PRESS CONFERENCE BY CHAIRMAN OF SANCTIONS COMMITTEE

29 August 1996

Press Briefing

19960829 FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY

The Chairman of the Security Council Committee set up to monitor the sanctions against Iraq, Tono Eitel (Germany), said at a press conference yesterday evening that the Committee had asked the United States for more information concerning their allegations over maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf, in violation of the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq.

The press conference was held at the conclusion of a meeting of the Committee, which the Chairman said had been attended by four overseers from the Russian Federation, Norway, the United States, "though nothing substantial regarding their presence was discussed".

Mr. Eitel then described three items on the meeting's agenda. The first was a letter dated 17 June from the United States that drew the attention of the Committee to violations of the sanctions regime occurring in the territorial waters within the Persian Gulf. This, he recalled, had been mentioned previously, and the Committee had asked for more substantiated information. Now the United States brought in two experts from the Department of State to show the Committee statistics and slides on maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf.

"My impression, and that of other colleagues, was that it was a justified suspicion, which needs further investigation", the Chairman said. "We asked for something in writing from the United States delegation, since we are neither experts in oil nor in trafficking", he continued, adding that the purpose of that request was to have information to send to the Committee members' respective governments. In all likelihood, the Committee would again take up the issue when the written information arrived.

The meeting had also dealt with a note from Turkey, dated 5 August, which contained a request to "urgently resume the importation of petroleum products from Iraq, for Turkey's own needs", Mr. Eitel continued, stating that the request had been met with "much sympathy". "Clearly, Turkey is suffering from Iraq's sanctions." The Committee was prepared to deal with such problems, but several delegations noted that Council resolution 986 (1995) -- the "oil-for-food" formula -- was close to implementation, and suggested that the resolution's economic impact on Turkey be assessed before acting on the letter. Mr. Eitel pointed out that according to the resolution, the larger share of Iraqi oil would go through Turkish pipelines.

[By Council resolution 986 (1995), the Council authorized States to permit the import of up to $1 billion in Iraqi petroleum and petroleum

products every 90 days to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and requested the Committee to develop expedited procedures to implement the resolution.]

Mr. Eitel went on to say that the Committee had also dealt with a letter, dated 1 August, from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The letter sought the Committee's approval for a project for the rehabilitation of primary health care services in two Iraqi provinces, Baghdad and Qadissia, in southern Iraq. The UNDP's concern for those two regions stemmed from their real needs as well as the fact that Baghdad was the country's most populated area. The combined population of those areas was 5.2 million. The project aimed to provide them with essential medical equipment and supplies.

All delegations present at the meeting but one were in favour of granting the request immediately, he said. That delegation had said that it had to resolve "bureaucratic" problems, requiring a day or two before consent would be given.

In response to a question on the allegations made by the United States, Mr. Eitel said that he did not have many details; in any case it was not oil but "gas oil" -- a form of crude oil that had undergone some refinement. He added that several delegations had asked how such proceeds would compare to the implementation of resolution 986. "I said that it would be a sort of a poor man's trade" -- likely not as much trade compared to what resolution 986 would entail. Mr. Eitel said that he did not have any precise numbers.

Asked when the alleged traffic had started, Mr. Eitel said that the traffic was still increasing but at a very low level.

The traffic had been going on since February, he said in response to another question.

Had the United States asked for any specific action to be taken? Mr. Eitel said that the United States delegation had accepted the request to provide the information in writing before the Committee decide what to do on the basis of that information.

A correspondent asked what had been the precise allegation concerning Iranian merchants or the Iranian Government. The Chairman said that he had not mentioned Iran and that the allegation said that a coastal State of the Persian Gulf was allowing that sort of traffic to pass through its territorial waters.

The letter from the United States had mentioned Iran specifically, a correspondent said. Another correspondent said that it was rumoured that Iran's Revolutionary Guard was getting the lion's share of money coming out of

Eitel Press Conference - 3 - 29 August 1996

the operation. Mr. Eitel replied, "Whatever the coastal State is getting, indeed it was said that there was such connivance of the coastal State and that they were getting the money", adding that he had no information as to how much money that was or whether they were getting more than the Iraqis.

Regarding the Turkish request, the Chairman said that normally the Committee's meeting were once a month and he hoped that by the next meeting resolution 986 (1995) would have been implemented. He added that the Committee clearly felt that the impact of resolution 986 (1995) on the Turkish situation should be assessed once it was implemented.

Was that a polite way of saying "no" to the Turkish delegation? a correspondent asked. No, there was much sympathy; it was more of a "not yet", the Chairman said. At the meeting, all the delegates who spoke had expressed sympathy concerning Turkey's situation; no one said that the request was to be declined.

How close was resolution 986 (1995) to implementation? a correspondent asked. The question was best addressed to the Secretariat, Mr. Eitel said, adding that he believed that by next month's Committee meeting, that resolution would be implemented.

When would the Chairman meet with the Iranian Ambassador, and what would he say to him? a correspondent asked. The Chairman replied that he saw the Iranian Ambassador occasionally; if the correspondent was referring to a conversation he was going to have with an ambassador from a coastal State of the Persian Gulf, "I will just tell him that some photographs and slides were shown in the Council, and that there was some worry".

How soon would he see the Ambassador of the coastal State? a correspondent asked. "As soon as I can, possibly tomorrow", Mr. Eitel replied. In response to another question, he said that the contact would be in person and not by telephone.

Did the allegations imply a serious breach of the sanctions? a correspondent asked. Mr. Eitel said that the traffic in the Persian Gulf did not concern "one little row boat" but a number of ships that had been identified by their names.

Asked why the matter had been brought only now to the attention of the Committee, the Chairman said that he assumed it had been due to the increase of traffic.

Did members of the Committee think it might have been due to political considerations of the United States, considering the law that have just been passed trying to isolate Iran and Libya? There had been no indication of that, Mr. Eitel said. Washington's motives were entirely pure then, the

Eitel Press Conference - 4 - 29 August 1996

correspondent added. "I assume that everybody's motives are entirely pure", Mr. Eitel replied, adding that nothing had been mentioned in that sense.

Did the increase refer to number of ships, or their capacity and the estimation of the amount of oil involved? It was rather the amount of gas oil involved, Mr. Eitel responded.

Would the Committee ask any other country for cooperation in the observation of the traffic in the Persian Gulf? It had not been considered, the Chairman said. He added that the Commander of the Multilateral Integration Force was an United States admiral and therefore information would arrive through the United States administration. "You may recall that three quarters of a year ago, Admiral Redd was in the Committee and briefed us on the general work", he added.

* *** *