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]

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

Chicago Tribune Endorses Campbell/Conyers Letter on Iraq

Following is today's lead editorial from the Chicago Tribune:



January 25, 2000 
The latest tragedy tormenting the Iraqi people is a dispute at the United
Nations over who should lead a newly constituted agency of arms inspectors
to assure that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction.

Like Nero fiddling as Rome burned, the UN Security Council has fiddled away
its time arguing over just how to reconstitute an arms monitoring
organization that may never be allowed back into Iraq.

Meanwhile, nine years after the Persian Gulf War, the only certainty in Iraq
is the suffering of its people under Saddam Hussein's jackboot. By UN
estimates, more than 1 million Iraqis have died, directly or indirectly,
because of economic sanctions imposed by the international community a
decade ago--and Saddam's cruel indifference to their impact.

After acquiescing to the UN's call for new inspectors, France, Russia and
China have joined to effectively block the implementation of that decision.
They did so by rejecting Secretary General Kofi Annan's choice of Swedish
arms control expert Rolf Ekeus to head the new arms inspection commission.

Each of these Security Council members has its own self-interest--but
clearly not that of the Iraqi people--at heart. France, for example, seems
to be positioning itself for oil deals in a post-sanctions Iraq, while
Russia is hoping Iraq can pay it back for Soviet-era arms sales. Tragically,
saving Iraqi lives--or, for that matter, the lives of others who might be
endangered by weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's hands--does not appear
to be their concern.

The three countries objected to Ekeus because he headed an earlier
inspections panel and because Iraq objected to him. Since when should the
UN, whose mission is to disarm Iraq, be giving Saddam a veto over their
policy? He's the problem--not the answer.

The incident demonstrates yet again the need for the U.S. to find a new
policy that will contain Saddam and build opposition to his rule while not
nurturing anti-Western animosities. The sanctions, it should be clear by
now, are hurting the Iraqi people while leaving Saddam firmly in power.

One wise measure would be to break the link between economic sanctions and
the military embargo, easing pressure on Iraq's people while keeping tight
control of any arms going into Iraq. A letter being circulated by Reps. Tom
Campbell (R-Calif.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) wisely recommends that
Clinton do just that. Additionally, the U.S. should serve notice that it
will respond with overwhelming force if Hussein threatens or attacks his

These two measures might do what current policy does not: give the
initiative back to the good guys.

This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
Full archive and list instructions are available from the CASI website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]