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]
The Chronicle Tuesday Feb. 27, 2001 Column: The trouble with sanctions Why does the United States continually attack Iraq if it supports a policy of economic sanctions? By Abdullah Al-Arian ON FRIDAY, Feb. 16, in a fearless act of self-defense, the United States sent 18 fighter jets into Iraqi territory to destroy dangerous military installations and radar sites just outside Baghdad. Over the past 10 years, British and American planes have engaged in daily bombings on Iraqi soil, but this was the first bombing to bypass the no-fly zone, since former president Bill Clinton did so on the eve of his impeachment. This particular mission, authorized by President George W. Bush, was set to defend American presence in the region against targets that "threaten our forces," according to the President. Officials in Washington have failed to expand on the nature of that threat, but attempted to depict the recent attacks as simply "a routine mission to enforce the no-fly zone," despite it being anything but routine. Surprisingly, recent information suggests that the mission did not even achieve its desired objectives. According to the Pentagon, less than half of the 22 Iraqi radar sites near Baghdad were hit with the technologically advanced AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon (J-SOW), a bomb with a supposedly high accuracy rating. In fact, the aftermath of the attack revealed that some of these bombs missed their targets by at least a couple of hundred yards. Iraq has shown instead that many civilian sites have been hit, killing three and injuring more than two dozen civilians. These recent events have left many people within the United States questioning the effectiveness of economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations since 1991. The sanctions regime came under scrutiny on an international level long ago, when the effects were being widely publicized worldwide. The ban on virtually all Iraqi imports and exports has crippled the Iraqi population. Large amounts of depleted uranium left by the allies after the Gulf War have multiplied the occurrence of cancer in children. And because hospitals are not allowed to buy any equipment or medication, now treatable diseases are responsible for the deaths of thousands. This is particularly disturbing considering that Iraq was one of the wealthier countries in the region with a top-notch infrastructure prior to the imposition of sanctions. Dennis Halliday, who resigned in protest from his position as coordinator of the U.N. Oil for Food program said of the sanctions, "we are in the process of destroying an entire society-it is as simple and as terrifying as that." The opposition to the sanctions has been led by the remaining U.N. Security Council-France, China and Russia. The Arab nations, along with Turkey and Iran, have also voiced their desire to remove this suffocating policy. Faced with such staunch objection, the U.S. government now has to justify the continuation of an ineffective policy whose only real effect is the decimation of a people. Thus far, however, this has involved nothing more than exaggerating the Iraqi threat, in an attempt to tell skeptical Arab neighbors what is good for them. The chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter acknowledged, "Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction and [it] does not currently possess the capability to produce or deploy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons." And even if one were to assume that Iraq did possess these means, it is evident that these economic sanctions are no solution. One of the chief objectives of economic sanctions is that military action will not be necessary to achieve the desired outcomes. From what we have observed in Iraq in recent times, military action on a regular basis has been used, despite the existence of sanctions. If this has become such a readily available option, why not simply abandon the sanctions regime and enter Iraq full-force to secure our mission objectives and end once and for all this decade-long soap opera? While this is probably not a possibility at this stage, the Bush administration is considering a change in policy nonetheless. Secretary of State Colin Powell is currently in the Middle East discussing the prospect of changing the sanctions regime into what he terms "smart sanctions." These smart sanctions would replace the less-than-intelligent ones currently in place, directing them more toward Saddam Hussein and not the people of Iraq. Although this is certainly a welcomed step in the right direction, it comes after a decade of what one Congressman has called "infanticide masquerading as policy." The key will be to give into pressures for change without giving an impression of American weakness, admitting fault while maintaining strength-perhaps a more accurate description of the events of Feb. 16. Abdullah Al-Arian is a Duke University junior majoring in Political Science and History. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email firstname.lastname@example.org Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website: http://www.casi.org.uk