Contents

1. Sanctions : Breaking The Silence
2. The National Petition
3. Fasting For Life
4. Sanctions-Breakers : Witnesses To Evil
5. Media Coverage
6. A Voice For The Voiceless
7. Child Deaths In Iraq - UNICEF
8. North-South Divide
9. Spin Doctoring The Sanctions
10. India Nearly Breaks The Sanctions
11. New Resolution At The Security Council
12. Gathering Steam For Another War?
13. Talcum Powder 'Error'
14. 99%
15. Breaking The Ceiling
16. A Crucial Distinction
17. Specail Sanctions Issue Of The 'New Internationalist'

1) SANCTIONS : BREAKING THE SILENCE Return to top

This August has seen yet another dramatic leap in public awareness of the dreadful impact of economic sanctions on ordinary people in Iraq. Growing public concern is putting political pressure on the British government to alter its harsh and inflexible policy of prioritising weapons inspections over the health and survival of Iraq’s children - a policy they are about to parade as benevolence in the Security Council (see p.5).

Our task is to mobilise people’s sympathy and concern - and their outrage - into concerted action to end the sanctions. The ideas and activities set out in this newsletter, the letter to the Prime Minister enclosed with it, and the National Petition Against Sanctions On Iraq are all designed to help in this task. Please let us know how useful they are, and how they can be improved.

12 Aug. BBC Nine O’Clock News: Jeremy Bowen has a long lead item on the BBC’ s flagship news programme; a powerful report on the devastating effect of sanctions on ordinary people in Iraq.
13 Aug. Coverage of UNICEF report: UNICEF reports that half a million more children have died since 1991 than would have died had child mortality continued to decline as in the 1980s. Not all these deaths are attributable to sanctions (see p.3).
13 Aug. Return of voices delegates: Joanne Baker and Dave Rolstone return from Iraq, to be met by a media onslaught (see overleaf for more on their trip and its reception).
26 Aug. ITV spotlights DU: ITV’s ‘Tonight with Trevor McDonald’ leads with a long report on the use of depleted uranium in the 1991 Gulf War. Importantly, the programme pays as much attention to the children of Iraq as to British and US Gulf War veterans (and their children).

A Massive Opportunity

Through these events and reports, hundreds of thousands of people in Britain have been sensitised to the trauma our government is ruthlessly inflicting on an entire nation. We in voices believe that many of these people, who respond generously in cases of natural disaster, are willing to take effective action against this immoral and unnatural disaster. What we all need is information with which to counter government lies (see p.3), tools (such as the National Petition), and some organisation to be part of. We would be immensely grateful if readers could help distribute this newsletter and the enclosed leaflet about voices.

2) THE NATIONAL PETITION Return to top

A ‘National Petition Against the Sanctions On Iraq’ was launched on the 9th anniversary of the imposition of sanctions, on 6 August 1999. voices displayed a gigantic copy of the petition at the ‘Fast for Life’ (see p.2). The petition, which has been distributed to 42,000 readers of the New Internationalist, is the brainchild of the National Coordinating Meeting of the British anti-sanctions movement (see p.8) and is available from voices, or from the Web: http://go.to/iraqpetition

3) FASTING FOR LIFE Return to top

Between Friday 6th August (the ninth anniversary of the imposition of sanctions) and Monday 9th, voices held a well-attended continuous fast and vigil in Whitehall to protest against the continuing massacre, in parallel with a fast in Iraq by British and US delegates.

Celebrity Letter

Events began on Friday with the presentation to Downing Street of an anti-sanctions ‘Open Letter to Tony Blair’. Glenn Bassett of voices organized the Open Letter, which was signed by Emma Thompson, Benjamin Zephaniah, the Bishop of Monmouth, Iain Banks, Julie Christie, Andy de la Tour, Adrian Mitchell, Victoria Brittain and Bruce Kent. A giant version of the letter (with signatures) was displayed throughout the Fast.

National Petition

Friday’s Downing Street event was also our contribution to the launch of the ‘National Petition Against Sanctions On Iraq’, which voices coordinated the drafting of, and which we are distributing.

Nine Coffins

The fast was fronted by a display about sanctions, including blown-up copies of Emily Johns’ powerful wood engravings. As at last year’s fast/vigil, there was a line of nine child-sized coffins filled with animal bones dredged from the Thames.

4) SANCTIONS-BREAKERS : WITNESSES TO EVIL Return to top

Joanne Baker and Dave Rolstone have just returned from a successful sanctions-breaking delegation (Joanne’s second this year). Joanne described to the National Coordinating Meeting on 20 August the nightmare spectacle of seeing a young boy employed in a sewage works, standing in a sea of sewage, raking the mess because essential spare parts ordered eighteen months ago under the UN ‘oil-for-food’ programme had still not arrived. The pouring of untreated sewage into Iraq’s rivers is a significant factor in the contamination of drinking water, and therefore of disease and death among children under five.

Joanne stresses ‘the psychological impact of sanctions’ that she and Dave witnessed, and ‘the complete lack of education now’. Where people once worried about educating their children, they now have to concen-trate all their efforts on trying to feed them on a daily basis.

Joanne also points out the effect of the air strikes: ‘People are terrorised. When you hear the sirens going every day, as we did in Basra, it is a form of terrorism, whether or not you get hit.’

Dave, who stayed in Baghdad to sit outside the UN HQ fasting, with one other US delegate, instead of going to Basra, challenged Tony Blair to test his arguments in court, by having Dave prosecuted. ‘One of us is a liar,’ said Dave. ‘One of us is breaking the law.’

Joanne and Dave have written a report of their delegation, and their interview with Hans von Sponeck, Denis Halliday’s successor, and it is available from the voices office, 01865 - 243 232.

5) MEDIA COVERAGE Return to top

Dave and Joanne were interviewed over the 24 hours following their return by: the World Service, Radio 4’s ‘PM’ programme, BBC TV News (broadcast several times), Radio 5 Live, Sky News, Agence France Press and the Press Association wire services, The Times newspaper, Greater London Radio, LBC (London radio), BBC Radio Bristol, BBC Radio Wales, and Al Quds, a leading Arabic newspaper in Britain. Gabriel was also interviewed by BBC News 24 (television channel), BBC Radio Wales, BBC Radio Bristol, and GLR, because of the return of the delegation.

This is the most media exposure that voices uk has ever had, and the reason why we’ve launched a leafleting drive about voices: please send for a bundle of leaflets.

6) A VOICE FOR THE VOICELESS Return to top

voices in the wilderness uk began sprouting into life last February when Martin Thomas and I journeyed into Iraq under the threat of bombing with a six-strong Voices US delegation. Thanks to the intervention by Kofi Annan, the bombardment did not take place (delayed until December).

Arrested by Customs for trying to take £400 worth of children’s antibiotics to Iraq without an export licence, Martin and I were threatened with prosecution (maximum penalty 5 years in prison).

Since last Spring, we’ve had three more delegations breaking sanctions by taking medical supplies to Iraq, voices speakers have spread across the country, we’ve put out thousands of briefings and newsletters, and thousands of postcards (beautifully-illustrated by Emily Johns), and tens of thousands of leaflets, all countering government and media lies, and helping to pressure ministers.

We are very grateful for the generous support we’ve received over the last 18 months. This last burst of activity has been very costly, and money is quite tight. We would really appreciate whatever small or large contributions people can make. Many thanks.

Milan Rai

7) CHILD DEATHS IN IRAQ - UNICEF Return to top

On the 12th August the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reported the results of a major survey into child death rates in Iraq, which found that children under five years of age in central and southern Iraq "are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago".

In a press release, UNICEF Executive Director, Carol Bellamy, noted that, "if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998".

Clearly sanctions were not the only factor involved in the rise of child mortality. However, while stating that sanctions were ‘certainly one factor’ in increasing child mortality, UNICEF ducked the question of what weight to assign to this ‘factor’.

Professor Richard Garfield, whose report on child mortality we outlined in our last newsletter, has been more forthright. In. his own report, which he now regards as ‘extremely conservative’, he writes that "About one-quarter of [excess] deaths were mainly associated with the Gulf war; most were primarily associated with sanctions."

In a ‘Questions and Answers’ document, UNICEF repeated the conclusion of the Security Council-appointed Humanitarian Panel: ‘Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such depri-vations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war’.

Undistorted Figures

The UNICEF survey, carried out between February and May this year, was conducted in conjunction with the government of Iraq. UNICEF was involved in all aspects of the survey, and had access to all the data. A panel of experts who reviewed the survey for evidence of Iraqi manipulation, found no evidence to suggest that the data had been twisted to give higher death rates.

8) THE NORTH-SOUTH DIVIDE Return to top

In some reports of the UNICEF survey, emphasis has been placed on the fact that child mortality rates in the autonomous Kurdish zone are lower than in government-controlled areas. The US and British Governments have seized upon the differences between the north and the center/south as "proof that Saddam Hussein was to blame and not sanctions" (Agence France Presse, August 13).

State Department spokesman James Rubin told AFP that "the clearest conclusion to be drawn... is that the oil-for-food programme works in the regions where it is allowed to work freely". The survey showed that in the center/south of Iraq - where 85 % of the population lives - the under-five mortality rate (U5MR) has more than doubled from 56 deaths (1984 - 1989) to 131 (1994 - 1999) deaths per 1000 live births. In the Northern Governorates, the U5MR rose from 80 deaths (1984-1989) to 90 deaths (1989-1994), and then fell to 72 deaths per 1000 live births between 1994 and 1999. Clearly, children have been dying at a much higher rate in south-central Iraq than in the north over the past five years. But is this due to Baghdad’s obstruction of oil-for-food?

UNICEF says: "What we do know is that the difference [in mortality rates between the north and south/center] cannot be attributed to the differing ways the Oil-for-Food Program is implemented in the two parts of Iraq". Oil-for-Food is only two and a half years old; UNICEF says it is "too soon" to measure the impact of the programme over the five year period of 1994 -1999.

Instead, UNICEF pointed to two longer-term factors: Firstly, the fact that the north has received "far more support per capita from the interna-tional community than the south and center", particularly from NGOs. Secondly, UNICEF notes that "sanctions themselves have not been able to be so rigorously enforced in the north as the border is more ‘porous’ ". A December ’98 report for Save the Children Fund UK noted that trading and smuggling were "a major source of money, food and economic activity in [the north] since sanctions".

In an unpublished letter to the New York Times, Professor Richard Garfield highlights some obstacles to the effective implementation of oil-for-food in the center/south: The north "gets about 10% of all UN-controlled assistance in currency, while the rest of the country receives only commodities". Garfield notes, "[Water] pumps do less for sanitation where authorities cannot buy sand, hire day laborers, or find many other minor inputs to make filtration plants work.". Furthermore, "Goods have been approved by the UN and distributed to the North far faster than in the Center or South". Garfield describes "the arbitrary, ineffective, or destructive control sometimes exercised by the Security Council over Iraqi funds for food and medicine" as "tyrannical".

Finally, why did NGOs and aid agencies concentrate their efforts on the north? Sarah Graham-Brown notes in Sanctioning Saddam that, "The main problem facing the agencies which contemplated working throughout Iraq was to assess the extent of need and the ability of NGOs to fulfil it. It was quickly evident that the scale of infrastructural damage and the needs in health and nutrition in [south-central] Iraq were far beyond NGO capacities" (emphasis added).

Gabriel Carlyle & Milan Rai

9) SPIN DOCTORING THE SANCTIONS Return to top

New Labour’s ‘Policy Unit’ has produced an ‘Iraq Brief’ to help MPs fend off outraged constituents. (For more on how to rebut this document, please see the briefings listed on p.8.)

Regarding sanctions, the Brief avoids considering the human suffering which is undoubtedly occurring in Iraq, and focuses instead on (a) the Presidential palaces and (b) the build-up of medicines in Iraqi warehouses.

Palaces

On the palaces, the Brief states that $1.2bn has been spent on them. This figure (constructed by the US Mission to the UN) was calculated on the basis of ‘the cost of constructing similar buildings in the region’, ignoring the massive devaluation of the dinar which has made such construction much cheaper in Iraq. Also ignored is the crucial question of how much of the expenditure on the palaces is foreign currency which could actually be spent on imports of food and medicine and humanitarian goods.

Stockpiled Medicines On the ‘£170 million worth of drugs and medicines locked up in warehouses in Iraq’, no evidence has been produced that this is because the Iraqi government ‘refuses to distribute them’, as the Brief claims. ‘WHO [the World Health Organi-sation] has reported that the Kimadia warehouses currently operate at 20 to 35 per cent of their pre-sanction capacity. The ware-houses have no proper handling equipment, and lack transport to move the supplies to end-user facilities.’ (UN Secretary-General’s report, 18 May 1999, see http://www.un.org/Depts/oip )

Desert Fox

The Brief actually begins with the Desert Fox bombardment last December, which even Denis Healey, Labour right-winger, described as ‘illegal’. (Daily Telegraph, 21 Dec. ’98) The brief, wisely, avoids the issue of legality completely. The Foreign Office has constructed an elaborate hoax that rests on the fact that UN Security Council Resolution 678 authorised ‘all necessary means’ to force Iraq out of Kuwait. The problem, of course, is that UNSCR 678 did not authorise the use of any means whatsoever to achieve Iraqi disarmament. The bombing was therefore illegal.

Milan Rai

10) INDIA NEARLY BREAKS THE SANCTIONS Return to top

India signed a commercial and financial agreement with Iraq on 29 July, providing for the supply of 1,000 Indian buses and 100,000 tonnes of wheat covered by a 25-million-dollar loan - apparently outside oil-for-food. Indian oil minister V.K. Ramamurthy said, ‘India is deeply concerned about the situation in Iraq’, and added that India would offer Iraq ‘all the political, material and moral support’ needed to get rid of UN sanctions. According to AFP, Ramamurthy ‘acknowledged the grant would violate UN sanctions, but said his country would never allow a friend like Iraq to suffer.’

US Reaction

‘News of the loan, which is in violation of the UN sanctions regime against Iraq, brought a quick and sharp reaction from the US. "We’re seeking confirmation or clarification from the government of India about exactly what it has agreed to. It would be very surprising if any government, certainly including the Indian Government, were to consciously and publicly violate those sanctions,’ said US ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh on 29 July.’ (Middle East Economic Survey, 2 Aug.)

On 30 July, the Indian government issued a public statement clarifying its "official" position, and re-affirming its strict conformity to the UN resolutions concerning Iraq. Mr Ramamurthy was misquoted, said an internal memo circulated to senior Indian officials: the report of his alleged remarks was ‘absolutely false’ and ‘totally mischevious’. (MEES, 9 Aug.)

Pakistan

On 30 August, Pakistani President Muhammad Rafiq Tarar called for an end to sanctions on Iraq, and said the Pakistani government and people were ‘deeply distressed at the magnitude of humanitarian suffering caused by the UN sanctions’ in Iraq.

11) NEW RESOLUTION AT THE SECURITY COUNCIL Return to top

"We bought seven years and that’s not bad" an anonymous "US official with responsibility for Iraq" told the Washington Post back in January (28/1/99). "The longer we can fool around in the [UN Security] council and keep things static the better". Seven months - and much "fooling around" - later the Security Council has yet to make a decision on future policy towards Iraq. This may be about to change though with a meeting in mid-September of foreign ministers from the Security Council member states at which "Britain is expected to submit anew" its draft resolution (AFP, 26th August).

Rival Resolutions

The British resolution - co-sponsored by the Netherlands - has US support and will be competing with French and Russian proposals. "It is understood that no vote will be taken [on the Anglo-Dutch resolution] unless the US and UK are assured that the Russians and Chinese will not exercise their veto powers" (Middle East Economic Survey, 28th June).

"Diplomats" outlined one possible scenario to the Financial Times: the resolution is passed but with abstentions by some permanent members. This, they explained, "would give at least the appearance that the Security Council continues to function and that the international community is acting to improve the situation in Iraq" (6th August, emphasis added).

In our last newsletter, we outlined our basic objections to the British resolution: (1) that it makes solving the public health crisis in Iraq conditional upon a resolution of the outstanding issues surrounding the weapons inspectors, and (2) that the key sanctions-relief measures that it does contain (which are conditional) are too little, too late.

Lethal Ambiguity

Joanne Baker of voices has obtained a copy of the text of the draft resolution, and more has become clear. Both the media and the British Government have stated that the resolution will permit vitally-needed foreign investment in Iraq’s oil industry after 4 months of full co-operation with a new weapons inspectorate (UNCIM). However, the text of the resolution treats this issue - which the FT has described as "the main incentive" for Iraq - in a round-about fashion.

According to the text, the Secretary-General is supposed to establish a group of experts to "make recommendations on alternatives" to increase Iraqi oil exports, "including on the options for involving foreign oil companies in Iraq’s oil sector". The Council then "expresses its intention to take measures" based on these recommendations, after being notified by UNCIM that Iraq has demonstrated "full cooperation" with inspectors for a period of 120 days.

On 14th July, Reuters reported that "Canada is seeking explicit language on foreign oil companies being allowed to undertake production-sharing agreements in Iraq". Whilst it appears that Canada is now a co-sponsor of the Anglo-Dutch resolution, it is unclear whether this is an indication that more "explicit language" has actually been incor-porated into the resolution.

Promises, Promises

In other words, Iraq is supposed to be tempted into yet more inspections by the promise that the Security Council will consider acting on the recommendations of UN experts on how to boost Iraqi oil exports. What is at stake is vitally important to public health in Iraq. Boosting oil revenues substantially and sustainably is critical to Iraq’s ability to fund the reconstruction of its health infrastructure (including sewage, sanitation, water purification and power generation). Foreign investment is going to be necessary, whether under sanctions or not.

12) GATHERING STEAM FOR ANOTHER WAR? Return to top

The New York Times call it "the year’s other war": "While the nation’s attention has focused on Kosovo, American warplanes have quietly, methodically and with virtually no public discussion been attacking Iraq" (13th August). And, one might add, British planes.

1,100 Missiles Fired

The paper noted, correctly, that Desert Fox had "provoked an international outrage". "Over the past eight months, American and British pilots have fired more than 1,100 missiles against 359 targets" the paper reported, noting that this was "more than triple the number of targets attacked" in Desert Fox. "By another measure, the pilots have flown some two-thirds as many missions as NATO pilots flew over Yugoslavia in 78 days of around-the-clock war there". Robert Fisk puts the civilian death-toll at "more than a hundred" (Independent, 14th August).

‘Self-Defence'

The British Government claims that Western warplanes only respond in ‘self-defence’. What this means in practice was explained in article in The Washington Post (30th August): The "payback" for Iraqi "provocations" "usually comes hours later and miles away, and... may be delivered by different aircraft." On 24th August, there was "antiaircraft fire ... and the retaliation was smart bombs on a military installation 28 miles away ... "When pilots of attack aircraft fly into Iraq, they now regularly carry a list of pre-approved "response options" that can be bombed if the patrol encounters something considered an Iraqi threat... "On many days, the attack planes go directly to a target and drop bombs as a response to a perceived provocation earlier in the day or even the day before [a senior Pentagon official said]" (emphasis added).

A New Tool For Violence

AFP report that according to "Western diplomats ... the United States and Britain are gathering steam for a large scale operation against Iraq" (26 August). If the Anglo-Dutch proposal (see p.4) is adopted by the UN Security Council, then this will "provide the United States and Britain with a new legal [sic] tool to take measures against Iraq" a "Western diplomat well acquainted with Iraqi affairs" told the French wire agency. "Pressure is rising in the United States to impose a deadline on Iraq to meet conditions set by the United Nations, after which Washington must act", he/she continued.

In other words the adoption of the US-backed resolution may be used as a pretext for another unilateral act of aggression. "Our use of force has not risen to a threshold of international concern" a "senior [US] official" told the New York Times "Disproportionate [sic] responses might". Watch this space.

Gabriel Carlyle

13) TALCUM POWDER 'ERROR' Return to top

"President Saddam Hussein has been caught red-handed smuggling vital supplies of baby milk and medical supplies meant for Iraqi children" thundered The Sunday Telegraph (22nd August).

The basic story, reported by Associated Press on the 17th, is as follows: a Kuwaiti newspaper had reported that on the 11th August, Kuwait had "impounded a ship suspected of violating the trade embargo on Iraq by transporting baby care and other products out of the country". The vessel was apparently headed for Dubai. A senior Kuwaiti official told AP that the cargo consisted of "75 cartons of talcum powder, 25 cartons of baby bottles and 25 tons of cotton seed for livestock" (emphasis added). In the Sunday Telegraph the talcum powder became "vital supplies of baby milk [powder]" (emphasis added).

This would have been ironic, if it hadn’t been false, since UNICEF had just recommended that the Iraqi Government "remove breastmilk substitutes from the rations and... promote exclusive breastfeeding". The Sunday Telegraph claimed the goods "came from a recent consignment of humanitarian aid".

The report was seized upon by supporters of sanctions, though the Iraqi News Agency claimed the goods were being returned because of their poor quality. The Economist thought this defence "thin" (21/8/99).

It is known, however, that "large amounts of food and medicine arriving in Iraq under [‘oil for food’] are substandard, damaged or unusable" (AP, 6th July, reporting comments by the program’s Executive Director Benon Sevan).

We are trying to ascertain the truth behind this confusing story. Something the Sunday Telegraph does not seem to be interested in.

Gabriel Carlyle

14) 99 % Return to top

On the 3rd September The Times ran a short ‘World in Brief’ entitled "Iraq still a threat, says US": "A White House study" had concluded that "Iraq is still working on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and on missiles" it explained.

The Times had it wrong. The US Christian Science Monitor managed to obtain a copy of the report, and reported that it "stops short of concluding that Iraq has resumed its arms programs". The study’s authors outline their "concerns" and consider it "prudent to assume" that Iraq is still "intent" on developing such programs, but they do not, apparently, provide any fresh evidence.

Earlier in the year the Washington Post reported that "[according to administration officials] the United States has seen no indication that Baghdad has resumed its chemical and biological weapons programs" (July 15th).

Saudi Arabian Ambitions

Iraq was not the only country in the region whose name has been linked to "weapons of mass destruction" in the past months. In what the Guardian Weekly described as "a devastating blow for non-proliferation," "Saudi Arabia appears to be seeking nuclear weapons" after the kingdom’s defence minister "toured Pakistan’s secret nuclear facilities" and was "briefed by A Q Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atom bomb." (August 12th)

Reviewing former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter’s book Endgame, defence analyst and Gulf War expert William Arkin writes that UNSCOM "probably completed 99 percent of its task" and that "100 percent can probably never be guaranteed". Be that as it may, hysterical scaremongering - such as Tony Blair’s dire proclamations in February last year that "one teaspoon of ... anthrax [could kill] 100 million people" - and the deliberate spreading of disinformation will doubtless continue to play a useful role in mobilising domestic support for military aggression (see facing page).

Gabriel Carlyle

15) BREAKING THE CEILING Return to top

It now appears that, for the first time since the ceiling on oil exports under oil-for-food was increased from $2 bn to $5.2 bn every six months, Iraq will meet - indeed, exceed - the ceiling. This is principally due to the dramatic increase in the price of oil - from less than $12 to over $20 dollars a barrel. Whilst this is good news it should not be taken as a sign that Iraq has solved its funding crisis, which remains acute. Iraq’s oil industry "continues to be in a lamentable state," Kofi Annan notes, with 20% of producing wells in the north and south "irreparably damaged" as a result of Iraq’s policy of overproduction. (2nd July) He notes that oil overproduction is also having detrimental environmental consequences.

British Benevolence

France asked in May for the $5.2bn ceiling to be lifted, and for approval for contracts for food and medicine to be speeded up by allowing the UN Secretariat, rather than the Sanctions Committee, to review the deals. "Both proposals were turned down, mainly by the US and UK" MEES reports. (24 May). The reason is, presumably, that these measures form part of the Anglo-Dutch proposal and the US and UK wish to leave open the possibility of trumpeting their benevolence at a later date.

Gabriel Carlyle

16) A CRUCIAL DISTINCTION Return to top

In July, Deputy US Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh responded to suggestions that the ceiling of $5.2bn worth of Iraqi oil sales every six months should be lifted: ‘My question would be, if more than $5.2bn is now needed, what for? Is that humanitarian needs? Or are we getting into suggestions about rebuilding the Iraqi economy, which is a very different question for the Security Council?’ (Associated Press, 22 July)

In 1995, the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation stated that the solution to the malnutrition crisis ‘lies in 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.’

Exactly, Mr Burleigh, exactly.

17) SPECIAL SANCTIONS ISSUE OF THE NEW INTERNATIONALIST
Return to top