British Government propaganda claims that the sanctions on Iraq are being ended. This is a lie. The US and British Governments are actually trying to tighten the economic sanctions, which have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. 'What is proposed at this point in fact amounts to a tightening of the rope around the neck of the average Iraqi citizen,' said Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian Co-ordinators for Iraq, on 29 May 2001.

They were responding to a draft UN resolution put forward by Britain on 22 May - the resolution was amended slightly on 8 June, and remains under discussion at the UN Security Council.

Contents

1. Tightening up sanctions
2. Relaxing restrictions?
3. The real problems
4. No FT, no comment
5. A propaganda weapon
6. Ignoring the Humanitarian Panel

1) TIGHTENING UP SANCTIONS
Return to top

Sanctions against Iraq have been eroding recently. Flights have been going in without UN permission, neighbouring countries have started trading with Iraq outside the UN-controlled 'oil-for-food' deal, oil companies have started paying some money directly to Iraq.

The new UK/US resolution being put to the UN Security Council is designed to tighten up on these leaks in the blockade. The resolution requires flights to Iraq to be notified to the UN and inspected. It requires neighbouring countries to trade only via the UN, and not directly with Iraq, and to channel all Iraqi oil revenues through UN-controlled accounts. It proposes strict new border controls, and controls on oil traders to make sure they do not pay any 'surcharge' to Iraq directly.

These are key provisions of the new resolution. They are an attempt to fulfil US Secretary of State Colin Powell's promise to 're-energise' the sanctions on Iraq.

As China's ambassador to the UN, Shen Guofang, has said 'In our view, it is not to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq, it is to further and consolidate the sanctions.' (Reuters, 25 May 2001) The resolution does not end sanctions, it tightens them.

2) RELAXING RESTRICTIONS
Return to top 

The press has reported the new initiative as 'the end of sanctions'. It isn't, but it does allow a relaxation of restrictions on the flow of civilian goods into Iraq. Under the new system, all civilian goods would be allowed into Iraq except those identified on three lists of 'dual-use' goods.

'Dual-use' means that they can be used for both civilian and military purposes. Ambulances and trucks were blocked for a long time at the Sanctions Committee because they could be used to transport soldiers as well as patients and food supplies.

One of the three 'dual-use' lists is already in operation - the '1051 list' set up by UN Security Council Resolution 1051, which covers items useful in the production of weapons of mass destruction, and long-range missiles. The two new lists are the Wassenaar list of dual-use goods useful for conventional weapons, and a super-Wassenaar list of goods not covered by the Wassenaar Arrangement (supported by 33 countries).

The third list is currently 23 pages long, and quite broad-ranging. It has been leaked to the public via CASI, the British 'Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq' . The list includes high performance computers, certain types of software, high frequency radio relay communications, underwater cameras, night vision goggles, fiber-optic cables, and sophisticated drilling equipment. Although the new resolution would allow civilian flights to Iraq to resume, the 'Goods Review List' includes all aeroplane parts.

3) THE REAL PROBLEMS
Return to top

The new UK resolution addresses the issue of unauthorised Iraqi trade. It begins to address the issue of civilian imports into Iraq. But it does not address the fundamental causes of the humanitarian crisis. The British Government claims that when the so-called 'smart sanctions' resolution is adopted, 'Iraq will be free to meet all of its civilian needs without impediment.' (Guardian, 17 May 2001)

This is not true. Because the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is not caused by a lack of civilian consumer goods or medicines or food.

What Iraqi families need is a decent amount of purchasing power and reconstruction of the public health infrastructure.

Purchasing power - the ability of families to buy what they need - comes from jobs (former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq Hans von Sponeck has estimated unemployment at over 50 per cent) and from being paid in money that had some value (the value of the Iraqi dinar is now less than 0.1% of its 1990 value). Jobs and appreciation of the dinar depend on the re-inflation of the Iraqi economy. Which depends on free civilian trade, import and export, across Iraq's borders.

The resolution may make it easier to import things into Iraq, but it does not allow Iraqis to earn a living by exporting goods made in Iraq to neighbouring countries.

In order to reconstruct the public health infrastructure (sewage treatment, water pumping/distribution systems, electricity, sanitation, the national health service, and so on), Iraq needs investment from outside, and the rehabilitation and development of the oil industry in order to support reconstruction and to keep the economy buoyant.

But outside investment is not permitted by the new resolution, either in infrastructure or in the oil industry.

4) NO FT, NO COMMENT
Return to top

The Financial Times' response to the new resolution was clear: 'the US plan will not revive Iraq's devastated economy while control over Iraq's oil revenues remains in the hands of the UN, and foreign investment and credits are still prohibited.' (28 May 2001)

The Economist pointed out some months ago that 'the British proposal of "smart sanctions" offers an aspirin where surgery is called for': 'To recover from its 11 years under the sanctions battering-ram - which has crushed the country's industrial and agricultural infrastructure - Iraq needs the freedom, and overseas investment, of a huge reconstruction effort.' (24 Feb. 2001).

Having seen the new draft resolution, the Economist observes that 'although the country would be able to import more, it would still be denied the free movement of labour and capital that it desperately needs if it is at last to start picking itself up':

'Iraq needs massive investment to rebuild its industry, its power grids and its schools, and needs cash in hand to pay its engineers, doctors and teachers. None of this looks likely to happen under smart sanctions." (26 May 2001).

5) A PROPAGANDA WEAPON
Return to top

'In reality, this is a change in perceptions,' said a US official. (FT, 28 May 2001) On 8 Mar. 2001, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, US Secretary of State Colin Powell was emphatic that his new Iraq policy 'wasn't an effort to ease the sanctions', but 'an effort to rescue the sanctions policy that was collapsing.' Honest words, now forgotten.

6) IGNORING THE HUMANITARIAN PANEL
Return to top

The UN Security Council's own expert 'Humanitarian Panel' said in March 1999, 'the humanitarian situation in Iraq will continue to be a dire one in the absence of a sustained revival of the Iraqi economy'.

The Panel recommended - over two years ago - local purchasing of food for oil-for-food rations, reducing the proportion of Iraqi oil revenues diverted to compensation payments, private foreign investment in the oil and other industries, foreign businesses taking 'responsibility' for reconstruction and infrastructure rehabilitation. None of this is allowed in the UK resolution - though the reduction in oil revenues diverted to compensation is being offered as a possible concession at the time of writing.

Britain and the US are ignoring the advice of humanitarian experts. Their proposals are designed to reinforce sanctions, not to end them, and to try to undermine the global anti-sanctions movement.