iraq. In a press briefing on March 8, Colin Powell put it this way - "Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime had successfully put the burden on us as denying the wherewithal for civilians and children in Iraq to live and to get the nutrition and the health care they needed."

Smart sanctions are an attempt by the U.S. and U.K. governments to spin things so that they are no longer blamed for the suffering that will certainly continue in Iraq under their plan - as a British diplomat recently told reporters, "If our proposals are adopted by the Security Council, Iraq will have no excuse for the suffering of the Iraqi people"

(http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/articles/A37147-2001May16.html).

In both quotes there is an indication that the motivation for "smart sanctions" is less to alleviate the suffering in Iraq than to try to remove the blame from the shoulders of the U.S. and U.K. As another anonymous British official said of smart sanctions, "It may be that all there will be is a change of presentation to re-focus domestic and international opinion on Saddam" (quoted in the Daily Telegraph, 21 February 2001).

3. THE UK PROPOSAL INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF MONEY TAKEN FOR THE UN COMPENSATION COMMISSION

Currently, 25% of the proceeds from Iraq's oil sales are diverted to the UN Compensation Commission, which processes claims for damages by victims of Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. One previous victim was the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, which was awarded $15.9 billion in October 2000 (http://www.mre.gov.br/acs/interclip/jornais/setembro/wpost28d.html). Several U.S. multinational corporations also have claims before the Commission.

Before the KPC award, 30% of oil proceeds went to the UNCC, but the award aroused so much opposition from some members on the Security Council (oil-rich corporations taking food and medicine from starving children) that they were able to get UN Security Council Resolution 1330 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2000/res1330e.pdf) passed, cutting the amount to 25%.

The new British proposal would restore the UNCC's cut to 30% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58172-2001May21.html), ostensibly to create a fund to "compensate Iraq's neighbors for future losses." This would be taking away revenue desperately needed by Iraq for reconstruction and basic needs.

What is needed is a dismantling of the escrow account and (at least) an indefinite suspension of compensation payments.

Tips on placing op-ed pieces and letters are available at http://www.nowarcollective.com/tips.htm

A brief explanation of the U.K. proposal is available at http://www.endthewar.org/summary.htm

This document is available at http://www.endthewar.org/smartsanctions.htm

Suggested actions:

DISCLAIMER - The Network is composed of people with a great diversity of political views and strategies, not all of whom will agree with all suggested actions. This information is presented to you to help you make the choices that are right for you.

1. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper addressing the problems with smart sanctions (see http://www.endthewar.org/smartsanctions.htm). Write to the New York Times, whose coverage has been particularly bad, even claiming incorrectly that the British proposal requires cooperation with weapons inspectors in return for allowing more goods in (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/opinion/20SUN2.html) -- letters@nytimes.com. Letters to the Times should be no more than 150 words. Or try an op-ed piece in your local paper. For tips on placing letters and op-eds, see http://www.nowarcollective.com/tips.htm

2. Call the White House (White House Comment Line, (202) 456-1111) and the Secretary of State Colin Powell ((202) 647-5291) on May 30 and 31. Tell them you know smart sanctions are still sanctions, and that we will keep up the pressure until sanctions are gone. Again, see http://www.endthewar.org/smartsanctions.htm for talking points.

3. Participate in EPIC's Lobby Days June 16-18 or contribute so that someone else can go. For info, see http://saveageneration.org/epicevents For information about H.R. 742, the Humanitarian Exports Leading to Peace Act, sponsored by Representative John Conyers of Michigan and 23 other representatives, see http://saveageneration.org/talkingpoints/epicbrief2.html

To contact the Network, write to: iraqnetwork@endthewar.org.