The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi-analysis] Burying Genocide - The UN "Oil For Food" Programme



[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ]


[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

Dear all,
here's an article by Media Lens, that really should have been written by someone from CASI. What's 
happening? Why did nobody reply to any of the allegations made these last few days? When will 
someone wake up? I'm really quite amazed to see that nothing happens.
Can we broaden this discussion, or do I have to send messages like these everyday? Without any 
reaction?
This list used to be so fast in reacting to false allegations and lies. And now there's total 
silence on this issue that made CASI famous all over the world.
Wake up, please !
Dirk adriaensens.
Burying Genocide - The UN "Oil For Food" Programme
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6081.htm
Half a million dead Iraqi children are deemed irrelevant in coverage of allegations of UN oil for 
food' programme corruption

04/23/04 "Media Lens" -- As Media Lens has reported on many occasions, mainstream media show an 
astonishing capacity for overlooking western crimes against the people of Iraq: a country utterly 
devastated by two US-UK wars, and by twelve years of sanctions that resulted in more than a million 
civilian deaths.

Current coverage of allegations of corruption in the UN's oil for food¹ programme is a dramatic 
case in point.

The oil for food programme was set up in 1996 by Denis Halliday, then the UN¹s humanitarian 
coordinator in Iraq, as an ameliorative measure to counter some of the worst effects of sanctions. 
In 1998, Halliday resigned in protest at the devastating effects of the revamped programme. "These 
sanctions," he told journalist John Pilger, "represented ongoing warfare against the people of 
Iraq. They became, in my view, genocidal in their impact over the years, and the Security Council 
maintained them, despite its full knowledge of their impact, particularly on the children of Iraq." 
(John Pilger, 'Who Are The Extremists?', Daily Mirror, August 22, 2003)

In a May 2000 interview, Halliday told us:

²Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions 
Committee with this programme for years - it's a deliberate ploy... That's why I've been using the 
word 'genocide', because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I'm afraid I 
have no other view at this late stage.² (Interview with David Edwards, May 2000, 
http://www.medialens.org/articles_2001/iraqdh.htm)

Halliday¹s allegations, which could hardly be more serious, were based on his own experience in 
Iraq, and also on detailed reports by the UN and aid agencies studying the effects of the sanctions 
regime.

Hans von Sponeck, Halliday's successor as UN humanitarian coordinator, also resigned. In his letter 
of resignation, von Sponeck wrote:

"How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they 
have never done?" (John Pilger, 'Squeezed to death', The Guardian, March 4, 2000)

In a co-written newspaper article for the Guardian, von Sponeck and Halliday cited a UN report 
which concluded: "the death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, 
lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and 
materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad". (Von Sponeck and Halliday, 'The hostage 
nation', The Guardian, November 29, 2001)

In all the endless discussion on Iraq's recent history and, now, on the oil for food programme, the 
liberal media¹ has completely buried these horrific facts. Halliday, for example, was mentioned in 
2 of the 12,366 Guardian and Observer articles mentioning Iraq last year; von Sponeck was mentioned 
just 5 times. Halliday has been mentioned in 0 of the 2,703 articles mentioning Iraq this year; von 
Sponeck has been mentioned 4 times.

In similar vein, Channel 4 News declares:

³The sanctions against Iraq were always bitterly criticised for allegedly directing funds to Saddam 
Hussein rather than the Iraqi people. Now it¹s questionable whether some of the profits also went 
abroad.² (Channel 4 News At Noon, April 22, 2004)

The bitter criticism of the genocidal costs of sanctions is not allowed to exist.

Compare this with an article in the Daily Telegraph:

³Critics of the programme say it swiftly became a way for Saddam to reward his friends in the West 
and manipulate the UN.² (ORussian and French politicians ³bribed to relax UN sanctions²¹, Philip 
Delves Broughton, Daily Telegraph, April 22, 2004)

BBC Online covers the same story making the same omissions:

³Recent media reports have accused individuals and companies from more than
40 countries, including a senior UN official, of being involved in corruption and bribery in 
connection with the oil sales.²

The report quotes von Sponeck:

³Former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq Hans von Sponeck said the allegations needed to be 
cleared up, but denied that the world body was closely involved in corruption.

"¹The major part of the transactions where graft, misuse [and] kickbacks were involved by-passed 
United Nations officials,¹ he told the Today programme.² (UN orders Iraq corruption inquiry¹, BBC 
News, April 22, 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3648409.stm)

No mention is made of von Sponeck¹s passionate denunciations of the effects of sanctions on the 
Iraqi people.

The Daily Telegraph twists the truth out of all recognition in another article:

²There was no more bitter argument in the run-up to the war than the allegation by Left-wing 
activists, Arab nationalists and Muslim extremists that United Nations sanctions were murdering¹ 
Iraqi children by denying them food and medicine.

²They blamed Britain and the United States, which had maintained the sanctions in the face of 
growing opposition from France and Russia.

²Saddam's regime routinely arranged for critics of sanctions to tour hospitals and children's homes 
to view the suffering caused.² ('Saddam cronies grew rich on cash meant for the starving', David 
Rennie, Daily Telegraph, April 22, 2004)

The ³Left-wing activists² presumably include the senior UN diplomats who set up and ran the oil for 
food programme, and also UN and aid agency researchers.

The Times¹ editors write:

³It was always obvious that the scheme was not working as intended; Iraqi children went hungry, and 
hospitals went without drugs, while Saddam furnished more palaces.²

The programme is described as merely ³defective² in supporting the Iraqi people. Of the literally 
millions of Iraqis who died and suffered terrible privations, the Times writes blandly:

³The UN stands accused of rank mismanagement, if not outright complicity, in a scandal whose 
victims were vulnerable civilians, some of whom died for lack of medicines.² (Leader, Food for 
scandal¹, The Times, April 22, 2004)


Exchange with The Independent

Exactly the same omissions are found in our most highly respected liberal¹ press. We wrote to 
Andrew Buncombe of The Independent as follows:

22 April, 2004

Dear Andrew,

I'm writing an article for the New Statesman on Iraq. Perhaps I could ask about your article in 
today's Independent. You wrote that:

"The controversial Oil-for-Food programme was set up in 1996 with the aim of helping Iraqis who 
were suffering because of UN sanctions imposed after the 1990-91 Gulf War. The scheme allowed Iraq 
to sell limited amounts of oil, supposedly under tight UN supervision, to finance the purchase of 
food and humanitarian goods." ('Saddam may have bribed head of UN Oil-for-Food [OFF] programme', 
The Independent, April 22, 2004)

You mention that the OFF programme was "controversial". But why did you neglect to mention either 
Denis Halliday or Hans von Sponeck, former heads of that programme, who resigned in protest at the 
devastating effects of UN sanctions?

As you know, Denis Halliday resigned in 1998, describing the sanctions regime as "illegal and 
immoral". "We are in the process of destroying an entire society", he said. Mr Halliday also said 
sanctions were bankrupt as a concept because they damaged innocent people and probably strengthened 
the country's leadership. He has also said that: "I would use the term genocide to define the use 
of sanctions against Iraq."

Hans von Sponeck, resigning from the same position in 2000, said the sanctions had created a "true 
human tragedy". He asked, "For how long should the civilian population, which is totally innocent 
on all this, be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?"

A 1999 Unicef report calculated that more than half a million children had died as a direct result 
of sanctions.

Why was none of this deemed relevant to your report today?

I look forward to hearing from you, please.

regards, David Cromwell


On the same day we received this reply:

david, thank-you for your letter. it is nice to hear from you again and trust all is well with you.

my short answer to your question is that given more space and time i wd not only quoted halliday 
and van sponeck, as you suggest, but everybody else associated with the entire sanctions 
controversy. i wd have quoted madeleine albright ("it was worth it"), ritter, etc, and wd have 
lifted large sections from geoff simons' seminal work, targeting iraq: sanctions and boming in us 
policy.

as it was i had, 460 words - and 20 minutes, given the other piece i was writing yesterday morning 
- to write a short piece on the investigation into the alleged corruption at the UN food programme 
involving three of its senior officials. in my - perhaps misguided - view, i think most people are 
aware of the controvery surrounding the sanctions and given the limited space i had, i had to make 
choices on what information i used.

i don't believe that every short news piece can be, or needs to be, a complete history of every 
topic. that being said, if you feel the issue of sanctions and halliday's view about them has not 
been covered sufficiently i'll endeavour to devote some more coverage to them. i am sure this is a 
story i will be coming back to.

if you want an answer to why no more than 460 words was devoted to this topic when more space is 
devoted to such issues such as david beckham's alleged infidelity, you will need to address your 
question to someone more senior on the newspaper than me.

does this help? have i reinforced your propoganda model view of everyone who works for the 
corporate-owned media?! i have actually tried to explain some of the genuine pressures and 
contraints of story-length and deadline - actual working pressure on journalists that often seem to 
be missing from your media alerts. i realise that you will selectively use parts of my response but 
i hope you put any remarks you choose to quote in context.

pls get back to me if there's anything else you need. i look forward to reading your piece on iraq.

best,

andrew buncombe

p.s since we're in question and answer mode, i'd like to ask you to directly answer a question that 
alan rusbridger and others have put to you and yet you have so far - as i understand - declined to 
answer. namely, given the restrictions imposed on the media by their corporate ownership, what is 
the alternative for a truly independent media organisation, not dependent on advertising, that is 
sufficiently funded to allow indepth, daily coverage of the news and to meet the considerable costs 
of sending people to places such as iraq?

We are grateful to Andrew Buncombe for responding. However, the claim that space and time were 
lacking is remarkable. Notice that in the almost infinite media space represented by the 
Independent, the Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph, Channel 4 News and website, BBC News and 
website, and so on, there is somehow insufficient space to mention that, according to senior UN 
officials, Britain was complicit in genocide. Are we seriously to believe this silence is the 
result of a lack of space? In fact there is no shortage of space in the media ­ it is 
systematically denied, not lacking.

It is true that some readers are aware that ³controversy² surrounds the UN sanctions regime. Not 
many, however, will be aware that senior UN diplomats have accused the US-UK of actual genocide in 
Iraq for the simple reason that it has very rarely been mentioned. Even if readers were aware, the 
extraordinary importance of the allegation surely merits emphasis. The media, after all, never 
tires of reminding us of Saddam¹s gassing of civilians at Halabja ­ a trivial crime, by comparison.

With regards to Buncombe's final point, we have responded to Rusbridger and several other 
journalists on alternatives to corporate media compromise. We are currently preparing a Media Alert 
that specifically addresses this issue.

Exchange with The Guardian

We also wrote to Gary Younge of The Guardian:

22 April, 2004

Dear Gary Younge,

I'm writing an article for the New Statesman on Iraq. Perhaps I could ask about your article in 
today's Guardian, 'UN backs oil for food inquiry'
(April 22, 2004).

Why did you neglect to mention either Denis Halliday or Hans von Sponeck, former heads of that 
programme, who resigned in protest at the devastating effects of UN sanctions?

As you know, Dennis Halliday resigned in 1998, describing the sanctions regime as "illegal and 
immoral". "We are in the process of destroying an entire society", he said. Mr Halliday also said 
sanctions were bankrupt as a concept because they damaged innocent people and probably strengthened 
the country's leadership. He has also said that: "I would use the term genocide to define the use 
of sanctions against Iraq."

Hans von Sponeck, resigning from the same position in 2000, said the sanctions had created a "true 
human tragedy". He asked, "For how long should the civilian population, which is totally innocent 
on all this, be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?"

A 1999 Unicef report calculated that more than half a million children had died as a direct result 
of sanctions.

Why was none of this deemed relevant to your report today? Will you be covering such points in 
later articles?

I look forward to hearing from you, please.

regards, David Cromwell


We received a reply from Younge a few hours later:

Dear Mr Cromwell, First of all my article was 350 words long which means many things are going to 
be left out. Given that it was a new article for a daily newspaper I chose to concentrate on the 
day's news which was the launching of an investigation into corruption into the oil-for-food 
program.

Second, the reasons why two men resigned several years ago in protest at devastating the effect 
[sic] of sanctions - facts reported in the Guardian previously - maybe relevant to the broader 
story but not the immediate issue of corruption, kickbacks and the investigation that I was 
covering. With more space and a more discursive brief they may have been included and and, 
depending on the brief, time and space, I may include them future articles, if I am called on to 
write on that subject. Gary Younge

Again, Younge cites lack of space. Comment seems superfluous. Younge¹s second point - that the 
Guardian has already given due coverage to Halliday and von Sponeck¹s allegations, and on the 
effects of sanctions - is simply false as we have shown repeatedly in our Media Alerts.

The performance of the media on this issue fails to meet even our low expectations. Once again we 
find that the free press¹ is able to match totalitarian systems of power in suppressing even the 
most credible voices attempting to draw attention to the gravest abuses of power.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing 
letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and 
non-abusive tone.

Please write to:

Andrew Buncombe of The Independent: Email: a.buncombe@independent.co.uk

Leonard Doyle, foreign editor of The Independent: Email: l.doyle@independent.co.uk

Simon Kelner, editor of The Independent: Email: s.kelner@independent.co.uk

Gary Younge of the Guardian: Email: gary.younge@guardian.co.uk

Brian Whitaker, Middle East editor of The Guardian email: brian.whitaker@guardian.co.uk

Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian: Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk

Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens: Email: editor@medialens.org

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org




_______________________________________
Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-analysis
All postings are archived on CASI's website at http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]