Publish to Newswire
Add an EventWhy the US Wants to Attack Iraq
for it, as other countries do. This empire is predicated, like past
empires, on political control for the purpose of economic control
and resource and surplus extraction. Oil is the world's most
important resource, and control of the flow and pricing of oil
is a potent source of political power, as well as a significant
source of profits. Oil companies, arms companies, and general
corporate America are all intimately concerned with U.S. Middle
East policy
In the run-up to the Gulf War, government officials put forth a bewildering array of reasons for the war, culminating with Secretary of State Baker's fatuous claim that "it's about jobs."
In this coming war, perhaps the earliest
and most consistently telegraphed since Cato the Elder's repeated
calls for the destruction of Carthage, a similar confusion reigns.
The same reflexively secretive administration that didn't want
to disclose which companies it met with and for how long when
formulating its energy policy has released at least four different
plans for achieving "regime change" -- widely-announced
"covert" operations, the "Afghan strategy,"
"Gulf War lite," and the "Baghdad/inside out option."
It has also released numerous reports of generals, military strategists,
and other insiders who oppose the war, to the point that people
seriously wonder what's going on.
This confusion has reached such heights that many are beginning to call this a "Wag the Dog" war, an attempt to avoid a Republican disaster in the November elections. While the exact timing may be affected by domestic considerations, the claim that they are the reason for the war itself is implausible when you consider that there has been talk about war on Iraq ever since 9/11, at a time when the world was Bush's oyster. In fact, the war is simply a continuation of the "regime change" policy of over ten years' standing -- except that in the post-9/11 world the government believes that it can get away with anything by invoking terrorism as a threat.
So what is really going on?
Let's start with what are not the reasons for the war. None of those put forth by the Bush administration hold water.
Shortly after 9/11, there was an attempt to relate Iraq to the attacks. The original claim that Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague earlier in the year, quickly fell apart, as Czech officials engaged in an array of recantations and re-recantations. There are also allegations, recently resurrected, that Iraq had a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, where Islamic fundamentalists were trained in how to hijack planes. It's hard to argue against any of this simply because there's so little there there; in fact, for months the administration stopped claiming any connection, unthinkable had there been any concrete evidence. The best current argument for this connection is Donald Rumsfeld's dictum that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
The main reason given for the war, of course, is the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Scott Ritter, formerly one of the most hawkish of the U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq, has stated repeatedly that Iraq is "qualitatively disarmed;" although there's no way to account for every nut and bolt and gallon of biological growth medium in the country, it had (as of December 1998) no functional capacity to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. The common counter-argument is that Iraq could acquire them and the longer we wait the greater the chances.
Given the widespread credulous acceptance of this argument, it's worth nothing that even the extremely one-sided pro-war panel on the first day of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's hearings on Iraq was unable to produce any reason why Saddam would jeopardize his position by plotting an attack that would surely invite massive retribution. In fact, although he has used weapons of mass destruction before, most notably against the Kurds (at which time he was aided and abetted by the United States), the most plausible scenario in which he would use them again is under threat of American attack.
Beyond that, successive U.S. administrations have done all they could to sabotage arms control in Iraq and worldwide.
First, in December 1998, President Clinton pulled out the weapons inspectors preparatory to the "Desert Fox" bombing campaign -- even though he knew this meant the end of weapons inspections. This is normally reported in the press as the "expulsion" of the weapons inspectors.
Next, in a move that stunned and angered the international community, George W. Bush killed the proposed enforcement and verification mechanism for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention -- in December 2001, after the threat of bioweapons attacks was particularly clear.
Passed in 1972, the convention has over 100 signatories, including Iraq and the United States. Because of the lack of an enforcement mechanism, countries were free to violate it, as did Iraq and the United States -- both have attempted to weaponize anthrax, for example, as we found out when <U.S.-developed> anthrax killed six Americans in the fall of 2001.
In 1995, those signatories started negotiations to provide enforcement through mutual, intrusive inspections. For six years, the U.S. government threw up constant roadblocks, finally terminating negotiations. The reason? Biological weapons inspections in the United States might imperil the profits of biotech companies. Of course, had the enforcement mechanism passed, it could have been used to press for inspections in Iraq.
Even worse, in March 2002, the United States removed Jose Bustani, head of the Organization to Prevent Chemical Weapons, from office. According to George Monbiot of the Guardian, it was because Bustani's efforts to include Iraq in the Chemical Weapons Convention (subjecting it to chemical weapons inspections) would deprive the United States of a casus belli.
There is consensus by arms control experts that weapons inspections in Iraq were extraordinarily effective in finding and dismantling weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, the administration isn't really concerned about this threat.
Constant protestations in the Senate hearings and elsewhere to the contrary, the administration is also not concerned about democracy in Iraq.
Consider the U.S. reaction to the Iraqi intifada, the mass uprising of Iraqis after the Gulf War, in response to a call by George Bush, Sr., to the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam. In February and March of 1991, at the peak of that rebellion, Saddam's regime was seriously imperiled.
In order to save Saddam's regime, the U.S. military deliberately lifted the existing no-fly zone, allowing Saddam to use his helicopter gunships against the rebels; it seized arms depots so the rebels couldn't arm themselves; and it even allowed the Republican Guards safe passage through its ranks to put down the uprising.
At the time, Richard Haas of the State Department explained, "What we want is Saddam's regime without Saddam." In 1996, on ABC, Brent Scowcroft explained further that the United States did not want a popular democratic movement that overthrew Saddam -- it wanted a palace coup.
When all the official justifications collapse, what is left is the same ugly three-letter word that has always been at the core of U.S. Middle East policy -- oil. It's important to clarify, however, that U.S. policy is neither simply about access to oil, which is how mainstream commentators frame it, nor is it completely dictated by oil companies, as some on the left claim.
Access to oil can be obtained by paying for it, as other countries do. The United States has a different attitude because it is an empire, not merely a nation. On any given day, U.S. troops are in 140 countries around the world, with permanent bases in over half of those. After two decades of structural adjustment and one of "free trade," the United States has more control over the internal policies of other countries than the elected governments of those countries. Although "globalization" was recently the more visible face of this imperial expansion, it always had a military underpinning -- and currently the military aspect is dominant.
This empire is predicated, like past empires, on political control for the purpose of economic control and resource and surplus extraction. Oil is the world's most important resource, and control of the flow and pricing of oil is a potent source of political power, as well as a significant source of profits. Oil companies, arms companies, and general corporate America are all intimately concerned with U.S. Middle East policy.
Iraq nationalized its oil in 1972, taking complete control over its own selling and pricing of oil and over the use of oil revenues. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait put an end to that.
The sanctions imposed after that and maintained to this day have had many effects. In addition to causing the death of over 500,000 children under the age of five (according to a UNICEF study), sanctions have partially broken Iraqi control of Iraq's oil. Starting with a complete ban on oil sales, they were gradually modified so that now there are no restrictions on sales. Iraq cannot make its own decisions about oil exploration and investment, nor until recently about repair of existing oil production facilities. Most important, all revenues from oil sales are deposited in a bank account in New York administered by the Security Council. Money is disbursed from that account, only with the permission of the United States, and almost exclusively to foreign corporations.
The sanctions have turned the Iraqi regime permanently against the United States. If they were lifted, the government would make oil exploration deals with French and Russian companies, not American ones. Continuation of the sanctions is a constant political burden for the United States. The Bush administration wants a war to extricate itself from this stalemate, by replacing Saddam with a <U.S.-friendly> dictator who will make deals with American companies and follow American dictates.
The Afghanistan war was the opening move in a potentially far-reaching gambit. It was not particularly about fighting terrorism -- it was planned before 9/11, and even U.S. government officials have concluded (in a June 16 New York Times article) that it may have made "rooting out" al-Qaeda more, not less, difficult, because of the geographic dispersion caused by the war. It was also not just about a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan, although those plans seem to be going forward. It also got the U.S. military into all seven "stans," including potentially oil-and-gas-rich Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
If Bush gets his Iraq war, given Russia's rapprochement with NATO, there will also be a complete military encirclement of Iran, the other part of the "axis of evil" (North Korea was thrown in for ballast). At that point, Iran will find it increasingly difficult not to accede to U.S. wishes.
ExxonMobil, Shell, and other companies are currently negotiating with Saudi Arabia to do natural gas exploration. Although the Saudis say they will never allow foreign corporations to get their hands on crude oil, this is an important beginning.
According to "The New Oil War," an article in the March/April 2002 issue of Foreign Affairs, OPEC countries have not increased their pumping capacity in over twenty years. This is the natural consequence, though the article doesn't say it, of the dual U.S. policy of propping up corrupt feudal elites that use the revenues from oil sales to invest in U.S. and European corporations instead of investing them in their own economies and of "containment" (i.e., targeting for destruction) those few countries, like Iraq and Iran, that do try to develop their internal economies. Over the next twenty years, world requirements for Middle East oil are expected to double.
The United States seeks nothing less than the establishment of complete control over all significant sources of oil, especially of the Middle East, which holds roughly two thirds of the world's proven reserves. The twin requirements of U.S. imperial control and the constant feeding of an industrial system based on ever-increasing levels of fossil fuel consumption dovetail with the systematic attempts of the United States to keep Middle Eastern countries from developing independent economies to set the stage for large-scale re-colonization, through war, "covert" action, and economic coercion.
This war is not about minor domestic squabbles between Democrats and Republicans, but about a very ugly New World Order, in which innocents in the Middle East, Central Asia, and in the United States pay for the imperial dreams of an increasingly detached American elite.
Rahul Mahajan is a member of the Nowar Collective and the Green Party candidate for Governor of Texas. His book, "The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism," (Monthly Review Press, April 2002) has been described as "mandatory reading for anyone who wants to get a handle on the war on terrorism." He is currently writing a book on Iraq titled "Axis of Lies: Myths and Reality about the U.S. War on Iraq."
He can be reached at rahul@tao.ca.
US Middle East policy is not merely about oil. Oil can be had by any country just by paying for it. It is useless to the oil country otherwise.
More accurately it is about the profits from oil and where those profits flow.
During the Gulf War, the US had the chance to back a revolution by the people of Iraq against Saddam. Instead, the US allowed Saddam to crush the resistance by allowing him to use attack helicopters and not allowing the resistance to regain the weapons that the US had confiscated. This was, in fact, a very serious betrayal because the reason they rose up was because of George Bush's call for the people to rise up and overthrow him.
The reason the US did not want a real democracy to develop there is because real democracies tend to keep the profits from resources in their own country. This is the same reason the US supports the oil shieks in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis invest nearly all their money in US banks and financial institutions and spend nearly the rest on US weapons (which are sold to them at about 10 the actual price). This is straightforward wealth transfer and the Saudis do it to remain in power; this is the pact they have with the US government. To date, they have probably transferred well over $600 billion dollars to the US. Saudi Arabia is now in debt -- and this is a country that has the greatest oil reserves in the world.
Now the US is going to go to war and after victory, there will be no elections, but we will install a puppet that will be brutal (but we will not report on his brutality), and he will do what the US wants -- ship most of the oil profits on over here, instead of using it to build up the civilian infrastructure. The puppet has probably already been chosen as well -- none other than the general responsible for gassing his own people.
A democracy in Iraq would tip the scales in the favor for the U.S. on the war on terror.
As for the Saudi's,that is the way they want to run thier goverment.The U.S. has no say how they treat thier women and have no elections or any form of freedom of religon or speech.The Saudi regime is very two faced,they say they are our friend and then fund their wahabist madness across the middle east.They also teach in thier schools that the world is flat.(no kidding)
But they got the oil,and we are thier #1 client, and our SUV's keep them in power. Personaly,I would like to see hydrogen fuel cell technology be used instead of oil,but that could create world wide choas in the market place.Instead a nice democratic Iraq would be a good oil deal.
How has Iraq attacked us? What is the threat that Iraq poses? You hear a lot of talk about the threat. You'll hear it tonight. Scan the TV channels: "Iraq poses a clear and present threat against America." "Saddam Hussein threatens our way of life!" Threatens our way of life! It's as though if I went off the coast of New York City there would be the Iraqi fleet ready to bomb us. If I go down to the Mexican border, there's the Iraqi Panzer divisions ready to come across the border. Iraq threatens us. Ladies and gentlemen, Iraq threatens nobody but the people of Iraq. Saddam Hussein is not capable of projecting his power outside of his borders. I was part of the effort that destroyed his military. And for over seven years I was inside that country uncovering the secrets of their weapons of mass destruction programs.
George Bush says, "Saddam, let the inspectors back in. Let us get back to the work of finding your weapons." You'll hear Richard Pearl, a very influential person, Paul Wolfowitz and others get on TV, my former boss, Richard Butler, on television and say "Iraq possesses biological weapons." Not "they might possess," "we think they're possessing." "They possess it." As if they know. "They possess chemical weapons." They don't. We destroyed the factories. We destroyed the weapons.
You'll hear that we were kicked out. We weren't kicked out. You know why weapons inspectors aren't there today? Because on December 15, 1998, the Deputy Ambassador of the United States in the United Nations picked up the phone, called Richard Butler and said, "get your inspectors out of Iraq." Why? Because on December 17 we started bombing. And what did we do when we bombed? We didn't go after weapons of mass destruction facilites. We went after Saddam Hussein to eliminate the president of Iraq... How did we target Saddam? We used the information collected by the weapons inspectors. So ask yourself, if you're an Iraqi, would you let the inspectors back in? I think not.
When I went there [Israel] in 1994, the director of military intelligence stated that Iraq was Israel's number one threat. When I left in 1998, Iraq was the number six threat faced by the state of Israel and falling. The reason why Israel had a change of heart in terms of the threat represented by Iraq was because of the close cooperation between the United Nations and Israeli intelligence which enabled us to investigate fully and thoroughly every piece of information Israel was concerned about inside Iraq. And we did so to the satisfaction of the Israeli government. You may not be aware of this, but in the last couple of weeks the Israelis have sent delegations to Washington DC encouraging George Bush not to make a move on Iraq. That to make a move on Iraq right now is unnecessary and unwise for the security of Israel. So, they view the threats as being elsewhere.
Now, missiles, I happen to know a little bit about ballistic missiles. [It's] the same thing. Even if Iraq possessed the long range missiles that they had during the Gulf War, the one's that they launched against Israel, take a look at the pathetic payload that these missiles had. You know, we're talking a couple hundred kilograms [payload]. The nuclear weapon that Iraq was designing was 1.2 tonnes. They didn't have a missile capable of delivering this. Even if they had shrunk the [payload] down to the proper diameter, they didn't had a missile capable of delivering this. It would have taken Iraq five to eight years of continuingly developing their program unhindered by weapons inspectors before they could come up with a delivery system capable of bringing a nuclear weapon, a nuclear device to Tel Aviv. But they don't have a missile program worthy of the name. We destroyed it.
They are allowed, under Security Council resolution, to produce a missile with a range of less than 150 kilometres and they have such a missile. It's called the al Sammud. I watched the al Sammud grow up since it was a little baby in 1994. And I'm telling you right now, in 1998, the last couple times the Iraqis launched it, it didn't work. ...We were there in the factory. We watched them design it. We watched them mill the parts. We watched them assemble it. We watched them do everything to that [missile]. Why? We were weapons inspectors. That was our job. That's the kind of intimacy we had of, not only the Iraqi missile program, but everything in Iraq. So... when I sit here and tell you that they don't have it, it's not guess work. It's not as though we're speculating. We know. Why? We were there. And we weren't there just being blocked by the Iraqis. Whenever the Iraqis blocked me and other inspectors from a site, these were sites that dealt with Saddam Hussein's personal security, not Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. These are sites that dealt with Saddam's bodyguards, with Iraqi intelligence, with Iraqi signal intelligence. Why [go there]? Because we thought they might be hiding documents. Not weapons. Documents. But when we went to the factories that capable of being converted to produce weapons of mass destruction, we were never once blocked. And since 1994, we monitored these factories. Not only did we find that they didn't have the capability, and that they weren't producing weapons of mass destruction, [we found] that it would take them 5 to 6 years, with full access to technology, with full access to money that's denied them by economic sanctions, to begin the reconstitute to a level that could be of concern to us.
April 2001, CIA report, CIA report says we have no proof, no evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is producing any. We are concerned that they might be able to do so, be we have no evidence. The fact is, we don't know and we won't know until we get weapons inspectors back in. - http://radio4all.net/pub/archive5/mp3_3/ug113-hour1mix.mp3
Friday, 3 May, 2002, 10:31 GMT 11:31 UK
Iraqi refugees hope for US strike
Iraqi exiles blame Saddam Hussein for most of their ills
By Kim Ghattas
in Amman
The Central Cafe in downtown Amman is a typical Arab
establishment where men meet to play backgammon,
smoke a water pipe and talk politics. The difference is
that the only topic of discussion here is Iraq.
Most of the customers at the cafe are Iraqi refugees,
stuck in Amman, some already for years as they wait
for an answer to their request for asylum from the UN's
refugee body, the UNHCR.
The plans for a US strike against Iraq may still be unclear and there have been warnings about the consequences such a strike would have for the stability of the region, but Iraqis at the Centraal are hoping it will happen... and soon.
Majed Abed Abbas, a 35-year-old Iraqi Shia, fled his country two years ago. He said he was persecuted as a Shia by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime.
He also got in trouble after helping his brother-in-law flee to Denmark. He blames all his misery on Saddam Hussein.
"We have to save the Iraqis, they are oppressed and they are hungry," he said. "Iraqis don't care any more who rules them as long as it's not Saddam Hussein. "If America helps us get rid of Saddam Hussein, then welcome and many thanks to America." This is an unusual statement in a regien where the US is viewed with suspicion, sometimes called the Great Satan and always criticised for its pro-Israel stance.
"We need outside help to topple the regime," Mr Abbas said.
"The Iraqi people are weakened, they are too worried
about surviving and putting food on the table, they
don't have the strength to rebel against this regime."
Opposition
Trying to get an idea about how much opposition there is to Saddam Hussein inside Iraq is difficult, almost impossible, as no-one will talk openly. Iraqis outside Iraq are the main source of such information but even then it is difficult to gauge whether the refugees' opinions really represent a trend back inside their country.
Mr Abbas believes that Iraqis will rise and rebel if a military strike is under way to topple the regime.
But he warned that the US should not let the Iraqis down like they did during the Gulf War in 1991 by failing to provide air cover for a growing popular rebellion.
Views attacked Mr Abbas's friend Jamal Boustani has been in Jordan for six months.
A writer, Mr Boustani fled Iraq because he came under fire for his independent views. "I suffered a lot in Iraq but I love my country and I hope I will be able to return one day, when Saddam is gone," he said. He is also waiting for an answer from the UNHCR. "If the answer is no, I will not go back to Iraq. prefer to commit suicide than to be killed by Saddam," he says dramatically. But while Iraqis in exile are
looking forward to US action against Iraq, their hosts are a bit more wary. Jordan is stuck between two sources of tension in the region, Israel and the Palestinian territories on one side and Iraq on the other.
The Palestinian uprising next door is making it difficult for the Jordanian authorities to keep things calm in a country where more than 60% of the population is of Palestinian origin.
STOP STICKING UP FOR THIS MONSTER!!!
HIS OWN PEOPLE HATE HIM!!!
THE SUFFERING OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE IS SADDAM!!!
TAKE HIM OUT NOW!!!
No shit.
"THE SUFFERING OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE IS SADDAM!!!"
Yeah, that, the sanctions and now the very real threat of being killed in a U.S. invasion that would replace Saddam (a former U.S. puppet) with a new Sunni puppet of the U.S.
"TAKE HIM OUT NOW!!!"
Ok agenda boy. Too bad for all the Iraqis that die, I guess.
"STOP STICKING UP FOR THIS MONSTER!!!"
Just exactly who is sticking up for him? Thanks for the transparent propaganda technique, though.
Please take a deep beath and hold it until I get back to you...
Impact of Sanctions
Summary
Sanctions were imposed on Iraq by the international community in the wake of Iraq's brutal invasion of Kuwait. They are intended to prevent the Iraqi regime access to resources that it would use to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction. Sanctions can only be lifted when Iraq complies fully with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
Saddam Hussein's regime remains a threat to its people and its neighbors, and has not met any of its obligations to the UN that would allow the UN to lift sanctions.
The international community, not the regime of Saddam Hussein, is working to relieve the impact of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis.
Impact of Sanctions
Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.
Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.
Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit.
Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas .
Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government.
Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.
Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region.
Saddam doesn't look like he's starving does he.
I am sure that you will not be able to comprehend this, but I'll try anyway. Not supporting military invation is not the same thing as supporting Saddam Hussein. You might think it a clever propaganda technique to blackmail people into supporting your position, but it is utterly illogical.
"Invading Iraq is the only way it can be done ."
This is merely your assertion. Of course there are other actions that can be taken to remove Saddam Hussein. One sensible plan suggested by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter is to declare Iraq disarmed under Security Council resolution 687 (1991). Then weapons inspectors can come in and inspect under resolution 715 to further disarm Iraq and keep it disarmed. Then in that climate, moves towards democracy can be made in Iraq. The U.S., however, is not interested in democracy in Iraq. Indeed, the U.S. allowed a Shi'ia rebellion in 1991 to fail. The U.S. wanted "stability" in Iraq. In other words, there was a chance to get rid of Saddam that the U.S. did not want to take - not at the expense of having the Shi'ia in power.
Next, you say, "I do not belive [sic] their will be heavy Iraqi casualtys [sic] due to the fact fact Iraq will surender very quickly and be glad he's gone."
It must come as a deep confort to Iraqis to know that you believe that not many of them would be killed in an invasion. What you happen to believe is irrelevant to the argument. Your personal opinion does not justify a war.
You say, "Sanctions were imposed on Iraq by the international community..."
They were imposed by 15 nations, all under heavy U.S. influence:
"MYTH: The United Nations levied the sanctions against Iraq, so the United States is not to blame.
"FACT: [Former assistant secretary general of the UN] Van Sponeck addresses this point head on. “The UN doesn’t impose sanctions. It’s the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions… I don't see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 [oil-for-food] program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that's the outcome, but I don't see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime” (The Fire This Time, April 1999). - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
You, stealing from the State Department, say, "Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq."
"MYTH: “Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
"FACT: Several United States Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents clearly and thoroughly prove, in the words of one author, “beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway” (The Progressive, August 2001).
"One document entitled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,” [read the document here - http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html ] dated January 22, 1991, is quite straightforward in how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens. It explains Iraq’s heavy dependence on the importation of specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water. Failing to secure these items (which is nearly impossible to do under the sanctions), the documents adds, will result in a shortage of drinking water and could “lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease” (U.S. Department of Defense, January 1991).
"Other DIA documents confirm that the U.S. government was not only aware of the devastation of the sanctions, but was, in fact, monitoring their progress. The first in a lengthy series of documents entitled “Disease Information” is a document whose heading reads “Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad.”[read the document here - http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0504rept_91.html ] The document states, “Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems.” The document then itemizes the likely disease outbreaks, noting which in particular will affect children (U.S. Department of Defense, January 1991).
"A second DIA document, “Disease Outbreaks in Iraq” [read the document here - http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0pgv072_90p.html ] from February 21, 1991 writes, “Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing.” It continues, “Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm.” Similar to the preceding document, it explains the causes of the disease outbreaks and itemizes them, again paying close attention to which will affect children (U.S. Department of Defense, February 1991).
"The third document, written March 15, 1991 and entitled “Medical Problems in Iraq,”[read the document here- http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19951016/951016_0me018_91.html ] states that diseases are far more common due to “poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplied and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war.” It then cites a UNICEF/WHO report that “the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply,” that “there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants,” and that diarrhea and respiratory infections are on the rise. Almost as a sidenote, it adds “Children particularly have been affected by these diseases” (U.S. Department of Defense, March 1991). - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
"...if we look back to the last U.S. war with Iraq, we know that the Pentagon planned and carried out knowing and documenting the likely impact on civilians. In one case, Pentagon planners anticipated that striking Iraq's civilian infrastructure would cause " Increased incidence of diseases [that] will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/ distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks…." The Defense Intelligence Agency document (from the Pentagon's Gulflink website), "Disease Information -- Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad" is dated 22 January 1991, just six days after the war began. It itemized the likely outbreaks to include: "acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly children," or by rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly children." And yet the bombing of the water treatment systems proceeded, and indeed, according to UNICEF figures, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, "particularly children," died from the effects of dirty water. - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-02.htm
Next, you imply that Iraq is mismanaging the oil for food program.
"MYTH: “Iraqi obstruction of the oil-for-food program, not United Nations sanctions, is the primary reason the Iraqi people are suffering” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
"FACT: The UN sanctions were levied against Iraq in August 1990 and the oil-for-food program began in December 1996. It is therefore impossible to attribute the suffering of the Iraqi people to the obstruction of a program, which did not exist until six years after the fact. As Halliday explained, the oil-for-food program was set up by the UN Security Council as a response to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq created by the impact of the sanctions. The creation of the program demonstrates that the suffering of the Iraqi people preceded any possible interference. - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
“Iraq is mismanaging the oil-for-food program, either deliberately or through incompetence” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
"Their [former assistant secretary generals of the UN Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck] last appearance in the press was in the Guardian last November, when they wrote: "The most recent report ofthe UN secretary general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food programme. The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory...The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad."
"They [Halliday and von Sponeck] are in no doubt that if Saddam Hussein saw advantage in deliberately denying his people humanitarian supplies, he would do so; but the UN, from the secretary general himself down, says that, while the regime could do more, it has not withheld supplies. Indeed, without Iraq's own rationing and distribution system, says the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, there would have been famine. Halliday and von Sponeck point out that the US and Britain are able to fend off criticism of sanctions with unsubstantiated stories that the regime is "punishing" its own people. If these stories are true, they say, why does America and Britain further punish them by deliberately withholding humanitarian supplies, such as vaccines, painkillers and cancer diagnostic equipment? This wanton blocking of UN-approved shipments is rarely reported in the British press. The figure is now almost $5bn in humanitarian-related supplies. Once again, the UN executive director of the oil-for-food programme has broken diplomatic silence to express "grave concern at the unprecedented surge in volume of holds placed on contracts [by the US]". - http://www.zmag.org/content/MainstreamMedia/pilger_compliantpress.cfm
"In terms of the severe shortages of humanitarian supplies (food, medicine, etc) for the Iraqi people, how much can this be blamed on the economic sanctions, on the cumbersome UN process of approving imports, and on Saddam Hussein's misallocation of resources and perhaps intentional attempt to make his people suffer to win world sympathy.
"All these factors play a part. Saddam Hussein, like all military dictators, is primarily concerned with protecting and privileging his military and political supporters. However, despite other economic cronyism, UN and other humanitarian agencies generally give high ratings to the Iraqi government food ration system; there is relatively egalitarian access to equally insufficient food. Iraq's government has used some money (obtained from smuggled oil sales as well as pre-war reserves) for new buildings and palaces, and for protecting Saddam Hussein's favored troops and political backers from the ravages of sanctions. However, the U.S.-led international sanctions have by far wrought a more devastating impact. Context must be recalled: Saddam Hussein's government was and has been a military dictatorship for 20 years; for 12 of those years, the U.S. supported that regime. It was still a dictatorship, and political human rights were still severely constrained. But prior to 1990 and the imposition of sanctions, the Iraqi population had among the highest standards of living in the Middle East: food access, education, health care and general quality of life approached that of developed countries. The most common problem faced by Iraqi pediatricians was childhood obesity. Today the Iraqi population still faces severe denial of human rights --political and civil rights-- by the Iraqi regime. But additionally, since 1990 it faces the lethal denial of other human rights --economic and social rights-- AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS. The UNICEF figures indicate that 5,000-6,000 children under the age of five die each month as a direct result of sanctions. The deaths are not primarily from a lack of food, but lack of clean water, as well as medicine and equipment to treat easily curable (many water-borne) diseases. While the current ration-based "food basket" approaches the UN minimum caloric level, it does not include sufficient actual protein, vitamins, etc. for health or growth (A cup of oil and a cup of sugar would provide more than sufficient calories; it would not provide health.) UNICEF and other humanitarian agencies agree that conditions have continued to deteriorate even with the initiation of the Oil for Food program; Iraq's oil infrastructure (pumping and processing) is simply too "degraded" since the 1991 war to produce sufficient oil to bring in anything close to the top allowable amounts of money. Of the limited funds earned through Oil for Food, one-third off the top goes to pay for Kuwaiti reparations and the costs of UNSCOM. Although there have been some recent efforts at improvements, the Sanctions Committee (made up of the members of the Security Council) continues to impose near-crippling delays and denials of licensing for importing materials required for repairs and replacement of the oil and physical infrastructure, as well as for allowable consumer items. The committee's definitions of prohibited "dual use" goods includes such items as pencils for schoolchildren (because the graphite could be used in weapons production) and chlorine to purify untreated water (the water treatment system was destroyed in 1991 and not rebuilt). If there are international concerns that the suffering is designed to win sympathy, the answer should be ending of economic sanctions while tightening and expanding military restrictions[!]. - http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/bennisiraq.htm
"Media Lens: "The British and US Governments claim that there are plenty of foodstuffs and medicines being delivered to Iraq, the problem is that they are being cynically withheld by the Iraqi regime. Is there any truth in that?"
"[Denis] Halliday: "There's no basis for that assertion at all. The Secretary-General has reported repeatedly that there is no evidence that food is being diverted by the government in Baghdad. We have 150 observers on the ground in Iraq. Say a wheat shipment comes in from god knows where, in Basra, they follow the grain to some of the mills, they follow the flour to the 49,000 agents that the Iraqi government employs for this programme; then they follow the flour to the recipients and even interview some of the recipients - there is no evidence of diversion of foodstuffs whatever, +ever+, in the last two years. The Secretary-General would have reported that."
"Media Lens: "The British government claims that Saddam is using the money from the 'oil-for-food' programme for anything other than food. Peter Hain, for example, recently stated, 'Over $8 billion a year should be available to Iraq for the humanitarian programme - not only for foods and medicines, but also clean water, electricity and educational material. No one should starve.'"
"Halliday: "Of the $20 billion that has been provided through the 'oil-for-food' programme, about a third, or $7 billion, has been spent on UN 'expenses', reparations to Kuwait and assorted compensation claims. That leaves $13 billion available to the Iraqi government. If you divide that figure by the population of Iraq, which is 22 million, it leaves some $190 per head of population per year over 3 years - that is pitifully inadequate." - http://www.zmag.org/content/MainstreamMedia/cohen_reply.cfm
"MYTH: Saddam Hussein is hoarding both food and medical supplies from his people to evoke Western sympathy (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
"FACT: Allegations of the “warehousing” of food and medicine were put to rest by former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Hans Van Sponeck; “It is not, I repeat not, and you can check this with my colleagues, a pre-meditated act of withholding medicines from those who should have it. It is much, much, more complex than that.“ Sponeck explains that low worker pay, lack of transportation, poor facilities, and low funding are responsible for the breakdowns in inventory and distribution systems. The bureaucracy of the oil-for- food program, such as contract delays and holds, also plays a substantial role. Sponeck, like his predecessor, Denis Halliday, resigned from his post in February 2000 in protest of the sanctions. Also like Halliday, Sponeck had worked for the UN for over 30 years (The Fire This Time, April 1999).
"Halliday concurs that contract delays, contract holds, and distribution problems account for the medical supplies problem. “[T]hose factors come together and you have a problem… I have no doubt in saying that there is no one person in the Ministry of Health or anywhere else in the Iraqi government who is deliberately trying to damage the health, or allowing children or others to die by deliberately not distributing medical supplies. That’s just nonsense” (The Fire This Time, April 1999). - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
Next, you say, "If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people."
Not if Iraq is found to be in compliance of Security Council 687 and so that resolutions 715 an 1051 can be implemented.
Then you say, "There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government."
Well, this one comes from the State Department again:
“Saddam Hussein’s repression of the Iraqi people has not stopped” and therefore “lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government” (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
"The U.S. State Department claims that Iraqi authorities routinely practice extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions throughout those parts of the country still under regime control. The total number of prisoners believed to have been executed since autumn 1997 exceeds 2,500” (U.S. State Department, March 2000). Former U.S. Marine and UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter puts this number in context. “The concept of us trying to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein is ludicrous. He is a brutal dictator. He may torture to death 1,800 people a year. That’s terrible and unacceptable. But we kill 6,000 a month. Let’s put that on a scale” (June 1999 FOR interview).
"The State Department similarly claims that “In northern Iraq, the government is continuing its campaign of forcibly deporting Kurdish and Turkomen families to southern governorates. As a result of these forced deportations, approximately 900,000 citizens are internally displaced throughout Iraq” (U.S. State Department, March 2000). The State Department, however, fails to mention that over four million people-four times the amount of “internal displacements”-have been forced to flee Iraq in search of a better life due to the deplorable conditions of the country as a result of the sanctions (Reuters). - http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm
The idea that sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands are ok because Saddam is brutal to his own people is sheer lunacy. Moreover, that he thrives while his people suffer is not unique to Iraq. Saddam is one of many dictators in the world (many who enjoy U.S. support) who steal from their subjects. For the U.S. to claim that this is the reason to go after Saddam while at the same time supporting other dictators thoughout the world is by definition hypocrisy.
Freedom
You were, of course, predictably wrong. The death toll mounts with over 50,000 dead including civilians and Iraqi military personnel. If only people were not so eager to look for (weak) excuses to go to war in the first place. It's not like you weren't warned...
Donate
$50.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.