“Over the past 50 years, ACA has contributed to bridging diversity, equity, inclusion and that's by ensuring that women of color are elevated in this space.”
Security Council Moves Closer To Adopting Iraqi 'Smart Sanctions'
Alex Wagner
The UN Security Council took a step closer to implementing a “smart sanctions” regime in Iraq on November 29 by unanimously agreeing to adopt a once-contentious Goods Review List, which aims to streamline the process of selling civilian goods to Baghdad.
Approved as part of a resolution that renewed the UN oil-for-food program for the eleventh time since 1996, the list contains weapons-related and dual-use items that would require UN approval before being exported to Iraq. The new resolution states that the Security Council intends to adopt the Goods Review List—“subject to any refinements”—for implementation on May 30, when the current phase of the oil-for-food program expires. The list can only be modified with the Security Council’s approval.
Iraqi Ambassador to the UN Mohammed Aldouri signed a memorandum of understanding December 2, accepting the resolution.
Once the list is adopted, Baghdad will be allowed to import—without UN oversight—any civilian, nonweapons, or dual-use items not specifically enumerated on the list. Contracts containing items on the list would need the UN Iraq Sanctions Committee’s approval before export. Proceeds from Iraqi oil sales held in a UN-controlled escrow account would pay for the items.
Under the current regime, all of Baghdad’s nonhumanitarian purchases are subject to UN review. But the arrangement allows Iraq to sell unlimited amounts of oil on the international market, with the proceeds placed in a UN account. The only legal way for Iraq to sell oil is through the oil-for-food program.
By facilitating the flow of civilian goods to Iraq, the “smart sanctions” proposals envisioned by the Bush administration aim to undermine arguments that sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people. It also seeks to tighten the existing sanctions regime to prevent Iraq from using smuggled oil revenues to develop weapons systems.
The planned adoption of the Goods Review List addresses the first point. However, the resolution does not take up the issues of strengthening border controls or cracking down on Iraq’s illegal oil-smuggling relationships with Jordan, Turkey, and Syria. The UN currently tolerates Baghdad’s oil sales to these states, which are conducted outside of the oil-for-food program, because of their importance to these nations’ economies. Iraq can use the revenues from these unaccountable oil sales for weapons purchases because these transactions lack the UN oversight.
A number of proposals for bringing these relationships under UN auspices were included in a draft June resolution put forth by the United Kingdom and backed by the United States, but they were subsequently scuttled by Russian opposition. (See ACT, July/August 2001.) Implementation of such proposals, however, would be difficult because they require Iraq’s neighbors to abandon extremely profitable transactions voluntarily.
Despite the absence of a means to stem Iraqi oil smuggling, U.S. officials appeared satisfied with the resolution. Ambassador John Negroponte, the U.S. permanent representative to the UN, remarked on November 29 that the unanimity with which the Security Council made the decision “should send a signal to Iraq” that the United States is committed to revamping the current sanctions regime. At a December 3 press briefing, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he too was “pleased” with the outcome.
Washington’s key Security Council ally, the United Kingdom, expressed a similar sentiment. On November 30, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called the Security Council vote “a significant step forward” that demonstrates that the “international community is united over how to apply controls to the Baghdad regime.” Straw went on to say that Iraq is now “free to meet all its civilian needs” while leaving Saddam Hussein “with no excuses for the suffering of the Iraqi people.”
The review list had been the primary sticking point during the Security Council’s consideration of the U.S.-U.K. “smart sanctions” proposal in May and June. At the time, France and China approved the list. But Russia, contesting certain items on the list, refused to endorse the measure and issued a veto threat, forcing Washington and London to postpone the debate to November.
A UN official suggested that, because the revised review list is largely similar to the one proposed in June, Russia’s veto threat had stemmed more from a desire to maintain and possibly expand commercial relations with Iraq than disagreement with the list itself. The official characterized Russia’s turnaround as a “major concession,” noting that the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States had brought Washington and Moscow closer together and focused new attention on the urgency of dealing with Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
While not discounting the value of improved U.S.-Russian relations since September 11, a U.S. official emphasized that stronger French and Chinese support for the list had isolated Russia on the issue. The official explained that France and China officially supported the list in June 2001 because they knew that they could hide behind a Russian veto. Since then, however, negotiations with Washington and London persuaded Paris and Beijing to come out in full support for the arrangement.
The U.S. official was “optimistic” that the Security Council would finalize the list by June, although elements of the list are “likely to change.” The official also said that strong Security Council support could allow Russia to pressure Iraq to allow UN weapons inspectors to return to the country.