Not in our names!
NO
MORE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS.
THE IRAQI PEOPLE HAVE SUFFERED ENOUGH!
International Herald Tribune public statement
Iraq: Economic Sanctions and the Humanitarian Exemption
An Example of Failure
by Hans von Sponeck
Two well-documented facts can not be ignored in any assessment of twelve
years of sanctions against Iraq. On which ever side of the political dividing
line one may stand, one has to accept that the quality of physical and
mental life in Iraq has been regressing dramatically since the end of
the Gulf War and that the oil-for-food programme, the humanitarian exemption
for the civilian population, has not been able to reverse this trend.
Before 1990 Iraq had been well on the way towards a level of development comparable to many western industrialized countries. Iraq had resources and used them not just for its defence budget. Socio-economic indicators for health, water, electricity, sanitation and certainly for education identified Iraq as the most progresssive country in the Middle East. Since 1990, Iraq has become an increasingly impoverished and in economic and social terms, poorly performing state. A global review of child health by UNICEF in 2000, for example, shows that Iraq has had a 160 percent increase in child mortality , the highest of all 188 countries surveyed for the 1990 to 1999 period. Illiteracy is once again on the increase in Iraq; 20 percent in 1987, 42 percent in 1998.
These facts alone should trouble all those political leaders who speak so passionately about human rights and justice for all. There must not be double standards. What is unacceptable for Europe must be equally unacceptable for the Middle East.
Why the oil for food programme, the moral fig leaf of the international community, has not been equipped with all the available resources is part of a heated debate. The Government of Saddam Hussein does not care for its people and makes its people suffer deliberately is the firm position of some. Those who beg to differ are accused of playing up to Baghdad. Where is the truth? What are the facts?
During three phases (1997-98) $ 1.3 billion were allocated for each phase by the UN Security Council of the oil for food programme. This translates into $113 per person per year for a population of then 21 million Iraqis. Despite this pitiful amount, the UN Security Council decided to give to the UN Compensation Commission 30 percent or $ 660 million per phase of the then allowable oil revenue! The Commission has used these funds to award reparation payments to governments, firms and individuals who claim losses as a result of Iraq's invasion into Kuwait. If instead, these funds had been available for Iraqis, particularly during the intitial critical phases of the humanitarian exemption, many Iraqi lives would have been saved.
Had there been a genuine concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people then the justified claims against Iraq from outside for war damages should have been deferred until the revenue picture had sufficiently improved. This would have been the only humanly acceptable decision. Instead, the UN Security Council was pressured into a highly political and subjective treatment of the Iraqi people under sanctions.
To state these facts is not playing up to anyone. The hidden agenda managers
in Washington and London, however, quickly reject these as mere 'propaganda
by the other side'. Those who differ with the spin-doctors there 'do not
see the bigger picture', are 'inconsequential' and 'manipulated as useful
fools by a ruthless regime in Baghdad'. Instead, they refer to human rights
infringements and repression of freedom in Iraq. This deflects from the
issue from which the international community can not escape and that is
to understand what sanctions have done to innocent people. Let the UN
Human Rights Rapporteur who has just been in Baghdad report on how the
Government of Iraq is handling human rights in the country. This is his
mandate. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, has the formal obligation
to monitor the impact of its own policies on human rights. The UN Security
Council has international oversight responsibilities and over the years
has chosen to largely ignore these. Intermittent reporting such as in
1999 by a panel on humanitarian issues set up by the UN Security Council
is in no way a substitute for continuous monitoring of the human condition
in a country under sanctions.
What is known about the plight of the Iraqi people comes mainly from reputable
non-governmental sources and a few courageous UN agencies such as UNICEF,
WHO and FAO, not from the UN Security Council.
Why, one must ask, has the international machinery which was created for the protection of civilian populations in countries subjected to sanctions failed so dramatically in the case of Iraq? The UN Charter explicitly states that the UN Security Council must discharge its duties "in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations" (Article 24,2). These 'purposes' and 'principles' are about peace and security, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all global citizens not just for some. The founders of the United Nations in 1945, no doubt, had good intentions with these provisions. However, as the case of Iraq shows, the looseness and intangibility of these UN Charter provisions has unfortunately been severely misused and arbitrarily applied to suit national political interests. An objective and controllable implementation of sanctions by the UN Security Council became impossible. Once again, global principle was sacrificed for bilateral power.
The UN Charter legitimizes sanctions against governments when these have carried out 'acts of aggression' or 'threats to international peace'. The weakness in international law is that there is no precise definition of such circumstances. There is no red line demarcation of what represents a 'threat to peace' or an 'act of aggression'. This has allowed a conveniently subjective pronouncement that Iraq continues to pose this 'threat' in accordance with Article 39 of the UN Charter and therefore had to remain subject to sanctions. Facts to substantiate such claims are not offered.
Washington and London will dismiss this accusation as false and irrelevant. Those who care to look more deeply into the Iraq drama, however, will see what the arbitrariness of application of the UN Charter and therefore misuse of UN Security Council authority has done to the civilian population. Imprecisely formulated UN Security Council resolutions have further facilitated an approach to Iraq which punishes the people for not having replaced their leader. 'Constructive ambiguity' is the term used by some members in the UN Security Council to justify impreciseness and prolong a policy of social and economic destruction. The plain truth is that for many such opaqueness has been their death certificate.
Twelve years of sanctions, comprehensive economic sanctions linked to comprehensive military sanctions and disarmament, have destroyed a target. Unfortunately this was the wrong target. The human damage is done and can not be reversed. Focussed economic and military sanctions instead of collective punishment would have been a strategic alternative. To choose it now is too late.
H.C. Graf Sponeck,
Geneva, 21 February 2002