US/UK suffers big defeat on UN Security Council over Iraq

UK forced to withdraw resolution calling for so-called "smart sanctions"

Later today, the UN Security Council was to vote on a UK-drafted resolution calling for what has been spun as 'smart sanctions' on Iraq. On the eve of the vote, the Sir Jeremey Greenstock, the UK's permanent veto-wielding representative on the Security Council announced that Her Majesty's government was withdrawing its resolution, in face of Chinese and French opposition and Russian threates to veto the UK's resolution. It is now expected that the current so-called "Oil-for-Food" programme will be renewed. Iraq has announced that in such case it will immediately resume oil exports, suspended for the past month in protest at UN plans to "tighten the noose around the necks of the Iraqi people", as Denis Halliday (former UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq) has described the defeated UK/US proposals.

In a few carefully-selected (for brevity and clarity) attached articles, the details of the changes sought by the Bush/Blair governments are explained.

The UK resolution was designed to get the Blair-Bush alliance out of a hole. Their brutal sanctions policy is universally blamed for inflicting suffering and death upon the Iraqi people. They hoped that so-called 'smart sanctions' would deflect some of this criticism onto the Iraqi government.

Their other aim was to shore up sanctions. A central feature of sanctions on Iraq is that all revenue from the sale of Iraqi oil is paid into a UN-controlled bank account in New York. However, "illegal" oil shipments have allowed some merchants and the Iraqi regime to gain access to increasing amounts of hard currency. And inspection of the cargos carried by the thousands of trucks every day which "illegally" cross the frontiers with Turkey and Jordan has completely collapsed. The UK resolution aimed plug these rapidly-widening holes by involving neighbouring states in the enforcement of border inspections, even bribing them with some of Iraq's oil money if they complied... For its part, Iraq threatened to close its borders with any country which helped implement so-called smart sanctions.

Why have the US and UK failed this time to bludgeon the other veto-wielding members of the Security Council (France, Russia and China) into agreeing to their proposals?

Why has Russia risked aggravating an already-fraught relationship with the US? Since 1990, the US/UK's opponents on the Security Council - Russia China and France - have gone along with the US/UK's conversion of the United Nations into a weapon of mass destruction of Iraqi people. These countries didn't dare to block the passage of the currently-in-force UNSC Resolution 1284 in December 1999, instead they abstained.

What has changed is not the mettle of the Russian or Chinese leaderships, but the situation on the ground. The US/UK position is being corroded and undermined by the twin crises of Palestine and Iraq. In these two countries and across the Middle East, millions people are radicalising their opposition to imperialism and its Zionist ally. The US/UK governments can feel the ground burning under their feet. US/UK attempts to involve front-line Arab governments in strict enforcement of sanctions against Iraq risked stripping these governments of what little they have in the way of popular legitimacy. Russia, China and many other states are coming to fear the potentially explosive consequences of following US/UK policy to be more dangerous than refusing US pressure.

So, Geore Bush and Tony Blair have a real crisis on their hands. They have lost control of the Security Council and of events on the ground. Here we have a major 'virility test' for the new macho right-wing Bush administration. But when it sows the wind, it reaps the whirlwind.

End sanctions! Stop the Bombing!
 

Cost of smart sanctions
Friday June 29, 2001
Letter to The Guardian

Britain's ambassador to the UN claims that Britain and others "can [not] allow national economic self-interest to hold up positive measures for the Iraqi people" (Russians oppose 'smart sanctions', June 28). However, the welfare of the Iraqi people has never been a matter of concern to the British government - a situation that persists through the current "smart" sanctions proposals.

By maintaining the framework of the current humanitarian programme, the proposals would ensure that Iraq's economic life continues to be run on the model of a gigantic refugee camp, preventing the re-inflation of Iraq's economy that the UN's own humanitarian panel identified as a necessary pre-condition for ending the crisis.

Milan Rai Voices in the Wilderness UK
voices@viwuk.freeserve.co.uk
 

Smart Sanctions: Rebuilding Consensus or Maintaining Conflict?
MERIP Press Information Note 62
Press Information Notes are a free service of the Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP). To receive PINs, simply respond to ctoensing@merip.org and provide your address in the text message box, indicating "SUBSCRIBE PIN" in the subject line.

Marc Lynch, June 28, 2001 (Marc Lynch teaches political science at Williams College.)

Heated debate in the UN Security Council on June 26 previewed the coming showdown over the US-British "smart sanctions" initiative, designed to "re-energize" the international consensus on sanctions against Iraq. Faced with declining international support for and compliance with the current sanctions, the United States and the United Kingdom are pushing a major package of sanctions "reforms."

The US-UK proposal would allow some civilian goods into Iraq, while tightening embargoes on others and retaining the UN's financial control over the Iraqi economy.

Security Council Resolution 1352, passed on June 1, requires a decision on sanctions reform by July 3. But it now seems unlikely that this target will be met. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned on June 25 that his country "cannot allow [this measure] to pass." France and China are working to reshape the proposal rather than rejecting it outright.

Iraq, for its part, has emphatically denounced the proposal from the start. Most of the frontline states which would be charged with implementing the new sanctions regime--particularly Jordan--have expressed strong opposition.

It is important to be clear about what is, and what is not, at stake. The Security Council debate foreshadows the end of the current sanctions regime. Should it succeed, "smart sanctions" would revitalize the sanctions on Iraq--against prevailing international opinion. The plan would rebuild a narrow Security Council consensus, and blunt the force of rising opposition to the sanctions. But the reform would emphatically not end the sanctions on Iraq, and probably would not significantly improve the lives of Iraqi civilians. Continued "dual-use" restrictions and the escrow account would keep the Iraqi economy highly centralized and cash-poor. What is more, the current emphasis on making the sanctions more efficient comes at the expense of moves toward lifting the sanctions outright.

Should "smart sanctions" fail, the status quo--a deeply unpopular formal sanctions regime which is increasingly ignored--will remain in place. But given US dissatisfaction with the status quo, the failure of sanctions reform might well lead the US to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral approach to the persistent problem of Iraq.

WHY "SMART SANCTIONS"?
"Smart sanctions" are not motivated by humanitarian concern. The US and UK advanced the "smart sanctions" proposal because the existing sanctions are unpopular and full of holes. After the Desert Fox bombings of December 1998, the US and UK stood almost alone in support of sanctions. Media reports and public debate increasingly focused on Iraq's humanitarian disaster rather than on Iraqi non-compliance with weapons inspections. US and British arguments placing blame for the humanitarian crisis solely on the Iraqi regime's shoulders were clear losers in the international public sphere.

On the ground, the volume of oil smuggling has grown exponentially, as the price of oil increased, sympathy for the Iraqi people mounted and the moral stigma of violating UN sanctions eroded. Painstaking negotiations over Resolution 1284 in December 1999 failed to achieve either Security Council consensus (Russia, China and France abstained) or Iraqi compliance with the new inspections agency UNMOVIC.

The US and UK needed to shift the terms of the debate if they hoped to keep the sanctions in place.

United against the status quo, the Bush administration divided internally over what to do. Conservatives--led by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--called for increased military pressure and support for the Iraqi opposition. Even this proposal only temporarily appeased Republican hawks in Congress.

But two years of unpublicized, stepped-up bombing of Iraq around the no-fly zones--with little tangible gain and the specter of US losses--has worn down the morale of US forces. The Iraqi opposition in exile remains in disarray. Iraq's neighbors, focused on the escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict, were unwilling to endorse such an aggressive policy. Russian, Chinese and French opposition made it clear that there would be no Security Council authorization forthcoming.

"Smart sanctions" emerged as a strategy to save the sanctions by addressing the major points of international critics, while also fending off pressure from domestic hawks. As Secretary of State Colin Powell remarked on March 8, "smart sanctions are meant to rescue the sanctions, not to abandon them." Should Powell's initiative fail, the hawks will be well-positioned to push their alternatives.

TOWARD PERMANENT SANCTIONS?
The "smart sanctions" proposal would open up trade in civilian goods, allowing such contracts to be approved directly by the UN Secretariat instead of being reviewed by the controversial UN Sanctions Committee. ... But "smart sanctions" retains a list of "dual-use" items--items that could have military applications--that would still be reviewed by the Sanctions Committee, allowing further US and UK "holds" or vetoes. The contents of this list have been the object of intense and so far fruitless negotiations, with the US defending an expansive definition of "dual-use." If the US definition is adopted in a final resolution, then little will change besides the transparency of the contract review process.

Re-establishing UN control over Iraqi finances by channeling all oil revenue through the UN escrow account lies at the core of "smart sanctions." The US and UK have been deeply troubled by the dramatic increase in the flow of revenues into Iraqi government coffers from smuggling and a surtax on oil. ... "Smart sanctions" attempts to cut off these independent revenue sources. The UK draft of June 20 offers "states sharing land borders" the right to purchase 150,000 barrels of oil per day in exchange for eliminating smuggling.

Powell's "smart sanctions" plan allows limited foreign investment in services but not, as the French in particular want, in the oil sector. ... The US-UK proposal makes almost no reference to inspections, which had been a primary bone of contention in the arduous 1284 negotiations. Where those talks revolved around the "trigger" for the lifting of sanctions, the US and UK now seem inclined to present "smart sanctions" as a more or less permanent system, quietly removing the option of lifting (rather than suspending) the sanctions from the table.

UNLIKELY CONSENSUS
Iraq immediately rejected "smart sanctions," and halted oil sales on June 4 to protest Resolution 1352. ... With smuggling revenue exploding, and borders increasingly porous, the Iraqi regime--if not the Iraqi people--is doing better economically.

Despite US insistence on a policy which does not depend upon Iraqi cooperation, the reality is that the UN's Office of the Iraq Program, with its elaborate system of contracts and administration of the Iraqi economy, can not operate without Iraqi oil sales. Iraqi Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan has warned that the adoption of "smart sanctions" would be the end of the Oil for Food program.

Iraq has denounced France in scathing language for trying to achieve Security Council consensus, and repeatedly threatened to punish any neighboring state which cooperates with a new sanctions plan. The regime's furious response reflects its recognition that--however unlikely it is--the rebuilding of Security Council consensus could derail its strategy for escaping sanctions.

Within the Security Council ... Russia has taken the lead in opposing the proposal. After forcing the postponement of the decision until July 3, on June 25 Russia leaked a letter stating that it would not support the proposed resolution. In an open Security Council debate that it called for June 26, Russia complained that "smart sanctions" would perpetuate the sanctions ... France has attempted to minimize the extent of international control over the Iraqi economy, pushing for ... permission to invest in the Iraqi oil sector, [and a] further loosen[ing of] trade restrictions for Iraq's neighbors ... China has been more vocal than during previous deliberations over Iraq, probably reflecting the deteriorating US-Chinese relationship.

Most of the frontline states which would carry the burden of enforcing the new sanctions regime have outspokenly opposed it. Only Turkey has offered conditional support. Jordan has taken an unusually direct position of opposition to "smart sanctions." ... reflecting the overwhelming Arab public consensus against the sanctions and the enormous economic stakes. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa ... attacked the proposal as simply repackaging the sanctions rather than addressing the real problems.

With considerable justification, the anti-sanctions movement has criticized "smart sanctions" as an attempt to salvage a morally bankrupt policy. ... Failure in the Security Council may well push the US to a more unilateral approach, including the revival of escalated military options, while keeping the existing sanctions in place.

For background on US-UK bombing in the no-fly zones, see MERIP Press Information Note 49: No-Fly Zones: Rhetoric and Real Intentions: The summer 2000 issue of Middle East Report (MER 215) focused entirely on the impact of sanctions on Iraq. Phyllis Bennis's critique of US policy, "And They Called It Peace," is accessible online at: http://www.merip.org/mer/mer215/215_bennis.html To order individual copies of Middle East Report or to subscribe, please call Blackwell Publishers at 1-800-835-6770.
 

"Smart" sanctions, dumb politics
by Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen June 13 2001

When politicians feel compelled to label a policy "smart," there's a good chance it isn't. Such is the case with the new proposal for "smart sanctions" on Iraq.

Last week's U.N. Security Council temporary extension of the oil-for-food program in Iraq postponed the fight over the smart-sanctions plan proposed by the British and United States. In the next month, it's crucial for the American people to pressure the Bush administration to abandon this latest ruse and allow economic sanctions to be lifted. The problem with smart sanctions is that they likely will have the same effect on the Iraqi people as smart bombs did during the Gulf War. No matter whether the weapons are dumb or smart, the targets--the Iraqi people--will continue to die.

Economic sanctions, allegedly placed on Iraq to force compliance with U.N. resolutions about weapons of mass destruction, have killed more than 1 million civilians, according to United Nation's figures. Most of the world wants to lift the cruel embargo, but the United States insists on keeping the screws on the Iraqi people.

The latest turn of the screw is the U.K./U.S. proposal for "new-and-improved" sanctions, which Bush administration officials disingenuously suggest will alleviate the suffering of ordinary Iraqis. But instead of allowing Iraq to recover from the one-two punch of war and siege that have devastated the economy, the plan would keep the country subjugated indefinitely under a kind of U.N. trusteeship. Under the current system, all imports are prohibited unless specifically approved by the U.N. Sanctions Committee.

The proposal calls for automatic approval of imports except for a 23-page listed of banned or suspect items that includes almost all computer and telecommunications equipment, as well as other necessary civilian items which may have potential military uses. This likely will allow more goods in, but the shortage of food, medicine and other goods is only part of the problem. The plan will not stimulate the local economy or allow the foreign investment needed to reconstruct Iraq's industrial base. More food in the country is meaningless if ordinary Iraqis can't afford it, and until the economy is rebuilt their purchasing power will not increase.

Smart sanctions have the same motivation as the 1991 Gulf War and the dumb sanctions of the past decade--not primarily to contain Iraqi military aggression (even Dick Cheney has admitted that Iraq poses no substantial military threat to its neighbors) but to maintain control over the Middle East. Keeping Iraq a pariah state provides an excuse for a permanent land-based U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and neighboring countries.

But recent developments are starting to undermine U.S. control. France and Russia have tired of toeing the U.S. line on Iraq, and Iraq's traditional trading partners are tired of bearing the economic costs of the sanctions regime. The resurgence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also has played a part, forcing the elites who rule the Arab world to take stronger stances against the U.S.-dominated status quo in the region. The new U.K./U.S. proposal is not the result of humanitarian concerns, but an attempt by the Bush administration to shore up U.S. power in the face of these challenges. Serious concerns about peace and democracy in the region suggest another path.

Iraq needs to be able to resume normal economic, political and social life. The current system that sends Iraqi oil proceeds to a U.N.-administered account--a feature retained in the new proposal--has meant a collapse of the local economy; the Iraqi government is not even allowed to use the money to buy local goods and services.

The sanctions have made it impossible to maintain anything beyond minimal educational, health, and social services. Families are at the mercy of unscrupulous profiteers. Women, who bear the brunt of the costs in enforced impoverishment, have been disempowered. Iraq is the only country in the world where literacy decreased in the past 10 years. There has been an explosion in crime that would have been unthinkable before. Iraqis have changed from a generally pro-Western orientation to a violently anti-Western one.

The only way to change this is to put real control of Iraq back in Iraqi hands. This will make the government and Saddam Hussein more accountable to the people for economic policy, and not allow it to blame the West for problems.

Iraq won't democratize tomorrow if it is freed today, but continuing the sanctions regime will only continue to delay that process. Mahajan is a doctoral candidate in physics and Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. Both are members of the coordinating committee of the National Network to End the War Against Iraq. They can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.