Contents

1. New Strikes, New Propaganda
2. Colin Powell : Basket Case
3. Same Old "Stupid" Sanctions
4. Smarter Holds
5. Petitioning Tips
6. Other News

1) NEW STRIKES, NEW PROPAGANDA

The coming weeks may well see more airstrikes (see p. 5), as well as a propaganda barrage trumpeting so-called "smart" sanctions.

Within hours of the 16 Feb. attack on Baghdad, voices was phoning people on the mailing list in the London area, organising what turned out to be an highly successful demonstration.

Sixty people came together outside Downing St. the day after the bombing, and were featured on the news on ITV, Channel 4 and the BBC. Photographs appeared in the Independent on Sunday and the Guardian.

Fast Work

Our rapid reaction meant we were able to project a strong sense of the outrage felt by many people.

Jean Lambert, Green MEP for London, sent a message to the demo: 'We are appalled by the bombing of Iraq and the British Government's complicity in the action. It risks destabilizing the area. It is not a solution to the plight of the Iraqi peoples.'

There is more on the strikes in our short Iraq Crisis March 2001 briefing. The voices office also has a longer, more detailed briefing (Bombs before polling day).

Smart Sanctions

The strikes aroused anger around the world (even Saudi Arabia and Turkey complained about the bombings), forcing long-standing US/UK plans for modifying the sanctions regime to be accelerated.

As we predicted in December, 'It seems the US is preparing to make another strategic retreat, perhaps in conjunction with the UK.'

As always, the painfully won (and rather minor) concessions will be trumpeted by our leaders as grand humanitarian gestures when they are in fact public relations devices adopted to fool Western and Arab audiences.

As explained in the following three pages, the so-called "smart sanctions" proposals about to be announced are (a) not "smart sanctions" at all, (b) de signed primarily to undercut the global anti-sanctions movement, and (c) completely incapable of solving the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

We need to respond as rapidly to the announcement of so-called "smart sanctions" as we did to the 16 Feb. bombing.

We must make sure the public is not fooled by the new Big Lie.

2) COLIN POWELL : BASKET CASE Return to top

As predicted in the December edition of the newsletter, the US is now 'positioning itself to give way on the southern (but not the northern) No Fly Zone, and some widening of the scope of oil-for-food and infra-structure re-building', but 'the bottom line is that Iraq will not be permitted to reflate its economy.'

An explanation of why the so-called "smart sanctions" package is inadequate is set out on pages 3 and 4. Here we outline some of the background to the new policy.

Sanctions 'Collapsing'

On 8 March, Colin Powell testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that on becoming US Secretary of State, he 'discovered that we had an Iraq policy that was in disarray, and the sanctions part of that policy was not just in disarray; it was falling apart.'

The sanctions regime 'was collapsing': 'More and more nations were saying let's just get rid of the sanctions, let's not worry about inspectors, let's just forget it'.

Furthermore, 'There was all kinds of leakage from the frontline states, whether it was through Syria, through Jordan, through Turkey, or down through the Persian Gulf with the smuggling of oil.'

The Secretary of State claimed, without foundation (see facing page) that the new policy would stop sanctioning items 'that really were of civilian use and benefited people', and focus 'exclusively on weapons of mass destruction and items that could be directed toward the development of weapons of mass destruction.'

This is thoroughly misleading.

Mr Powell helpfully added that, 'No more money comes in as a result of a change to this new kind of sanctions policy...'

'Not' To Ease Sanctions

Powell was emphatic that 'this wasn't an effort to ease the sanctions'; this was 'an effort to rescue the sanctions policy that was collapsing.' The sanctions had been 'crashing into a hillside'. The new policy would pull it out of its fatal dive and stabilise its flight.

No-Fly Waverings

If 'UN policy' is 'basket one', said Powell, 'US policy' is in baskets two and three - the no-fly zones, and support for the Iraqi opposition.

'On the no-fly zone, we're reviewing our policies to see if we are operating those in the most effective way possible.'

More information on this topic came a few days later: 'Military advisers - led by Army Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command, the military headquarters responsible for the Persian Gulf region - are preparing papers for presentation to top Pentagon officials on how to reduce the commitment to the no-fly zones', according to Pentagon officials quoted in the Chicago Tribune (10 Mar. 2001).

Options being considered apparently include scaling back the frequency of overflights, allocating the northern zone to the British and the southern zone to the US, and moving to an 'over the horizon' stance (without overflights).

A 'key goal' of the Bush administration is to reverse what US officials see as Iraq's 'propaganda edge.'

Bombings and sanctions outrage people in Arab countries, and win support for Baghdad. So the answer is 'trimming back sanctions and eliminating the almost daily air strikes that have been largely ineffective', according to the account in the Chicago Tribune.

Thus, 'the Bush administration hopes to put Hussein on the defensive': the entire package of tactical moves is motivated by public relations considerations.

'The military pressure on Iraq would continue with less frequent, but more powerful, strikes aimed at Hussein's suspected weapons facilities.'

(As regards 'basket three', the new administration is releasing more money to the Iraqi National Congress and looking for ways to support the opposition.)

conclusion Now we know how desperate the US (and UK) are. Weeks after 'defending' the southern no-fly zone they are contemplating scaling flights back. On sanctions, they clearly feel that they are on the defensive. Rightly. We have to keep up the pressure.

3) SAME OLD "STUPID" SANCTIONS Return to top

The so-called "smart sanctions" package that Colin Powell is about to announce cannot solve the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

All Powell is doing is promising to stop hindering oil-for-food. But oil-for-food cannot solve the humanitarian crisis.

When we compare what is being proposed with what is needed, we must agree with the Economist's verdict that 'the British proposal of "smart sanctions" offers an aspirin where surgery is called for.' (editorial, 24 Feb. 2001)

Iraqi families need purchasing power. Iraq's health infrastructure needs a major development effort. And Iraq's oil industry needs massive investment.

None of these needs can be met under Powell's proposals.

What Is Proposed

As far as we know, the US Secretary of State is about to announce:

1. The release of a large amount of humanitarian goods so far blocked (on 'hold') by the US in the UN Sanctions Committee;
2. A promise to impose fewer 'holds' in future;
3. Tighter border controls in countries bordering Iraq aimed at preventing smuggling to Iraq;
4. And, perhaps, measures targeting the movement and finances of members of the Iraqi government.

As far as the humanitarian side of his proposals go, all Powell is going to do is promise to stop sabotaging the UN's oil-for-food programme. But oil-for-food is totally inadequate to the crisis.

Private trade between Iraq and the rest of the world will still be outlawed ('comprehensive economic sanctions'); government trade with the outside world will still go through a UN-controlled supply system (the "oil-for-food" deal); and private foreign investment in key sectors in Iraq will still be banned.

What Is Needed

Colin Powell has talked about the 'three baskets' of US Iraq policy: sanctions; no-fly zones; and the Iraqi opposition.

There are also three 'pillars of strength' that millions of Iraqi families need desperately.

The First Pillar - Income

The first requirement is family purchasing power: jobs, and wages paid in a currency that is worth something.

The UN Food and Agricultural Organisation reported in 1995 that the solution to the nutritional crisis in Iraq required (apart from 'adequate food supplies in the country') restoring the 'viability' of the Iraqi Dinar, and 'creating conditions for the people to acquire adequate purchasing power'.

'But, these conditions can be fulfilled only if the economy can be put back in proper shape enabling it to draw on its own resources, and that clearly cannot occur as long as the embargo remains in force.' ('Evaluation of Food and Nutrition Situation in Iraq', 1995)

Infrastructure

The second requirement is for basic services, such as clean drinking water, sewage and sanitation services, education and health services, and electrical power generation (to enable all these other sectors to function).

But reconstructing essential civilian infrastucture will cost $50 to $100bn, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, discussing the matter last year.

So far, only $10.3bn worth of humanitarian goods have been delivered to Iraq under oil-for-food (over $6bn spent on food).

The Third Pillar - Oil

To breathe life into the economy, and to finance social provision on the scale that Iraqis used to enjoy, Iraq needs earnings from a safe, dependable supply of oil.

But a decade of sanctions has left the oil industry in a dismal condition, and foreign investment to open up new oil fields is banned under the present arrangements. Colin Powell doesn't appear about to change that. conclusions

The Economist points out that most Iraqis ('the new booming elite apart') are still 'barely above survival level': '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.'

If the US really is willing to let oil-for-food function as intended, that is welcome. But oil-for-food cannot solve the humanitarian crisis, as was pointed out by the UN Security Council's own expert 'Humanitarian Panel' in March 1999.

The Panel said 'the humani-tarian 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.'

The Panel wrote that, regardless of the improvements that might be brought about - in terms of 'approval procedures', 'better performance by the Iraqi Government', or higher 'funding levels' - 'the magnitude of the humanitarian needs is such that they cannot be met' by oil-for-food.

This is the programme that the USA is finally going to permit to function. It's the same old stupid sanctions. Milan Rai

4) SMARTER HOLDS Return to top

Neil Partrick, of the Royal United Services Institute in London, points out that Colin Powell's new proposal regarding sanctions on Iraq 'is not so much genuinely smart as an attempt to make sanctions appear smarter and more presentable.'

'Sanctions that were genuinely smarter would shift the situation from saying that everything is forbidden, with certain exceptions, to saying that everything is permitted except some items, such as those with seriously potential dual use.' (Guardian, 26 Feb. 2001)

"Smart sanctions" are targeted against particular groups of people. Comprehensive economic sanctions close down the entire economy and hurt the general population.

The package about to be announced by Colin Powell is NOT a "smart sanctions" package. It is a reform of the current comprehensive economic sanctions.

(voices uk doesn't campaign for "smart sanctions" - we campaign for the immediate and unconditional lifting of economic sanctions - but we believe it is important for people to know that the US initiative is not what people mean by "smart sanctions".)

Select Committee

The House of Commons Select Committee on Development issued a report on "smart sanctions" last February. Noting US epidemiologist Richard Garfield's estimate that over 200,000 children had died as a result of the economic sanctions, the Committee 'recognise[s] that sanctions, unless carefully targeted, have the capacity to kill more children than armed warfare.'

'If sanctions are to be retained as a credible instrument of foreign policy, they must increasingly seek to target the assets of specific groups or individuals responsible for breaches of international law'. The Committee recommended 'financial sanctions' and 'arms embargoes'.

Advantages

A Department for International Development (DFID) conference pointed out that financial sanctions are better than economic sanctions:

1. By hurting the regime more than the general population they are morally more acceptable;
2. They avoid the humanitarian costs of comprehensive trade embargoes;
3. They therefore make the UN less vulnerable to the accusation that its policies violate human rights and subvert its own humanitarian obligations;
4. They therefore make it more difficult for the target regime to rally domestic and foreign support against the sanctions; those hurt are those with international money which is a minority of the population;
5. They minimise the costs to the close trading partners of the target state;
6. They deny the target regime the black market that enables the elite to profit from sanctions;
7. They deny the target regime the opportunity to extend its control over the population by taking control of humanitarian aid; and
8. They have fewer long term social costs and do less damage to the institutions of the targeted country.

Powell's Proposals

Colin Powell says he favours tightening sanctions 'on all those sorts of equipments and other materials that put the people of the region at risk,' while removing some of the restrictions on goods 'that can go to civilians for civilian use.' (BBC News Online, 27 Feb. 2001)

'Even so-called dual-use items, those with possible military application, such as water pumps and refrigeration equipment, may be cleared, he said.'

'Powell said he was convinced in talks with Arab leaders in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Syria that the sanctions regime could be modified for consumer and even some dual-use goods. He admitted to risk in the second category, but said such items as water pumps are vital to poor villages but are banned under the sanctions.' (AP, 27 Feb. 2001)

'Britain's partners have been told that [the new policy] would also be in the framework of the oil-for-food programme, in order to ensure that military items would be under strict control, while civilian goods would be waved through more expeditiously.' (Independent, 21 Feb. 2001, p. 8)

Conclusion

It seems that a large amount of holds may be released soon - perhaps over $1bn. While welcome, it demonstrates that there never was a justification for these holds in the first place.

And there has always been, as the Secretary-General has repeatedly stated, adequate UN monitoring to ensure that allegedly 'dual-use' goods do not go to nefarious purposes.

The package Powell is proposing continues the comprehensive economic embargo. It does not have the advantages identified in the DFID conference report. It's about slightly smarter holds rather than smarter sanctions.

Milan Rai

5) PETITIONING TIPS Return to top

To be successful, the National Petition needs help from every single reader of this newsletter.

If you can possibly fill a National Petition sheet and send it back to the voices office in Oxford as soon as possible (by 23 April at the latest), we would be very grateful.

Our Target

Last time CASI, voices, Women in Black and a host of other groups co-organised a petition, we got 16,000 signatures back.

The voices mailing list now has 1000 people on it. If we are going to match the last petition total, and that should be one of our main goals, that means each and every last one of us reading this article has got to get at least one petition sheet filled in and sent back to Oxford.

Here are five suggestions for getting signatures for either the National or the Constituency Petition:

Step 1 - Photocopy the petition sheet. Always make sure you've got a spare clean copy so that you don't have to send away for one. (They are available from www.notinournames.org.uk )

Step 2 - Contact your local Catholic church and quote the 2 Feb. 2001 statement by CAFOD and other European Catholic aid agencies: 'The sanctions [on Iraq] are humanly catastrophic, morally indefensible and politically ineffective.' Ask if they would be willing to circulate the petition in the church, and if there is anyone in the congregation who would be willing to take it on.

Step 3 - Contact your local Friends Meeting House and ask whether the petition could be circulated at the next couple of Quaker meetings, and if they have any other ideas of where it could be put up or circulated.

Step 4 - Other possibilities are your local Green Party branch/peace group/Amnesty branch and/or trades council.

Step 5 - Simplest of all to approach are your friends, workmates, and family.

Final tip: it is much easier to do this work with someone else. If you would like to find other people in your area to campaign with, please call Mil on 0845 458 9572.

5) OTHER NEWS Return to top

Bombing Ahead

'The Bush administration is broadening the rules of engagement against Iraq to include air raids against weapons production facilities or, possibly, troop movements.'

According to the Washington Post, Colin Powell has indicated that 'U.S. planes would strike at Iraq virtually anywhere and aim at virtually any type of target linked to Hussein's regime and his military machine.' (Washington Post, 8 Mar. 2001)

Save The Children

Save the Children believes 'that the maintenance of a comprehensive embargo on Iraq is a disproportionate act in international law when the deleterious effect on the civilian population and children is so clear... a whole generation of young people have "lost" their childhood and prospects for the future.'

Save the Children Fund, 28 Feb. 2001

Scotland

voices is thinking of taking action in Livingston, Robin Cook's constituency, to raise awareness about the sanctions in the run up to the general election. If you're interested, please get in touch with Richard Byrne, phone 020 8554 2205 or email richardbyrne98@yahoo.co.uk

Next Issue

We hope to bring the next issue out in April, before the election (so if that moves back, so may the newsletter).

We'll have Hans von Sponeck (interviewed over the phone from Baghdad) and other material we couldn't squeeze into this issue.

If you find this issue useful, and would like to help us put out another propaganda-busting edition before the election, donations are very welcome.

Cheesy!

From the FT: 'Diplomats at theUnited Nations chuckled when President GeorgeW. Bush recently compared UN sanctions against Iraq to Swiss cheese. But they were puzzled when he explained that he meant "they weren't very effective."

'"I think Swiss cheese is very effective,' countered one diplomat from a small neutral country in central Europe.

'Others at the UN have come up with their own cheesy comparisons. Brie sanctions are soft and mushy while Roquefort ones are rotten inside.