Posted in: Foreign Nations
US President George W. Bush is pushing his administration proposal which is aimed at reducing foreign oil dependence and decreasing greenhouse gases. This is also aimed at increasing the supply of alternative and renewable fuels around the globe.
Earlier, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established the nation’s first comprehensive Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. At the recent press conference, Stephen L. Johnson, EPA administrator; and Nicole Nason, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, discussed the essence of RFS program which is increasing the use of alternative fuels and modernizing CAFE standards for cars.
“The Renewable Fuel Standard offers the American people a hat trick – it protects the environment, strengthens our energy security, and supports America’s farmers,” said Johnson. “Today, we’re taking an important first step toward meeting President Bush’s “20 in 10″ goal of jumping off the treadmill of foreign oil dependency.”
“Increasing the use of renewable and alternative fuels to power our nation’s vehicles will help meet the President’s Twenty in Ten goal of reducing gasoline usage by 20 percent in ten years,” Samuel W. Bodman, the Secretary of Energy, said. “The Administration’s sustained commitment to technology investment will bring a variety of alternative fuel sources to market and further reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign sources of energy.”
“While we must look at increasing the availability of renewable and alternative fuels, we must also continue to improve the fuel efficiency of our passenger cars and light trucks,” said Nicole R. Nason, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). “As a part of the President’s “20 in 10″ energy security plan, we need Congress to give the Secretary of Transportation the authority to reform the current passenger car fuel economy standard.”
The RFS, as authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, mandates that the equivalent of at least 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel be blended into motor vehicle fuel sold in the United States by 2012. The program is aimed at slashing petroleum use by up to 3.9 billion gallons and reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by up to 13.1 million metric tons by 2012. It means that the program is preventing the emissions of some 2.3 million cars.
The RFS is an essential step toward meeting Bush’s call to slash the use of gasoline 20-percent within ten years. This could be done by switching to renewable and alternative fuel use to 35 billion gallons by the year 2017. The goal behind the RFS is the promotion of the use of fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. These alternative fuels are largely produced from American crops.
The program is also aimed at creating new markets for farm products. This is also done to increase energy security and promote the formulation of sophisticated technologies to help make renewable fuel cost competitive with the traditional gasoline. Additionally, the program establishes special incentives for producing and using fuels derived from cellulosic biomass. Examples of which include woodchips and switchgrass.
The RFS program requires major American refiners, blenders, and importers to use a minimum volume of renewable fuel annually starting 2007 through 2012. The minimum level or “standard” which is determined as a percentage of the total volume of fuel a company produces or imports, will increase on a yearly basis. For this year, 4.02 percent of all the fuel sold or dispensed to American motorists will have to come from renewable sources and that is approximately 4.7 billion gallons.
The RFS program is based on a trading system that provides a flexible means for industry to comply with the annual standard by allowing renewable fuels to be used where they are most economical. To achieve the goal of Bush Administration’s Alternative Fuel Standard (AFS), it is necessary to enforce the RFS. The latter requires the use of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017. It is nearly five times the RFS target in 2012. The said program necessitates an in-depth study and Testing to come up with compatible DC sports cold air intake, engines and more.
Lauren Woods
COMING TO THE INFOWAR JUNE 3, 2009 www.infowars.com prisonplanet.tv Alex Jones Presents REFLECTIONS AND WARNINGS: AN INTERVIEW WITH AARON RUSSO A LEGACY OF FREEDOM THAT WILL LIVE ON In an historic final interview, filmmaker and music promoter Aaron Russo goes in depth on the insider-knowledge given to him by a member of the Rockefeller family. Russo was told– prior to 9/11– of plans to stage terror attacks, invade foreign nations, and kickstart a high-tech police state control grid that would track the populations’ every move with implantable RFID microchips. This information-packed presentation is filled with never-before seen footage. Throughout the film, Alex Jones breaks down the latest activities of the New World Order and how it ties into what Russo predicted. Aaron explains how the elite created the women’s liberation movement to break up the family and tax working women. Russo breaks down the deception of democracy– which is nothing more than mob rule guaranteed to produce tyranny. Russo also exposes the IRS & Federal Reserve. He blasts the unconstitutional and predatory institutions that have crippled the American Republic and crushed the people with bogus taxes, inflation and loss of privacy. Russo explains that he himself was persecuted in the late 80s by a criminal ‘retroactive’ tax scheme that attempted to levy new taxes on years already passed. As night falls on the Republic, Aaron Russo delivers a powerful call for the forces of liberty to rise and crush tyranny. Only then can the Republic be restored. THIS DVD INCLUDES: – Never-before seen behind the scenes footage – An exclusive interview with Aaron about his life – Aaron Russo radio interviews from the Alex Jones Show ORDER IT NOW OR DOWNLOAD IT IN HIGH-QUALITY
Posted in: Foreign Nations
The vast currency market is a foreign concept to the average individual. However, once it is broken down into simple terms, one can begin to easily understand the foreign exchange market and see what a profitable avenue of income participating in the trading of Forex can be.
Whether or not you are aware, you already play a role in the foreign exchange market, also known as the Forex market. The simple fact that you have money in your pocket makes you an investor of currencies, and more particularly, an investor of U.S Dollars!
The cash in your wallet and money in your savings account are in U.S. Dollars. The value of your mortgage, stocks, bonds, and other investments are expressed in U.S. Dollars. In other words, unless you are among the few Americans who have foreign bank accounts or have bought a modest amount of foreign currencies or securities, you are an investor of U.S. Dollars.
By holding U.S. Dollars, you have basically elected not to hold the currencies of other nations. Your purchase of stocks, bonds, and other investments, along with money deposited into your bank account represent investments that rely heavily on the integrity of the value of the currency in which it is denominated the U.S. Dollar.
Due to the constant increasing and decreasing value of the U.S. Dollar and the resultant fluctuation in exchange rates, your investment portfolio may have experienced changes in value, thus affecting your overall financial status.
With this in mind, it should be no surprise that many shrewd investors have taken advantage of the fluctuation in exchange rates using the volatility of the foreign exchange market to trade currencies and put more money in their pockets.
The foreign exchange market
Forex and Stocks
has experienced many changes since its inception. For years, as you learned above, the United States and its allies, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, participated in a system in which exchange rates were tied to the amount of gold reserves belonging to the nation. However in the summer of 1971, President Nixon took the United States off the gold standard, and floating exchange rates began to materialize.
Today, supply and demand for a particular currency, or its relative value, is the driving factor in determining exchange rates. There have been many radical global economic changes over the last decade.
Some of these changes have decreased obstacles and increased opportunities in world trade, such as the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the renewed political reform in South America and the continuing liberalization of the Chinese economy have boosted the worldwide economy by opening up new markets and opportunities. These events have lifted traditional trade barriers resulting in a tremendous increase in foreign investment.
With this increase however, all nations are more interrelated and dependent upon one another. Increasing trade and foreign investment have made the economies of all nations more and more interrelated.
Fluctuations in economic activity in one country are reflected in that country’s currency and immediately transmitted to its partners, altering the relative price of products and thus affecting costs and profits, which in turn affect changes in currency values.
Regularly reported economic figures around the world, such as inflation or unemployment levels, as well as unexpected news, such as natural disasters or political instability, alters the desirability of holding a particular currency, thus influencing international supply and demand for that currency.
The U.S. Dollar, therefore, fluctuates constantly against the currencies of the rest of the world. The current web of international trade and the resultant fluctuations in exchange rates have created the world’s largest market the foreign exchange market, a market whose vast size makes it the most efficient, fairest, and liquid of all markets.
The Interbank Foreign Exchange Market is an unregulated, decentralized international forum that deals in the various major currencies of the world, with virtually no direct government regulation or interference.
The Interbank Foreign Exchange Market involves trading one nation s currency for the currency of another nation. Foreign exchange, however, is not a “market” in the traditional sense since there is no centralized location for trading activity. It is an electronically linked world-wide network of currency traders dispersed throughout the leading financial centers of the world.
An international community of approximately 400 banks make the daily currency exchanges for buyers and sellers worldwide who conduct business linked by the Internet, phones, computers, fax machines and other means of instant communication.
Trading occurs over the telephone and through computer terminals at thousands of locations worldwide. The direct Interbank market consists of dealers with currency settlement capabilities trading as principals. It is this dealer segment of the market that is responsible for generating a large portion of the overall foreign exchange volumes.
Trading between dealers creates the largest turnover in the market, making foreign exchange the most liquid of all markets. Trading approximately $1.5 trillion every day, the foreign exchange market is the largest financial market in the world. Traditionally, the foreign exchange market has only been available to banks, money managers, and large financial institutions.
Over the years, these institutions, including the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, have realized large gains via currency trading. This growing market is now linked to a worldwide network of currency traders, including banks, central banks, brokers, and customers, such as importers and exporters.
Today, the foreign exchange market offers opportunities for profit not only to banks and institutions, but to individual investors as well. A great advantage is the size and volume of the Forex Interbank market makes it impossible to manipulate the market for any length of time. Unlike the equity markets, no really effective “insider” interference is possible for any length of time in the Forex market.
As a result Forex is an action based, decentralized international market that allows various major currencies of the world to seek their true value. It operates as the purest form of supply and demand for currencies as a tradable commodity. This is why many analysts refer to it as the most efficient market in the world.
Martin Chandra
Posted in: Foreign Nations
“MANAGING INDIA’S FOREIGN EXCHANGE RESERVES”
Foreign Exchange Reserves (FER) is the surplus money or capital that a country parks or maintains in the foreign country in form of currency, bond and other kind of securities.
Foreign exchange reserves are the foreign currency deposits held by national banks of different nations. These are assets of Governments which are held in different hard currencies such as Dollar, Sterling, Euro, Yen, Gold, SDRs. The current FER of India amounts to $251.33 billion as on 14 Oct as declared by the RBI. This amount seems an alien like figure when we look back to the early 90’s when we had just enough reserves to meet our country’s demand for the next two weeks. The total FOREX reserves have risen from $3.96 billion in March 1990 to $251.33 billion as on 14 Oct 2007.
Movements in Foreign Exchange Reserves (at the end of March)
OBJECTIVE:
The objectives of my article are as listed below:
1. To study and analyze the current methods RBI uses to manage our FER.
2. Analyze how other c
ILLUMINATI’s Covert War Against HAILE SELASSIE I King of Kings & the Lost Black Sheep pt 2
ountries like China, Abu Dabhai and Singapore with large FER manage their reserves and whether India can also opt for these processes to obtain higher ROI.
3. I would like to list out various other innovative and new options and avenues towards which India can look to which will benefit the country and its people, for getting higher returns on its reserves while minimizing the risk involved; as the primary objective of having a reserve is to provide a cushion in case of any emergency or financial crisis. I would also like to forward these suggestions to the RBI.
LITERATURE SURVEY:
1. “Determining the Optimum Level of Foreign Exchange Reserves”,
By Sajikumar, Treasury Management. The Icfai University Press, November, 2005.
The author says that the increase in the inflows of the foreign reserves in the country by the route of ADRs, GDRs, FDIs, ECBs, portfolio investments, non-resident deposits and bank capital raises the question of an ‘optimum’ level of reserves. Further, he discusses about the reserve adequacy indicators: Trade related indicators (reserves should be equivalent to a few months of imports), Debt related indicators (reserves can meet the external repayment obligations without additional borrowing for one year- Guidotti rule) and money-related indicators i.e. reserves to broad money/ reserves to reserve money.
2. “Should India Use Foreign Exchange Reserves For Financing Infrastructure?”
By Charan Singh, Stanford Center for International Development, September 2005
The author states the primary objectives of maintaining forex reserves is safety and liquidity, maximizing returns is secondary. The forex reserves in India are managed by RBI in consultation with the Government of India. The opinion of the author is that India should not invest forex reserves in Infrastructure. Going ahead he says, infrastructure projects in India yield low or negative returns due to difficulties: political and economic — especially in adjusting the tariff structure, introducing labor reforms, and upgrading technology and the use of FER to finance infrastructure may lead to more economic difficulties, including problems in monetary management.
3.“Surging Forex Reserves: A Frankenstein’s Monster?”
By GRK Murti, Forex Markets, Current Trends, The Icfai University Press, November, 2005.
The author talks about the surging forex reserves of the country and states that the level of forex has surpassed the adequate level. The author further says that the hoarding of forex reserves in the overseas markets has made it a Frankenstein’s Monster. Hoarding means savings that is put aside for the future use and this also entails an opportunity cost to it. He also opines that the RBI should take the risk of deploying these reserves in infrastructure projects or retiring high cost existing debt.
4.“India’s Forex Reserves Deployment Dilemma”
By Priyanka Sugandhi, Forex Markets , Current Trends. The Icfai University Press, November, 2005.
The author has shown the dilemma being faced by the RBI in deploying its forex reserves by citing the costs and the benefits associated with the huge forex reserves. The benefits being the foreign currency liquidity enabling the economy to absorb shocks like during the oil crisis, and high forex reserves also depicts the ability of the economy to meet its external obligations. The costs associated being the opportunity cost of deploying the reserves into the developed countries which gives low returns as compared to what Indian Government pay to its domestic borrowings whereas the bond market in developed countries are very liquid and do entail very low credit risk.
ISSUE:
The unprecedented rise in Foreign Exchange Reserves (FER) in India has raised concern about its optimal size and appropriate utilization. The amount of FER in India is modest when compared to some of the other countries in the region, and it can be argued that the proposed plan may lead to more economic difficulties than anticipated benefits. Safety and liquidity are paramount in the management of reserves and these demand that reserves are held mostly in G-7 central banks or Treasury bills of the highest quality and the lowest yields. The usual favorite in the latter are those issued by the US Government. Bonds are no better. Investments in G-7 bonds too are characterized by low yields, given the low level of global interest rates. Every country needs a minimum level of reserves for imports, debt-servicing and market intervention to ward off possible speculative attacks on the currency.
India followed a restrictive external sector policy until 1991, mainly designed to conserve limited FER for essential imports (petroleum goods and food grains), restrict capital mobility, and discourage entry of multinationals. The external sector strategy since 1991, though gradualist in approach, has shifted from import substitution to export promotion, with sufficiency of FER as an important element. As a result of measures initiated to liberalize capital inflows, India’s FER (mainly foreign currency assets) have increased from US$6 billion at end-March 1991 to US$251 billion at Oct 2007. The acceleration in the trend first emerged in 1993, as recorded by the rise in foreign currency assets, when India adopted the market-based system of exchange rates and then in 2001, when the current account recorded a surplus after a persistent deficit since 1978. India ranks sixth in the world in holdings of FER in 2007.
The recent surge in FER has occurred primarily because of an increase in:
1. Work Remittance
2. Exports
3. Capital Inflow
The RBI being the custodian of the FER has to decide how to manage the FER. This job is by no means an easy task and the controversy that surrounds the usage of our FER still looms at large. Some skeptics say that FER are a cushion for the country in case of an economic crisis and help in bailing out the country in case of an emergency. However it wouldn’t be wise to let our FER just keep on piling up and not utilize them judiciously. We can utilize our FER to improve our infrastructure, which is very desperately needed to sustain the rapid growth we are witnessing in our country at this moment, we can also utilize our foreign reserves to repay our short term high interest term loans taken from foreign financial institutions, using reserves to acquire foreign assets including technology or we can also utilize our reserves for social welfare to eradicate poverty. The ways in which we can utilize our resources are endless but we must take care not to overdo it. However not utilizing our reserves has an opportunity cost attached to it as the RBI primarily invests and parks its reserves in low yielding US govt. bonds.
REFERENCES
1. Cardon Pierre And Joachim Coche, “Strategic Asset Allocation For Foreign Exchange Reserves”, Risk Management For Central Bank Foreign Reserves, European Central Bank, May 2004.
2. Dwyer Mark and John Nugée, “Risk Systems in Central Bank Reserves Management”
, Risk Management for Central Bank Foreign Reserves, European Central Bank, May 2004.
3. Damodaran Harish, “The `Other Capital’ Factor In Forex Reserves Accretion”, Financial Daily. The Hindu Group of Publications, Wednesday, Jul 02, 2003.
4. Patnaik Ila And Peter Pauly, “The Indian Foreign Exchange Market And The Equilibrium Real Exchange Rate Of The Rupee”, Ncaer, Delhi And University Of Toronto, February 2001.
5. Sajikumar, “Determining the Optimum Level of Foreign Exchange” Reserves, Treasury Management. The Icfai University Press, November, 2005.
6. Singh Charan, “Should India Use Foreign Exchange Reserves For Financing Infrastructure?” Stanford Center for International Development, September 2005
7. Sugandhi Priyanka, “India’s Forex Reserves Deployment Dilemma”, Forex Markets,Current Trends. The Icfai University Press, November, 2005.
8. Murti GRK, “Surging Forex Reserves: A Frankenstein’s Monster?”, Forex Markets, Current Trends, The Icfai University Press, November, 2005.
Amit Singh Bisht
Posted in: Foreign Nations
China has stirred up lots of foreign investment for their economy. Having a population of 1.3 billion and a land area slightly smaller than the USA, China is indeed a good opportunity to develop into an investment port. Over the years, China has been booming into the world’s factory with industries ranging from manufacturing, telecommunications, automobiles and etc.
Now, China has received the most coverage compared to any other developing nations around the world. The advancement of China market has been increasing in such a rapid rate that nobody wants to give a miss at a chance to jump the bandwagon of China’s prospering economy.
China’s Foreign Trade Department of the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) said that China’s government had approved 44,001 new foreign-invested ventures in 2005 and China had a trade surplus of $177.5 billion in 2006.
“China’s sound and steady economic growth continues to attract international funds into the capital markets in the region.” said Frank Lyn, China market leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers.
However, even though there is an increasing number of a foreign investment in China, the government is also supporting the growth of their domestic industry. As China develops into a global market, the government is also encouraging the growth of domestic industries to take the chance to go global especially with the upcoming Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
However, this may not be a piece of good news to other foreign companies who are planning to enter into China market. Not only would the foreign companies have to establish their brand presence in China, they will have stiffer competition from the local companies. In the other hand, with the increasing financial economy of China, the Chinese consumers are becoming more affluent compared to the past and thus the purchasing power of the locals have increased over the years. The Chinese no longer seek for just basic products but they are purchasing more luxurious products such as automobiles and higher-end fashion.
Domestic competition would not be the end of foreign companies’ problems when they try to enter into China’s market. With the main issue of language barrier, many foreign Investors do not have the ability to communicate with the locals which causes frustration for both parties. Hence, foreign companies would need to be familiar with the Chinese language and culture before entering China market.
China may be a fountain of opportunities but foreign companies need to put in a lot of effort to ensure that their entry to the China market would not end up a huge loss to their company. Many successful foreign investors have worked with business consultants and research firms to ensure that their marketing strategies would be apt for the China market.
Many articles online have featured on the topic of “guan xi” According to Le Figaro September 1997,”Guanxi: literally “locked system” or “relations”. Personal and friendly relations, without it nothing is possible in China. “Guanxi” takes time to build and calls for constant attention.
The Chinese regard “Guanxi” as the foundation of a successful business deal. Thus, foreign companies often have problems with business negotiations as they do not have the network with the locals. Thus engaging locals who are well-versed with both the foreign and domestic culture will be a bridge for those foreign companies. These locals would have the ability to communicate better as they are more familiar with the Chinese culture. Any problems with the higher authorities would be resolved when a local party is able to help with the paperwork.
Alina Hoon
Noam Chomsky addressing the international press at the United Nations, June 5th, 2006. Produced by Democracy Now! Support independent media! www.democracynow.org http
Posted in: Foreign Nations
Noam Chomsky addressing the international press at the United Nations, June 5th, 2006 Produced by Democracy Now! Support independent media! www.democracynow.org http
The acquisition or sale of one national currency in exchange for another nation’s currency, usually conducted in a market setting is called as the Foreign Exchange Trading. The concept of Foreign Trading makes it possible for clients to do international transactions.
It can be mainly used during imports and exports and the movement of capital between countries. The value of one foreign currency in relation to another is defined by the exchange rate during the Foreign Exchange Trading.
Foreign Trading is also known as the FX Trading. Here the clients are able to hedge against, or speculate upon, changes aspect element within the exchange rate of two currencies. Foreign Exchange Trading services provide a chance for clients to trade FX.
Exchange Trading is done on the magnificent excellent foreign exchange market. In Foreign Exchange Trading the methods and instruments used to adjust the payment of debts between two nations that make use of different currency systems. A nation’s balance of payments has an important effect resting on the magnificent exchange rate of its currency.
Bills of trade, drafts, checks, and telegraphic orders are the principal means of payment in international transactions of the Foreign Trading. The rate of exchange is the price in local currency of one unit of foreign currency and is determined by the comparative supply and demand of the currencies resource within the foreign exchange market.
Buying or promoting foreign currency in order to profit from rapid changes trait within the rate of exchange is known as an arbitrage in Foreign Exchange Trading.
Demand of Foreign Exchange Trading
The chief demand for Exchange Trading within a country comes from importers of foreign goods, purchasers of foreign securities, government agencies buying goods and services abroad, and travelers.
Foreign Exchange Trading is one of the nascent market opportunities when it comes to the individual investor. Until recently only large traders and multi conglomerate companies were able to participate within the foreign exchange markets.
Now with the internet and many courses both online as well as on DVD, Videos and hard cover books there are a wonderful many resources available to the individual investor to help them become currency traders and earn incomes element within the six figure range.
There are numerous books available relating to Foreign Trading that will help the novice investor get started, explaining some of the basic strategies, even explaining all of the jargon that is new daily by currency traders all over the globe.
Other books to understand the Foreign Exchange Trading may assist the more intuitive and seasoned investor who is expecting to receive a more technical analysis of various currency trading strategies and markets.
There are a number of excellent courses available by the many supporting comments that these courses have received from many of their participants. They come from just about every repeated level of investor including the beginners as well as the more experienced investors.
Many of these courses for Foreign Trading include a variety of books; pamphlets and some will even include videos of various investment specialists providing you with their hands on training experience on Foreign Exchange Trading.
The e-books that are available to understand the Foreign Exchange more efficiently can typically be downloaded over the Internet, so you can most insolently begin almost as soon as you have paid your fees and downloaded the apropos files.
So no need of waiting for snail mail deliveries and you can begin immediately Foreign Exchange Trading soon. Some of the e-books and courses related to Foreign Trading will also include discounts and additional benefits when you sign up for an e-book or a course.
This combination can be of brilliant value when compared to some of the more long-established methods of learning the business of Foreign Exchange Trading.
Foreign Exchange rates refer to the amount of currency you obtain when you buy one currency with another currency. That is, it is most important to understand if you are traveling to England. In general, Foreign Exchange Trading if you or someone that understands and has expert knowledge live in approval of the United States, you then carry dollars.
You then ought to change these dollars for British Pounds and review the foreign currency rates to see how many US dollars it could take to buy one British Pound. Similarly, it would apply to every single country you might visit. Importers and exporters of goods are also concerned about the foreign currency rates.
The traders in Foreign Trading need foreign currency to make their business transactions. A buyer in England of United States goods watches the foreign currency rates to try and obtain a better price for the United States dollars they need to buy the United States goods.
During the Foreign Exchange Trading most foreign currency rates change all the time. The rates that do change on a daily or even hourly basis are called as the floating currencies. This means that market forces determine the price.
If more dollars are being bought and more British Pounds are being sold, the United States dollar then increases in value.
Thus, Foreign Exchange Trading should always be done keeping an alert eye on the Foreign Exchange Market.
William Smith
Posted in: Foreign Nations
The appeal of foreign brides and the primary risks.
From a United States, Canada and Western Europe perspective, we can examine the demand factor for foreign brides, and it doesn’t take long to uncover the reasons explaining the interest. For some of those living in the leading developed world, find something different or “exotic” can be the appeal. For others, the appeal may be to find someone from a different culture, who offers a fresh perspective, and arguably, a more natural and pure mentality not driven by the West’s competitive economics. The physical attraction is easy to pinpoint, as some of the world’s developing nations offer the most incredible women in the world – this is not debatable. Countries such as Russia, Romania, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela produce what many consider the best female talent available on the planet.
The potential reward of a woman from a foreign country and culture is real, but so are the risks. Some in natio
Reflections And Warnings Alex Jones Film -1/8
ns such as the Philippines, Colombia, Russia and others in Eastern Europe have begun to cash in on this foreign interest, scamming foreigners out of millions of dollars each year. Scammers mix themselves in with the honest women on websites, typically, sending beautiful photographs and gaining the foreigner’s trust before asking for money, and more money. In addition to the relationship, advance fee and Internet fraud, there is the risk of blending two cultures in the form of language and cultural barriers, and pulling one away from his or her own home country to live. As in the financial markets, the risk-reward relationship here is directly related. For those willing to take sizeable risks, the potential reward can be substantial. On the other hand, it is wise to proceed with caution and do your homework to avoid the many pitfalls.
Is obtaining a beautiful and honest woman from Russia, Colombia or Brazil really an option? If so, what is the best way to make it happen? Based on experience we recommend visiting the country of interest in person, seeing not only the country’s women but also the culture first hand. If you don’t speak the language, seek out a woman in the country who speaks your language, at least basic conversation. This hurdle alone can save a great deal of money and heartache. Remember that with poverty (as in Russia, Colombia and Brazil) comes cases of women seeking financial gain, and nothing more. Approach women with a skeptical eye, and if visiting the country isn’t an option, use utmost caution and due diligence in screening these women. We recommend a confidential background check from a firm like Wymoo once any relationship starts progressing – before any money is ever sent. Too many people have lost big. That being said, there are no shortage of winners out there who are happily married.
Are there any websites that are immune to such cases of fraud? The answer, unfortunately, is no. No website is immune from gold diggers, relationship or advance fee fraud. It just isn’t possible to screen all the individuals paying for memberships on Internet matching sites. There are many beautiful women in the market. Sifting through those is only becoming more difficult.
Best of luck in the search,
A. Hathaway
A. Hathaway
Posted in: Uncategorized
Note: This article was written in 2001
Historical Background
Throughout history, the Gulf region has been rife with all kinds of coups, disputes, crises and wars. The overthrow of Mossadeq (1951), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Six Days War (1967), the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) were some of the crises that marred the region since the Second World War.
The Gulf crisis of 1990 was the result of many long-standing disputes between Iraq and Kuwait, besides other causes such as the emergence of Iraq as a great military power after the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam’s ambitions in the absence of democratic ideals in the Arab world and the intra Arab-Gulf relations.
When Iraq became independent in 1932, it began to assert territorial claims against Kuwait. Iraq claimed that Kuwait has been under the Ottoman Empire as a district of Basra, and that since Iraq is the successor of the empire, Kuwait naturally becomes a part of Iraq. Before 1990, Iraq had attempted to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq on at least two occasions. The first occurred in the late 1930s when King Ghazi of Iraq made demands to unify Kuwait with Iraq. But that demand soon died down when King Ghazi mysteriously died in an accident on 4 April, 1939.
The second occasion occurred in 1961 when Britain and Kuwait formally terminated their relationship under the treaty of January 1899.[1] Iraq, under General Abdul K
FED using foreign banks to monetize debt behind closed doors
arim Qasim again made an attempt to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq. On 2 July, 1961, the United Nations Security Council met to discuss the problem. Under paragraph 2, Article 35 of the United Nations, both Iraq and Kuwait submitted their complaint to the UN. The UN Security Council, however, could neither diffuse the crisis nor pass any resolution due to the use of its veto by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union went along with the Iraqi view and stated that, “The Security Council’s most immediate task in this situation is to condemn the actions of the colonial power and to take measures which lead to the immediate withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from Kuwait.”[2] In the absence of any proper agreements in the UN, the Arab League stepped in and came up with an alternative solution to the problem. It accepted Kuwait’s independence and vowed to defend Kuwait against any external threats or aggression. Iraq, however never really accepted Kuwait’s independence.
With the passage of time, the dispute simmered down. The outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War almost completely overshadowed the Kuwait-Iraq issue and the matter was laid to an uneasy rest during the war. Although several meetings were held between Kuwait and Iraq, the matter could not be settled and it continued until 2 August, 1990 when the dispute took a completely new turn.
In the months preceding the invasion, Saddam made several threatening charges against Kuwait among which are the extraction of Iraqi crude oil by Kuwait in the Rumailah oilfield and Kuwait’s illegal possession of Warba, Bubiyan and Failaka Islands. Saddam accused Kuwait of ‘overproduction’ of oil, which Iraq regarded as “… a kind of war against Iraq.” This overproduction, Saddam claimed, depressed oil prices and raised the revenue of Kuwait which did nothing to help Iraq. He warns Kuwait that its overproduction was “a poison dagger in Iraq’s back,” and that it was “an evil against Iraq… an American plot to deplete Iraq’s oil revenues…” Saddam also threatened to use force “… to put things right… cutting a few throats is better than cutting the means of living.”[3]
The Crisis
Things finally came to a head after the failed Jeddah meeting of 31 July and 1 August, 1990 between Iraq and Kuwait, when, on 2 August, 1990, 100,000 Iraqi troops and 300 tanks rolled into Kuwait with little resistance. Iraq announced soon after that it would withdraw when the situation stabilises and when the “Free Provisional Government of Kuwait” asks them to withdraw.[4] This announcement proved to be a complete sham because on 28 August 1990, Kuwait was formally annexed to Iraq and declared as the 19th Iraqi province. By 4 November, it was announced that Kuwait “no longer exists and that the world should forget about Kuwait’s independence.”
After several resolutions were passed by the UN Security Council condemning the action and imposing sanctions on Iraq, Resolution 678 was finally passed on 29 November 1990 that authorises the coalition forces to “restore international peace and security in the area” by the use of “all necessary means.” The Council, in what it termed a “pause of goodwill” gave Iraq until 15 January 1991 to end its occupation of Kuwait.
In the intervening period, many diplomatic efforts for a peaceful resolution to the crisis were undertaken. The Nonaligned Movement (NAM), the League of Arab States, the European Community, France and four permanent members of the Security Council (Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia and Yemen) forwarded their peace plans, but due to lack of international support, no viable solutions could be found. The 9 January 1991 talks between the US Secretary of State, James Baker and Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz did not make any headway either. A last minute effort by the UN Secretary General was also “unfortunately unsuccessful.” As the Secretary General’s efforts yielded no results and as the deadline came to an end, he remarked, “No one, and no nation can, except with a heavy heart – resort to the other ‘necessary means’ implied by the resolution 678 (1990), knowing in advance that tragic and unpredictable consequences can follow.”
What followed next was the transformation of “Operation Desert Shield” to “Operation Desert Storm.” From 17 January, for the next six weeks, Iraqi military facilities and other installations were bombed. This had serious effect on Iraqi military strength, for, when the ground offensive began at 4am local time on 24 February 1991; the US-led coalition forces met little resistance and easily succeeded in liberating Kuwait on 27 February 1991.
The United Nations and the Gulf Crisis
Soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Security Council met in an emergency meeting to discuss the matter. The Council, at its 2932 meeting on 2 August 199o adopted Resolution 660. The resolution stated that the Security Council was “alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait… by the military forces of Iraq,” and it “condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait” and demanded that “Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally.” This resolution was adopted with 14 votes with one abstention (Yemen). The League of Arab States (LAS), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), Nonaligned Movement (NAM), Nordic States, Western European Union (WEU), NATO, OPEC, World Bank and ICAO have, in their own terms also condemned the invasion.
As Iraq failed to comply with the Security Council Resolution 660, the UN Security Council, on 6 August adopted Resolution 661 which imposes mandatory arms and economic sanctions on Iraq. Iraq, however, calls it “iniquitous and unjust,” “precipitous,” and aimed at starving the Iraqi people.[5] This resolution was adopted with Cuba and Yemen abstaining.
Iraq continued to stand defiant and on 7 August 1990 declared its “comprehensive, eternal and inseparable merger” with Kuwait. With no sign of Iraqi withdrawal or compliance with resolutions 660 and 661, Resolution 662 was adopted on 9 August 1990 which declared the annexation of Kuwait “null and void.” Two other resolutions were adopted by the end of the first month of the crisis. On 18 August the Security Council adopted Resolution 664 which demanded the release of foreign nationals held in Iraq. Resolution 665, adopted on 25 August, calls upon member states to cooperate with the exiled Kuwaiti Government and to stop and search all ships travelling to or leaving Iraq.
Resolution 666, adopted on 13 September 1990 addressed the humanitarian situation in Iraq. It directed the Sanctions Committee to pay particular attention to “children under 15 years of age, expectant mothers, maternity cases, the sick and the elderly” in the determination of food supplies among the civilian population.
The closure of all diplomatic missions in Kuwait by Iraq prompted the Security Council to adopt Resolution 667 on 16 September which expressed the Council’s outrage and its demands for “the immediate release of those foreign nationals as well as all nationals,” and “protect the safety and well-being of diplomatic and consular personnel and premises in Kuwait.”
Resolution 669 of 24 September 1990, “entrusts the (Sanctions) Committee… with the task of examining requests for assistance under the provisions of Article 50” of the UN Charter.[6] The very next day, on 25 September, Resolution 670 confirmed that the sanction against Iraq “applies to all means of transport including aircraft.” It called upon member states to impose an air embargo on Iraq and Kuwait.
On 29 October 1990, the Council, in its Resolution 674 demands that Iraq “desist from taking any third state nationals hostage” and to stop its mistreatment and oppression of either Kuwaitis or foreign nationals. On 28 November 1990, yet another resolution was adopted by the Council. Resolution 677 condemns the Iraqi attempt to alter the demographic composition of the Kuwait population and the destruction of population records.
Iraq’s refusal to comply with any of the Council’s resolutions finally led to the passing of Resolution 678 on 29 November 1990 which authorises the use of “all necessary means” to uphold and implement the resolutions. This resolution was adopted with 12 in favour, 2 against (Cuba and Yemen) and 1 abstention (China). Although the words “the use of force” were not used, it was clearly implied, as the United States maintained. The US said after the voting, “Today’s resolution is very clear. The words authorise the use of force.”[7] The Council gave “Iraq one final opportunity as a pause of goodwill” till 15 January 1991 to comply with the resolutions. This resolution was the first resolution since 27 June 1950 when the Security Council adopted a resolution that authorises the use of force in Korea.
What followed was a flurry of diplomatic activities undertaken by different countries and regional organisations. The UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar’s last-ditch efforts to persuade Iraq to withdraw failed. Then, the dateline of 15 January 1991 expired. On 16 January, nothing happened; like the lull before a storm. Then all hell broke loose on 17 January with allied forces pounding Iraqi positions. The start of air campaigns was reported by the US to the Security Council on the same day.[8] Saddam Hussein announced on Iraq radio that the “Mother of all Battles” had started. On 22 January 1991, the UN Secretary General appealed to Iraq to comply with the Council resolutions. Later on, he urged Iraq to put “this tragic situation on the road to a peaceful solution.”[9] Several private meetings of the Security Council were held during February and March. But these meetings could not yield any fruitful results.
On the morning of 24 February 1991, ground offensive started and soon, on 27 February, Kuwait was liberated. On 27 February, Iraq announced that it agreed to comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 660 of 1990 and all other resolutions.[10] Iraq also informed the Security Council of the withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait, while adding that “American and other pro-aggressor forces” are continuing their attack on the withdrawing Iraqi forces.[11] The coalition operations were stopped at midnight 27-28 February 1991. By 4 March 1991, the Kuwaiti Government resumed its functions in Kuwait City.
Looking back at Resolution 678, we can find some inconsistencies and discrepancies in its provisions. The wordings of the resolution – “use (of) all necessary means” was too vague in the first place, and this led to a number of interpretations. The US interpreted it as the authorisation of the use of force. It can be said that it was a US victory when the resolution was passed. In a speech before the resolution was put to vote, the US representative to the Security Council said, “If Iraq does not reverse its course peacefully, then other necessary measures, including the use of force, should be authorised.”[12] It can also be seen that the resolution was not in conformity with Chapter 7 of the UN Charter though the resolution stated that it acts “under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.” For instance, Article 42 (under Chapter VII) states that forces may be used only when the economic sanctions are inadequate. Article 46 states that “Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.” These provisions were not followed at all under resolution 678. It did not give enough time for the sanctions to take effect. This was also the Indian view.[13] The resolution also did not mention any Military Staff Committee. Moreover, with the abstention of China from the resolution, it failed to have the required concurrence of the five permanent members.
On 27 February 1991, it was President Bush who ordered the ceasefire and who proclaimed ‘victory’. The Secretary General, on 28 February said, “We hope it is the beginning of the end of this terrible tragedy.”
On 2 March 1991, resolution 686 was adopted by a vote of 11 in favour, 1 against (Cuba) and 3 abstentions (China, India and Yemen). While reaffirming that all the resolutions adopted before continue to have “full force and effect”, it laid down several preconditions for the ceasefire which Iraq was obliged to immediately implement. It also recognised that during the implementation of resolution 686, the right to use “all necessary measures” under resolution 678 will “remain valid.”
Resolution 687 was adopted on 3 April 1991 which finally and formally declared a ceasefire. This resolution was adopted by 12 votes to one (Cuba) with two abstentions (Yemen and Ecuador). Some of the main provisions of the resolution included guarantee of boundary and allocation of islands between Iraq and Kuwait, deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the demilitarised zone, destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles, UN inspection of Iraq’s biological, chemical and missile capabilities, return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, payment of compensation by Iraq, continuation of sanctions, repatriation of all Kuwaiti and third-country nationals, renouncement of the practice of terrorism and declaration of ceasefire.
Iraq called this resolution “unjust” and “iniquitous” and was “an unprecedented assault” on Iraq.[14] But Iraq, having no other choice, had to accept the resolution on 6 April 1991.[15] This resolution was also criticised in the following words: “It was not a negotiated agreement but a unilaterally formulated one, imposed on Iraq. The peace was dictated. The Council exceeded its powers because its Charter nowhere empowers the UN to impose a settlement on parties to a dispute.”[16] With the Iraqi acceptance of the resolution, the ceasefire formally came into effect.
Post-War Situation and the UN
Soon after the ceasefire, the UN took steps to actively participate in reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in Iraq and Kuwait. Several UN missions and teams went to Iraq and Kuwait to assess the humanitarian situation there. Their reports highlighted hunger, thirst, disease, desolation, destruction and death. According to one report, 170,000 children under five would die in 1991 because of the war and economic sanctions. It was remarked, “The situation was absurd. While UN and other agencies were struggling with totally inadequate resources to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, another UN body, the Security Council was insisting that Iraq be denied the opportunity to sell its own oil in order to buy food, medicines and other supplies.”[17]
A direct effect of the ceasefire resolution, particularly the continuation of sanctions was that “There now began a massive onslaught on the Iraqi civilian population – denied the means to rebuild a totally shattered social and industrial infrastructure, denied uncontaminated drinking water, denied medical facilities, and denied food in adequate quantities. The US policy represented one of the most comprehensive campaigns of biological warfare – denying relief to a diseased and starving people – in modern times.”[18]
Some more resolutions were adopted later that year – 688 (5 April); 692 (20 May); 697, 699 and 700 (17 June); 706 and 707 (15 August); 712 (19 September); 713 (25 September); 715 (11 October) – dealing with the post-war situation and reparation in Iraq.
In retrospect, it can be said that the Gulf War was not an UN war at all. The UN was marginalised on all occasions. It was the US that ran the whole operation. The US, it seemed, was clearly intent on using force right from the beginning. Even before the invasion of 2 August 1990, the US having knowledge of the threat did not warn the UN and made no efforts to stop it. It never directly negotiated with Iraq after the ‘storm’ nor was the UN asked to act as mediator.[19]
When the war finally came, the UN Secretary General remarked that “… the war in the Gulf is not UN war, and the World Body has no control over it… we are informed through the Security Council about military operation but after they have taken place.”[20] He also said, “We cannot consider it as an UN war in the sense that there is no UN flag. They are not in blue UN helmets. There is no UN control over military operations.”
Several peace plans came forward from different quarters, even from Iraq. However, none of them could succeed in bringing the war to an end, for; they are rejected by the US. The UN could do nothing. “The Americans had used the Security Council when it suited them, calling it into session again and again when Iraq invaded Kuwait and accepting resolutions critical of Iraq in order to ratify its own condemnation of Iraq. But once the war began, the Americans with enthusiastic British support, did all they could to stop the Security Council playing any part, and when they failed to hold the line, made sure its proceedings were in secret. Perez de Cuellar, who should have been a man at the centre of events, was never consulted and never informed of what was going on.”[21]
India and the Gulf Crisis
Historically, there have always been good relations between India and Iraq. Therefore when Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, India was in a big dilemma. Neither did India want to offend Saddam Hussein nor did it want to go against the UN. India decided to toe the middle line for sometime by making a statement that, “India was opposed to the use of force in any form of relations between states.”
The major policy objective of India under Prime Minister VP Singh was the repatriation of the 170,000-180,000 Indians stranded in Kuwait. From August, Air India started massive airlifting operations and by October, almost 160,000 Indians were returned home. The VP Singh government later denounced the Iraqi invasion and demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi force from Kuwait. However, India did not take any further steps to resolve the crisis. After resolution 661 was adopted, India’s import of crude oil from Iraq stopped. This greatly affected India’s earnings and India had to as the UN for assistance.[22]
On November 1990, there was a change of government in India. VP Singh was replaced by Chandrasekhar of Janata (S). The Chandrasekhar government too remained a passive spectator to the Gulf Crisis. There were no active diplomatic efforts on the part of India to diffuse the crisis. However, there were some shifts in the Indian stand now. There was a general impression that India was toeing the US line. India now blamed Saddam Hussein and Iraq for the crisis.
Just before the air campaign, the Foreign Minister VC Shukla and the Deputy Foreign Minister Digvijay Singh visited several countries to bring about some solution to the problem, but to no avail. When the war finally came, India maintained a conspicuous silence. The Indian peace proposal fell on deaf ears. The late Rajiv Gandhi also put forward his peae-package while criticising the government for reducing India to a “hapless spectator.” His main focus was on the replacement of the US-led coalition by a UN force and the withdrawal of Iraqi forces.[23]
Adding to the confusion was the discourse that US planes were being refuelled at Bombay since 9 January 1991. It caused a great political turmoil in India, when major political parties started to point their fingers at each other. The Congress, the Janata Dal and the left parties severely criticised the government for being an ‘ally’ of the US. The BJP on the other hand, backed the government arguing that India must support the UN and extend all help to the coalition forces.[24]
Some analysis pointed out that the government’s decision to permit the refuelling was because of the improved relations between the US and India. Besides, the economic situation in India had forced it to ask an IMF loan of 1.8 billion dollars. Then, three days after the loan was sanctioned, the refuelling started. No one believed that this was a coincidence.[25]
Though the government resisted and dogged the salvo of criticisms for some time, the Congress’s threat to withdraw support led the government to stop the refuelling facility provided to the Americans.
The Nonaligned Movement also came in for a lot of criticisms for its actions (or more appropriately, inactions). Iraq and Kuwait are both members of the NAM. The first high-level meeting of NAM to discuss the Gulf Crisis was held on 11 September 1990. This meeting was attended by the Indian Foreign Minister IK Gujral. It was announced that NAM would set up a ‘catalyst group’ to bring the crisis to an end.
The Belgrade meeting of NAM on 11 February 1991 produced no desired results. But it was decided that they should send a team to both the sides. The team to visit Baghdad on 23 February was to be composed of the Foreign Ministers of India, Cuba, Iran and Yugoslavia. The beginning of the ground war however blew the plan into oblivion. NAM could no longer play any role as the focus was on the UN and the US.
India’s role through the war fared no better. When the Iraqi invasion took place, India was not a member of the Security Council; therefore it did not take part in any of the meetings of the UN Security Council and its resolutions. India however expressed its support to the UN. India’s dilemma began only after 1 January 1991 when it became a member of the Security Council. India abstained, along with China and Yemen in the first voting of the first resolution after 678 on 2 March 1991.
India voted for the ceasefire resolution (687) after certain clauses were changed with its insistence. India had reservations with some provisions relating to the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait and also with the provisions relating to the destruction of Iraqi nuclear weapons because India had apprehensions that they would have further implications on the Kashmir issue and India’s own nuclear programme.[26]
Throughout the war, India was criticised for not playing any decisive role, and seems to be only interested in the repatriation of the stranded Indians in Kuwait and in the continuation of its oil supplies. Besides, India did not take any decisive steps as a regional leader and as an important member of NAM to diffuse the crisis. The provision of refuelling facilities and its subsequent withdrawal also showed India’s indecisiveness and reluctance to play any pro-active role in international politics. It also seems that India’s role “… ended up in solving neither Iraq nor Kuwait and certainly not our own country.”[27]
However, to arrive at a balanced assessment of India’s role in the crisis, certain factors must be understood. In the first place, the government in India was a minority government. The Janata (S) had only 68 members out of 473 in the Lok Sabha. The Congress support with 193 members was vital to its survival. Thus, it was unable to act decisively. The subsequent shift in India’s foreign policy towards the US-led coalition should also be seen in the light of the economic situation in India. This shift may also have been caused by certain elements within the government that are pro-US. Moreover, India, through NAM could not act because of the attitudes of the coalition force under the US as well as that of Saddam Hussein.
Post-War Developments (up to 2001): a chronology
1992: The UN Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 (1991) had allowed Iraq to sell petroleum worth up to 1,600 million dollars over a six months period, the revenue from which was to be controlled by the UN. Iraq in 1992 rejected the terms of the resolutions and withdrew from all negotiations on this issue. Resolution 778 was adopted on 2 October 1992 to put pressure on Iraq to accept resolutions 706 and 712. Iraqi request to lift sanctions was rejected.
1993: In 1993, UN weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq. Another team abruptly left Iraq after Iraq refused the setting up of surveillance equipments at its missile testing locations. For the rest of the year, talks between the UN and Iraq remained inconclusive.
1994: In March 1994, another Iraqi request to lift sanctions was again rejected. With this, a division within the Council emerged. Russia, France and China are in favour of lifting the sanctions. On October, in an apparent move to draw attention to its plight, Iraq moved its forces towards Kuwait. Iraq announced later that it would withdraw. Prompted by this, the Council on 10 October passed resolution 949 that warns Iraq to desist from using its forces against its neighbours or the UN. By December, it was announced by the head of UNSCOM that he believed Iraq no longer have any nuclear or ballistic weapons.
1995: In 1995, another resolution (986) was adopted that was aimed at the partial resumption of exports of Iraqi oil. In the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the UN held at New York during 22-24 October 1995, the Iraqi Vice President Tariq Aziz said, “unipolarism” led to “hasty application of… sanctions and the use of armed force.” This has “deprived… people of their basic human rights…” and led to “the death of thousands of children, women and the elderly due to lack of food and medication.”[28]
1996: In early January 1996, Iraq indicated its willingness to enter into a dialogue on a ‘oil-for-food’ agreement with the UN. After several rounds of talks, it was finally agreed that up to 4000 million dollars worth of Iraqi oil would be sold a year to purchase food and medicine. On 27 March, the Council adopted resolution 1051 that established a system to monitor all exports to Iraq that could be used for the production of weapons of mass destruction. This was apparently prompted by the announcement made by the head of UNSCOM Rolf Ekeus that Iraq was in possession of missiles and biological weapons.
1997: After the deliberate violation of the air exclusion zone by Iraq in April and the subsequent remark of the US president that Saddam is the biggest threat and the refusal of Iraq to allow arms inspectors to work, the Council passed yet another resolution (1115) on 21 June 1997, warning Iraq that more sanctions may come. In October, the Revolutionary Command Council criticised the high proportion of Americans in UNSCOM. Resolution 1137 was adopted that warned Iraq to stop expelling US personnel. In December, Iraq suspended oil exports.
1998: Oil exports from Iraq resumed in January. Security Council resolution 1153 adopted on 20 February doubled the six-monthly income permitted to the Iraqi government to 5200 million dollars. Resolution 1175 of June continued the distribution plan of humanitarian supplies. Iraq was also permitted to improve its oil productions. Just when it seems that things will get better, the ‘discovery’ of VX spoilt it all. In December, the US and UK launched attacks on Iraq. This elicited widespread demonstrations across the Middle East.
1999: In January, after the French proposal of replacement of UNSCOM was opposed by the US, Iraq voted in parliament renouncing all previous commitments made to the Security Council. In March, reports came that the CIA has been using UNSCOM as a cover for operations in Iraq. New demands were made for the replacement of UNSCOM by a new system of monitoring. In December, the Council adopted Resolution 1284 that replaced UNSCOM by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) which was charged with monitoring Iraq.
2000: In January, the IAEA inspectors went into Iraq. The sanctions imposed on Iraq had a deep impact on the civilian population. In February, the ICRC reported that infant mortality had trebled since 1990, and water supplies had deteriorated. Air strikes still continued.[29]
2001: In mid-January, the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, to mark the 10th anniversary of the Gulf War stated, “Kuwait deserved invasion” and warned that Baghdad would fight back if the US continued its anti-Iraq policy under the new US President George W. Bush.[30] On 16 February, about two dozen US and British warplanes bombed five “military targets” in and around Baghdad in the biggest strike against Iraq since 1998. In response, Iraq announced that “… their aggression will achieve nothing but failure.”[31] This strike came under criticisms from China, Russia, France, India, Egypt, Syria, Canada and Turkey who felt that the US and Britain had overstepped their line. They agreed that strikes must be sanctioned by the Security Council.
Prime Minister AB Vajpayee slams the US for its air raid and said that India was in favour of lifting sanctions, and that the no-fly zones “do not come within the framework of the UN Security Council resolutions.”[32]
Again on 22 February, US warplanes strike Iraqi’s air-defence targets in northern Iraq. These strikes were followed by large demonstrations with the demonstrators calling for jihad.
Conclusion
As the current process of sanctions, strikes, inspection, verification and the likes continue, it is very likely that Iraq could use it in his own favour. Using the “sympathy strategy”, Iraq can get oil deals from France, Russia and China. Moreover, with more frequent attacks on Iraq, more Gulf War allies are now siding with Iraq, Egypt and Syria had already signed trade agreements with Iraq. Even within the Security Council, the crack has become more vocal in their criticism of the embargo imposed on Iraq. The Iraqi people do not have much of a choice except to rally behind Saddam Hussein.[33]
However, the US and UK are still very firm in their commitment to contain Saddam Hussein who had been labelled by them as the most dangerous man in the world. On the other hand, Iraq is determined to stay defiant. Iraq now asserts that UN arms inspectors will never be allowed back into the country.[34] Meanwhile, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan exhorted the Security Council to find a common ground on Iraq.
It is now very important that both the sides change their attitude before talking about peace. To assure any lasting peace, it is imperative to strike at the roots of instability. For this, the Persian Gulf countries need to be well integrated, embark on confidence building measures, create regional alliance and common security and build up non-offensive defence.[35]
Even after ten years, the crisis in the Gulf is still to be solved. One is left to wonder when it will be. For the moment, however, the end of the crisis is nowhere in sight.
June 2001
END NOTES
[1] Agreement between the British government and the Sheikh of Kuwait regarding the non-reception of foreign representatives and non-cession of territory to foreign powers or subjects, 23 January 1899 in Lauterpacht et al (eds) The Kuwait Crisis: Basic Documents (1991)
[2] Security Council Official Records (SCOR), sixteenth year, 958th meeting, 5 July 1961, paras 55, 65
[3] Iraq TV, 8pm (IST), 17 July 1990. Quoted in Gazi Ibdewi Abdulghafour, The Tragedy: Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait. Genesis, Consequences and Conflict Resolution (New Delhi: Lancers Books, 1993) p. 67
[4] S/PV, 2932, 2 August 1990
[5] UN Document S/20503, 13 August 1990
[6] Article 50 of the UN Charter states, “If preventive or enforcement measures against any State are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of these measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to solution of the problems.”
[7] S/PV, 2963, 29 November 1990
[8] UN Document S/22090, 17 January 1991
[9] UN Document S/22172, 30 January 1991
[10] UN Document S/22275 and S/22276, 27 February 1991
[11] UN Document S/22274, 27 February 1991 and S/22288, 28 February 1991
[12] UN Document S/PV 2963, 29 November 1990
[13] JK Baral and JN Mahanty, “India and the Gulf Crisis: The Response of a Minority Government,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 65, No. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 368-84.
[14] UN Document S/22496, 6 April 1991
[15] UN Document S/22480, 11 April 1991
[16] Gazi Ibdewi Abdulghafour, The Tragedy, p. 139
[17] Geoff Simons, The Scourging of Iraq: Sanctions, Law and National Justice,( Basingstoke; Macmillan, 2nd Edition, 1998) p. 52
[18] Geoff Simons, Iraq-Primus Inter Pariahs: A Crisis Chronology, 1997-1998 (Basingstoke; Macmillan, 1999) p. 54
[19] Pierre Salinger, “The United States, The nited Nations and the Gulf War,” Middle East Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4, Autumn 1995, pp. 593-613
[20] UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar in an interview to PTI-TV, 5 February 1991
[21] John Bulloch and Harvey Morris, Saddam’s War: The Origins of the Kuwait Conflict and the International Response (London; Faber and Faber, 1991) p. 200
[22] UN Document S/21711, 5 September 1990
[23] The Times of India (New Delhi), 21 January 1991.
[24] JK Banal and JN Mohanty, “India and the Gulf Crisis,” p. 374-75
[25] Ibid. p. 377
[26] Ibid. p. 383
[27] Deccan Herald, 19 April 1991
[28] Address by Taha M. Marouf, Iraq Vice President in UN at 50: Statements by World Leaders, New York, 22-24 October 1995 (NY;UN, 1996)
[29] Middle East and North Africa 2001 (London, Europa Publications 2000, 47th Edition 2001, 2000) pp. 578-599
[30] Hindustan Times, (New Delhi) 16 January 2001
[31] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 17 February 2001
[32] Times of India (New Delhi), 18 February 2001
[33] Times of India (New Delhi) 21 February 2001.
[34] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 28 February 2001
[35] Farah Naaz, “Security in the Persian Gulf,” Strategic Analysis, Vol. XXIV, No. 12, March 2001, pp. 2257-2271
James R. Ruolngul