>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Cuba SI] Iraq, Libya and Cuba slam UN sanctions > >Cuba SI - Imperialism NO! >Information and discussion about Cuba. >Socialism or death! >Patria o muerte! >Venceremos! >http://www.egroups.com/group/cubasi > > Iraq, Libya and Cuba slam UN sanctions > >UNITED NATIONS (South News) - Iraq, Libya and Cuba - which has been under a >U.S. embargo for nearly 40 years- condemned what they called U.S. >manipulation in imposing UN sanctions > >The three countries spoke at the end of an open council debate Monday on >making U.N. sanctions more targeted and less harmful to civilians. > >``Sanctions lead to tragedy, to pain and suffering at all levels of >society,'' said Isa Ayad Babaa, Libya's deputy U.N. ambassador. ``Let the >Security Council instead seek peaceful means to resolve disputes among >states.'' > >He said the Security Council must lift the sanctions if the evidence ran >counter to international law. >The target country must have the right of recourse to the International >Court of Justice, and the decision of the Court should be respected. > >Babaa accused the United State of having ``ramrodded'' the embargo through >the Security Council seven years ago had cost Libya an estimated $35 >billion. > >His accusations were echoed by the deputy Cuban ambassador, Rafael Dausa >Cespedes, who said the United States had unilaterally maintained an embargo >against his country that has been condemned for seven straight years by the >General Assembly. > >Iraqi Ambassador Saeed Hasan, condemned the ``illegitimate'' influence the >United States wields in maintaining 10-year-old sanctions on Baghdad. > >Saeed Hasan said that, with the collapse of the socialist camp, the world >was now unipolar. The United States now had the means to illegitimately >influence international decision-making, and had imposed its own views on >the United Nations, notably regarding the extremist use of sanctions. > >Until 1990, sanctions regimes had only been imposed twice, on the racist >States of South Africa and Rhodesia. Between 1990 and 1997, sanctions had >been imposed on 11 States, and the majority of these impositions were >simply to implement United States foreign policy objectives. The United >States had used the United Nations as part of its diplomatic arsenal, as >United States Senator Jesse Helms had told the Security Council on 20 >January this year. > >The first ever hegemonic act by the United States had been the imposition >of comprehensive sanctions against Iraq, he said. This had been done >without any effort to employ peaceful means to redress the problem. Those >sanctions were unprecedented, and would probably remain unique within the >United Nations. They prohibited all imports and exports into and out of >Iraq. Exemptions introduced later for medical and food supplies had no >practical effect, because all the exports that Iraq might have used to >obtain hard currency to purchase humanitarian supplies had been banned. > >Among the reasons that had made this illegitimate sanctions regime possible >was the lack of checks and balances limiting the use of sanctions in the >United Nations Charter, he said. The comprehensive sanctions imposed on >Iraq had led to a humanitarian tragedy, with the death of more than 1.5 >million Iraqis, and had destroyed the foundations of the Iraqi economy and >of Iraqi life in general. The second annex of a report to the Council by >the representative of Brazil, dated 30 March 1999, gave a detailed picture >of the catastrophic effect sanctions had on all life in Iraq, including a >serious decrease in gross domestic product, an increase in mortality rates, >among mothers and children in particular, severe malnutrition in children, >grave infrastructure degradation, including the degradation of the systems >providing sanitation, electricity, water and medical services. > >There had been a large reduction in school registrations of children. There >was now a paucity of cultural and intellectual life. That report also said >that the humanitarian situation would remain terrible unless there was a >revival in the economy, which could not come about as a consequence of >palliative humanitarian efforts. Many others had described the effects of >the sanctions on Iraq in detail, including the United Nations Children's >Fund (UNICEF), non-governmental organizations, and those in the field, such >as two previous United Nations humanitarian coordinators. > >Former Secretary-General Boutros Ghali had recommended a study of the >sanctions situation, he said. A working group was subsequently established, >and the General Assembly had adopted the recommendations of that group. It >was regrettable that the Council had not taken up even one of the >substantive recommendations approved by the Assembly, and that those >recommendations remained "dead letters". > >Foremost among the recommendations was the need for sanctions resolutions >to include a specific time frame. Another recommendation proposed that the >Council set out steps which, if taken by target countries, would lead to >the lifting of sanctions. The Assembly also approved recommendations for >efforts to enable target countries to obtain resources, and suggested that >procedures be established to allow target States to finance humanitarian >imports. > >The objective of sanctions was to modify behaviour, not to punish, he said. >The grave negative effects of sanctions on development must be addressed. >The Council must submit regular reports to the Assembly on the status of >specific sanctions regimes. Measures must be adopted in response to Article >50 of the United Nations Charter. > >Target countries must be permitted to present their views to sanctions >committees, he added. Limited improvements had been recommended, by the >Security Council presidency, to working methods of sanctions committees. >But they did not take up the foremost problem, which was that those >committees insisted on unanimity in decision-making. This meant that any >member could effectively exercise a veto. > >It was a contravention of the most elemental rules of democracy and also of >collective responsibility. It allowed the United States to place on hold >$1.8 billion of humanitarian contracts under the Oil for Food Programme for >political reasons. It also prevented that committee from reaching any >agreement on ways to improve its working methods. > >However, even those limited improvements had resulted in no changes in the >Iraq sanctions committee, he said. Despite the catastrophic results of >sanctions on Iraq, the sanctions committee continued to work behind closed >doors, and refused to allow the Permanent Representative of Iraq to clarify >his country's position. It also refused to provide Iraq with copies of its >agenda or its summary records. It was regrettable that the committee's >current chair held a preconceived position which was reflected in the way >he presided over the committee. He was more of a royalist than the American >king himself. > >He was not telling any Council member anything new, he said. When coercion >was applied by the Council, it must ensure it interlinked its actions with >other international responsibilities, as defined in conventions and >treaties. > >The United States had forced the Security Council to impose comprehensive >sanctions which were in breach of many international treaties and >conventions, including the convention on genocide. According to the >definition contained in that treaty, the Council's action against Iraq >constituted a genocide. It also breached the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and >the related protocols, which stated that starvation could not be used as a >means of war. > >There was now currently some talk of replacing the current sanctions regime >with a more intelligent regime, he said. This was ill-intentioned, as it >aimed at entrenching the sanctions against Iraq and turning them into an >end in themselves. Iraq had satisfied both the relevant resolutions that >established the sanctions. It had withdrawn from Kuwait, and the issue of >weapons of mass destruction had been settled for years. > >Not one iota of proof to the contrary had been provided, and, as former >inspector Scott Ritter had told journalist John Pilger, the real threat >posed by Iraq was zero. It was clear that the Council should lift >sanctions, not replace or suspend them. Daily those sanctions killed some >7,000 Iraqi children. > >The organized destruction of Iraq by the United States and the United >Kingdom, through acts of aggression, through "no-fly zones", and through >the environmental and health consequences of their use of depleted uranium >during the Gulf War was the gravest of crimes, he said. He appealed to all >the countries of the world. The sanctions were imposed on their behalf, >under the authority granted the Security Council in the United Nations >Charter. > >They had a legal and moral duty to take that authorization away from the >Council, because it had used the authority to propagate a genocide. Any >State that did so would absolve itself of the responsibility for the >genocide, and thus contribute to re-establishing the credibility of the >United Nations. Any State that did so might also be helping the United >States by encouraging it to respect the United Nations Charter. > > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
