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]
Hi Eric, > 'the oil-for-food programme was abused by the Iraqi regime by, for > example, using it to "import thousands of chewing gum machines"'. I have no information to offer on this particular issue, but it is not new; a November briefing by the FCO stated that: "Iraqi orders submitted to the UN for approval during one week in October included 22,000 tons of chewing gum machines, 12,000 tons of mobile phones, 36,000 dishwashers and over three quarters of a million Tvs [sic]" [1] I'm inclined to think this is true: after all, FCO or MOD personell have seen every application made under OFF. It would also be a silly thing to tell untruths about, as there are worse examples of sleaze even in public information: the last few OFF distribution plan contain a 'Project for the Construction of an Olympic Sports City'. [2] As it happens, Uday Hussein is the head of the Iraqi Olympic Committee. Even our government does this sort of thing (e.g. Milennium Dome?), and a dictatorship like that in Iraq is even more likely to have its preferences misaligned with that of its people. All of this are peripheral, distractions which no one genuinely concerned with the well-being of Iraqis would discuss as a serious issue. The characterisation of OFF as a programme for the import of unnecessary goods is demonstrably wrong. However optimally allocated, the 50-60c per day delivered for the past six years under OFF is inadequate as provision for Iraqis, let alone for the reconstruction of infrastructure and much-needed investment. What the Prime Minister's spokesman is urging is essentially redistribution -- from chewing gum machine users to, say, children in need of therapeutic feeding -- and as such is probably a good idea. But with inadequate resources no amount of redistribution is a remedy, and the whole argument elides the question of why Iraqis were in need of these rations in the first place. All of this might now be a bit historical in nature. For the first time, the US and UK governments appear to see the smooth running of the OFF programme as a priority. Bush even adopted our long-standing argument wholesale the other day, asking that the issue of OFF not be politicised. Let us just hope that it is not long before humanitarian imports can be fully resumed not only on paper, but in practise. Best wishes, Per Klevnäs [1] http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391638&a=KArticle&aid=1037987757885 The press release contains numerous errors and omissions, some of which are discussed in a previous CASI briefing available on http://www.casi.org.uk/briefing/021222fco.html [2] http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/dp/dp13/dp13toc.htm _______________________________________________ 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 casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk