British and US proposals for "smart" sanctions, put forward to allay Arab and domestic outrage, are merely a smartened-up version of existing, failed policies which have been condemned by the UN's own humanitarian experts.

The US/UK air strikes on Baghdad on 16 February aroused anger from around the world, even from Saudi Arabia, where the US warplanes which attacked Iraq are based. Anger that was hardly diminished when the Pentagon revealed that over half the bombs dropped on Iraqi radar sites missed their targets, contrary to early claims, and that one of the "smart" bombs used was the new Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW), which disperses 145 incendiary cluster bombs over an area as large as a football field. Such cluster bombs have a record of not exploding at first, and functioning like anti-personnel land mines.

In the outraged aftermath of the strikes, British officials have made clear that a new campaign to 'refocus the public debate' on Iraq is under way.

One key weapon is "smart sanctions". In reality, the new package is as civilian-friendly as the JSOW's harvest of 145 incendiary cluster bombs.

Why are "smart" sanctions needed? According to the House of Commons Select Committee on Development, which issued a report on the subject last February, economic sanctions, 'unless carefully targeted', have the capacity to 'kill more children than armed warfare.'

The Committee noted that US epidemiologist Richard Garfield of Columbia University has estimated that over 200,000 children have died in Iraq as a result of the comprehensive economic sanctions. It would be difficult to see such sanctions being imposed in the future, the Committee suggested.

The Committee suggested instead the use of financial sanctions against national leaders, and arms embargoes.

The Committee noted that financial sanctions are 'morally more acceptable' than comprehensive economic sanctions; 'avoid the humanitarian costs of comprehensive trade embargoes'; 'deny the target regime the black market that enables the elite to profit from sanctions'; 'deny the target regime the opportunity to extend its control over the population by taking control of humanitarian aid'; and 'have fewer long term social costs and do less damage to the institutions of the targeted country'.

The US/UK package does apparently include financial measures aimed at the finances and freedom of travel of leading members of the Iraqi government. But the most important of the new proposals is the dual concession to lift a very large number of 'holds' imposed on humanitarian goods requested by Iraq under oil-for-food, and a promise not to block so many items in the future.

In other words, the oil-for-food programme (which currently endures holds in excess of $3.3 billion) will be allowed to work almost as it was intended to.

But even working as it was intended to, oil-for-food cannot enable the Iraqi people to raise themselves out of grinding poverty. And that's according to a panel of humanitarian experts appointed by the Security Council itself.

Reporting in March 1999, the Humanitarian Panel concluded that, 'Regardless of the improvements that might be brought about in the implementation of the current humanitarian programme' - whether 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' oil-for-food.

Since March 1999, 'funding levels' have increased dramatically. The new US/UK proposals are just another (headline-grabbing) improvement in 'approval procedures'. But the Humanitarian Panel said explicitly these kinds of improvements could not deal with the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

The US/UK proposals do not 'avoid the humanitarian costs of comprehensive trade embargoes'; do not 'deny the target regime the black market' enabling the elite to profit; do not deny Baghdad 'the opportunity to extend its control over the population by taking control of humanitarian aid'; and do not 'have fewer long term social costs and do less damage to the institutions of the targeted country' than truly targeted sanctions.

The Economist responded angrily last month, 'the British proposal of "smart sanctions" offers an aspirin where surgery is called for.' 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.'

It's a tribute to the international anti-sanctions movement that Washington and London have been forced to come up with so-called "smart" sanctions. But if they think we're fooled, they must think we're as stupid as their smart bombs.