letters to Peter Hain

To All,

In late September, we were all asked to write to Peter Hain, to protest about attacks and sanctions on Iraq.

I had expected a flood of responses. This does not seem to have happened.

However, some of you may like to see the response I got from someone writing p.p. Peter Hain.

I didn't , of course, copy the published letter, but wrote my own. I didn't keep a copy, and can summarise if anyone wants it.

Lorna

********************************************************************************************

Copy of letter.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

London SW1A 2AH

22 October 1999

Mrs. L.K.Fraser

68 Lebanon Gardens

SW18 1RH

Dear Mrs Fraser,

Thankyou for your letter of 26th September to Peter Hain about Iraq.

I have been asked to reply.

In you lettter you refer to "the endless bombing", which I presume is a

reference to UK & USA activity in the No Fly Zones over Iraq. These were

established after the Gulf War in response to a situation of overwhelming

humanitarian necessity and in support of Security Council Resolution 688,

which called on the Iraqi regime to stop its persecution of the civilian population.

Coalition forces have been patrolling the zones, as in the past, to prevent

Iraqi forces from attacking civilians from the air. We do not think that there

can be any doubt that if we abandoned the No Fly Zones, Iraqi repression

of civilians in these areas would greatly increase. We are not prepared to

countenance that.

Since December, Iraqi forces have maintained a sustained campaign to try

to shoot down our aircraft. There have been violations by over 215 Iraqi

aircraft, and Iraqi forces on the ground have shot at or otherwise threatened,

UK and US aircraft over 500 times. Our forces have responded in a

proportionate manner, in self-defence, as is their right under international law.

The risk of civilian casualties is a major consideration whenever we respond

in self defence. We do not target civilian infrastructure, and all defensive

action is strictly limited to responses against Iraqi weapons and facilities

which pose a threat to our forces. We make every effort to avoid civilian

casualties, and deeply regret any which have occurred. But we take every

precaution to reduce that risk as much as possible. On several occasions,

our aircraft have not responded to threats, because they judged the risk of

such an accident to be too high. I would also advise you to treat Iraqi claims

of civilian casualties with the utmost caution. Iraq has blamed coalition

forces for casualties on days when our aircraft were not even flying, let alone

responing to threats.

I should also make it quite clear that our objective is not the overthrow of the

Iraqi regime. While Iraq would undoubtedly be better off without Saddam

Hussein, we firmly believe that it must be for the Iraqi people to decide who

their leaders are. We have consistendly supported the Iraqi Opposition since

the end of the Gulf War because we believe that it is important that people hear

alternative Iraqi voices, rather than only the propaganda put out by Saddam

Hussain's regime. The opposition groups ( many of which happen to be

based in the UK ) help expose the truth about life under Saddam and reminds

us that there are those who want a different future for Iraq. Despite your

misgivings about the opposition, I would argue that the recent efforts to

re-vitalise the Iraqi National Congress reflects a real willingness on the part

of the varioius groups to work together . And I believe that there is significan

support inside Iraq for some of the groups, particularly the KDP and the PUK

who have de facto control large areas of northern Iraq.

You referred, I think, to the recent UNICEF report on infant and maternal

mortality rates in Iraq. Without specific details, I am unable to address

your point about misquoting, but I find it hard to believe that officials would

be deliberately misleading. We welomed the news from UNICEF that mortality

rates in the northern governates had decreased since 1991, but were

concerned to learn that rates had reportedly risen elsewhere in Iraq. This

reinforces our belief that the Government cares little for its people, and prefers

to extract political mileage from the humanitarian programme, rather than

co-operating to maximise its impact.

We remain committed to helping the Iraqi people in the face of such disregard.

Our most recent initiative is a new Security Council Resolution, which covers

weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian and Kuwaiti issues. On the

humanitarian side, our resolution allows for a range of generous measures

including removing the ceiling on the amount of oil Iraq is allowed to

export under the "oil for food" programme and paving the way for foreign

investment in Iraq's oil infrastructure. If adopted, the resolution would result in

a significant increase in the revenue availaable for the provision of humanitarian

relief. It also allows for the suspension of restrictions on all Iraqi exports if Iraq

maintains cooperation and addresses the key remaining disarmament tasks.

Our resolution now has 9 co-sponsors, and two further promises of support.

We hope that the remaining Council members will also move quickly to endorse

our approach, for the sake of all concerned.

Yours Sincerely

Steven Russell

Middle East Department/

********************************************************************************************