The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Regarding the Toronto Star OpEd, Colin Rowat has made the following valuable points which, I thought, merited posting. Thanks, Colin! In addition to Colin's points: > The OpEd misquotes Albright, slightly. She didn't say "... I think the price is worth it ..."; rather, she sought refuge in the exculpatory plural: "... *we* think the price is worth it". > Questions of the Geneva Convention's application outside of declared wars bring to mind "the surreal phrase of Thomas Pickering, the US undersecretary of state for political affairs, (that -- rather than a state of war -- we are) in a 'state of animosity' with Baghdad." (David Sharrock in The Guardian, April 24, 1999) Regards, Drew Hamre Golden Valley, MN USA --- <<From Colin Rowat -- Coordinator, Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq>> > While I very much agreed with Mr Siddiqui's editorial perspective I was > uncomfortable (with the following): > > > A majority of the 20 million still stuck there are malnourished > > I've only ever seen child malnutrition systematically reported. The > latest oil-for-food report by the Secretary-General to the Security > Council (S/1999/896, > http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/reports/phase6-90day.html) suggests that about > 1/5 children in Centre/South Iraq are underweight; a similar fraction are > stunted (paragraph 42). In the north 1/7 children are underweight, about > 1/5 stunted (paragraph 70). > > > The number of civilian deaths since 1991 is between 1.5 million and 1.7 > million, including 500,000 children. The death toll of kids under 5 is > about 250 a day. > > These claims refer, I think, to "excess" deaths, those deaths that would > not have occurred in another scenario. The 500,000 figure is that used by > Unicef http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm) as an estimate for the > additional number of children who might have died had Iraq's child > mortality rate continued its linear downward trend of the 1980s. Not all > of the extra deaths can be attributed to sanctions: the Gulf War itself > damaged infrastructure, making sanctions more harmful; the 1991 civil > uprising in Iraq led to direct deaths in the ensuing repression as well as > to further infrastructural damage. > > The 1.5 - 1.7 million total death toll is similar to the 1.4 million > claimed by Iraqi Health Minister Oumid Medhat Mubarak in January (Arabic > News Service, 18/1/99). I do not know of any external validification of > these figures. They may be accurate, though, as Mr Mubarak's figure of > 428,920 children under five is very similar to the more recent Unicef > figure (n.b. Mubarak claims that these are deaths attributable to > sanctions, though). > > About oil-for-food, Mr Siddiqui claims that: > > > Nearly half the revenues are withheld for U.N. expenses > > OFF revenues are paid into a number of accounts. The ESB (53% of > revenues) is responsible for humanitarian supplies to the people of > Centre/South Iraq; the ESC (13%) is its equivalent in Iraqi Kurdistan. > Therefore no more than 34% of revenues could be "withheld for UN > expenses"; the largest of those "expenses" is the Compensation Fund. > > > Of the half left, Saddam diverts some to his military and ruling elite. > > This is almost certainly true but I've yet to see a UN report mention it. > I do hear more about other charitable aid going astray. > > > ... no chlorine for desalination plants > > The 18 May 1999 oil-for-food report (S/1999/573, > http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/reports/s573.html) describes the import of > chlorine into Iraq. By 31 March 6,303 tons of chlorine had arrived in > Centre/South Iraq, 75% of the ordered quantity (paragraph 40). In the > North, 328 tons have been distributed, described as "ample" (paragraph > 76). The chlorine isn't for _desalination_, though, but water treatment. > > The August report, cited above, report the Centre/South receiving some > 7,300 tons of chlorine (paragraph 48). In Iraqi Kurdistan, 380 tons were > used, 252 tons kept as stocks (paragraph 75). > > > or no pencils (because the lead may be used as a radar-deflecting coat > on planes). > > I am told by people working with the Sanctions Committee that there is no > "list" of forbidden items. Contracts are evaluated on a case-by-case > basis. As the Committee is not required to make its decisions public it > is never clear why a particular contract has been rejected. > > > the cruelties being inflicted on Iraqi civilians contravene the Geneva > Convention against genocide > > The Geneva Convention, as I understand it, applies under conditions of > war. While the US and the UK are certainly bombing Iraq it is not > technically clear that this constitutes a state of war. > > I do apologise for the above points. I agree entirely with Mr Siddiqui's > position but do think that the case could be more strongly put. In any > case, the prominence given to these articles is good news. > > Colin Rowat > Coordinator, Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq > http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/casi (or) welcome.to/casi > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To be removed/added, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk, NOT the whole list. Please do not sent emails with attached files to the list *** Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html ***