Why Iraq Rejects Stupid US Sanctions?

President Saddam Hussein has said: "In brief, the U.S plan is an implicit or explicit admission that the embargo, which the evildoers have imposed in the misbelief of placing Iraq under the category of those obeying orders, has failed to achieve its intended political target.

At a Cabinet meeting on May 21, 2001, President Hussein said, "we will reject the so-called smart sanctions, which are more stupid than their predecessors, just as we did when rejecting all that could encroach upon Iraq's dignity, honour, independence and the meanings it has fought for throughout history."

The President described the plan as "a kick of a dying mule which we should beware of, but it will miss its target, God willing."

Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz said at a meeting with the Arab ambassadors accredited to Iraq on May 21, 2001, "the United States, having realized that the embargo is falling apart, has resorted to the smart sanctions ploy with the specific aim of regaining control of the region's affairs and imposing its will at the expense of the interests of all parties and friends dealing with Iraq.

At a meeting with editors-in-chief of local newspapers and media on May 23, 2001, Tariq Aziz said, "the so-called smart sanctions are more stupid than the sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990. All that has been said to the effect that the plan will ease Iraqi people's suffering, is a sheer lie. In all its attempts, the U.S administration has one aim in mind, to deny Iraq access to many equipment and items that may contribute to the country's advancement and sustain local industry."

Aziz also said, "the U.S draft will not take effect for two reasons, Iraq's will and rejective stand on the one hand, and its regional, Arab and international position with all its political and economic elements. Besides, it will bring Iraq no more benefit than has been the case with the current Memorandum of Understanding."

Information Minister Mohammed Sa'eed as-Sahaf said in an interview to Qatari Jazeera satellite channel on June 6, 2001, "the U.S proposal is a new game to tighten the embargo controls over Iraq by way of deception under a funny name they called (smart sanctions). Those who have masterminded this plan do not understand the existing state of affairs in our region. They want to harm the interests of Iraq's neighbours and those of Iraq."

Minister Sahaf noted that, "the new sanctions plan is inapplicable, because it is based on a hypothesis opposite to reality, which is twisting the arm or arms of the states neighbouring Iraq, in other words, blackmailing them into applying monitoring systems seriously violating their sovereignty and interests… Moreover, the plan represents an abdication from the international commitments approved by Security Council resolutions, and a U.S attempt to yet again employ the Security Council to issue tougher sanctions on Iraq."

Talking Points on

Stupid "Smart" Sanctions

The new proposed plan is a hostile agenda through which both the United States and Britain intend to impose their hegemony not only over Iraq, but over all Arab and friendly states having trade links with Iraq. It constitutes a violation of the sovereignty of all other states, rather than Iraq alone.

The United States has resorted to the "smart" sanctions gimmick, having realized that the embargo imposed on Iraq is falling apart.

Iraq will not derive more benefit from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under the U.S plan, as the Americans and British claim. On the contrary, the plan will only render the MOU ineffectual and tighten the grip of sanctions around Iraq. In no way will it relieve the suffering of Iraqi people.

Through such plan, the U.S seeks to block any attempt by world states, especially Iraq's neighbours, to exercise their right to Article 50 of United Nations Charter to resume trading with Iraq. It also aims to strangle Iraq's economy through a long list of the so-called dual-use items.

This U.S-British plan is yet another attempt to pry the Security Council into toughening the embargo on Iraq, and to undermine any effort to have it lifted. It is intended to mislead Arab and world public opinion, after the world has realized the ill intentions and hostile aims hidden behind the prolonged embargo of Iraq.

The plan amounts to a flagrant and disgraceful violation of human rights, of people's right to self-determination and man's right to a decent, honourable life, as stated in United Nations conventions and human international law

It is but an American attempt to isolate Iraq's capabilities from those of the nation, an attempt to turn Iraq from the call for jihad for the liberation of Palestine.

The plan represents an implicit or explicit admission that the embargo imposed by evildoers has failed to achieve its intended political target. Accordingly, Iraq will reject it, just as it has already rejected all that could violate its dignity, honour, independence and the meanings it has fought for throughout history.

The U.S-British draft resolution on "smart sanctions" put to the Security Council involves a serious violation of Iraq's sovereignty and political independence through placing Iraq's economic and financial capabilities under international mandate.

The draft entails stealing Iraq's funds by transferring its oil proceeds to closed accounts run by the United Nations, over which Iraq has no right of disposal. It then redirects significant amounts of these funds to the pockets of the regimes collaborating with the Americans and British, and to the pockets of U.N officials and members of UNMOVIC and inspectors to be posted (in case the resolution has been enforced) on Iraq's borders with Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

It also prevents Iraq indefinitely from acquiring science and technology for purposes of economic development with its different industrial, agricultural, scientific, social and educational aspects under the pretence of dual use (civilian +military industry). Dual-use items could be pencils, computers or civilian passenger or cargo aircraft. They may include fertilizers, water pumps, irrigation pipes, college or school laboratories, etc. It will be a long, endless list, because all modern life items, needs and industries could be of dual use.

The infamous U.S-British plan wants either to block the export of all such items to Iraq, thereby strangling the country's economy, or to allow them in, should Iraq comply with the U.S-British conditions by accepting the inspection and monitoring of each so-called dual-use item of its purchases, and consequently giving access to armies of inspectors inside the country under such pretext.

The plan aims to isolate Iraq from the world in general, and from neighbouring states in particular, through using the countries around Iraq as a tight monitoring belt.

It will allow arbitrary and unlawful disposal over Iraq's funds and assets, for instance, by selling Iraq's civilian aircraft grounded at other states, receiving their value and holding them in a closed account controlled by the Security Council.

The U.S-British draft nullifies all demands for lifting the unjust embargo imposed on Iraq for nearly eleven years now. It, moreover, tightens the embargo to serve the ends of the imperialist U.S policy intent on placing Iraq under U.S hegemony to steal its oil.

Iraq Press

Where is our outrage over Iraq?

IRAQ DAILY

By Reggie Rivers

Denver Post

r_rozoff@yahoo.com

Sometimes I think we've stopped paying attention to the number of rounds that are fired and the number of people who are killed by our law enforcement agencies. Do we really care how far things go? Do we worry about the constant monitoring? The invasions of people's homes? The continuous threat of violence? I know that we care domestically. When the police shoot someone, there are stories and investigations.

We might not be satisfied with the results of those investigations, but at least someone is taking a look. It's been more than 10 years now since the US initiated the embargo against Iraq and started patrolling no-fly zones. And it seems clear to me that most of us just don't care a lot about it. The stories hit the paper and we flip through them as if nothing is happening. The headlines read: "Coalition planes fire at Iraqi air defense sites." "Air Force drone missing over Iraq." "US launches major air attack on Iraq." "Allied jets hit Iraqi targets." How much longer do you suppose we're going to continue to violate the sovereignty of Iraq? How much longer are news stories going to describe the troops as "coalition" and "allied" forces to make it sound as if this is a UN effort when really it's always been just the US and our British lap dog that have initiated and maintained these no-fly zones from the start? Every time I pick up a newspaper and read another of these stories, Iraq is portrayed as the aggressor and we're cast as the innocent victims who are merely trying to defend ourselves. The stories have a how-dare-they tone as they describe Iraqi attempts to shoot down US or British aircraft.

Yes, Iraq was denounced for invading Kuwait in 1990, but does that mean that we can forever ignore the sovereignty of the Iraqi border? The US was denounced by the entire world for invading Grenada in 1983. Does that mean it would have been reasonable for some other country to establish no-fly zones in the air space north of Denver and south of Dallas?

I know. I know. Might make right in the big, bad world. The reason that it's OK for us to do this to Iraq is that we have the power to do whatever we want. The reason it wouldn't have been OK for someone else to do this to us is that no one has the power.

Yes, I'm naive, but not completely. I like the life that we have in this country. I love our wealth, our safety and our position at the head of the world's table. I understand that maintaining our comfortable lives requires a lot of brute force. What disturb me is not the vicious reality of geopolitics, but the ambivalence that we demonstrate as citizens. We're like the children of drug kingpins who love living in big houses and having private planes, and somehow manage to block out the fact that Daddy had to kill a lot of people to get where he's at. And that Daddy has to kill a lot more people to "protect our interests."

I don't know the answer to the Iraq situation. I can't make recommendations about how we should conduct ourselves in the world because I'm not an expert in that field. But I wish that we, as citizens, would show as much concern about our military deployment in other countries as we do about domestic issues such as tax rebates, Social Security, education and health care.

If the National Guard took over a small U.S. town and controlled the movements of its people for a week, we'd be out of our minds with outrage. But if our forces fly into another country and maintain a no-fly zone for a decade, we barely look up from our Cheerios.

Iraqi Sanctions: Myth and Fact

IRAQ DAILY

By Jeff Lindemyer

September 3, 2001

On August 6, 1990, immediately prior to the "1991 War," the UN levied sanctions against Iraq. In the ensuing eleven-year span, the sanctions have not changed. Well over one million Iraqis lay dead as a direct result of the sanctions, over half of them children. Quality of life has plummeted; the economy is in shambles, disease and malnutrition are commonplace, and even potable drinking water has become rare. The aim of this article is to debunk the most common myths surrounding the Iraqi sanctions whose existence is dependent upon them.

Myth: "Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq"

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 US government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the 1991 War. The US 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," dated January 22, 1991, is quite straightforward in how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens. It begins, "Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline. With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent UN Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease." The document later continues, "Iraq could try convincing the UN or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons. It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements" .

Other DIA documents confirm that the US 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." 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 .

A second DIA document, "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq" 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 1991 war. Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks." Similar to the preceding document, it itemizes the likely outbreaks, paying close attention to which will affect children .

The third document, written March 15, 1991 and entitled "Medical Problems in Iraq," states, "Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplied and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war. According to a UNICEF/ WHO report, the quantity of potable water is less than 5% of the original supply, there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases" .

"As these documents illustrate, the United State knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality" (The Progressive, August 2001).

* Myth: "Thanks to the oil-for-food program, the people of Iraq, especially those in the north, are getting needed foods and medicines" .

Fact: Former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday, oversaw the oil-for-food program and believes otherwise. "The OFF program as conceived is completely inadequate. It was designed in fact not to resolve the situation, but to prevent further deterioration of both mortality rates and malnutrition. It has failed to do that; at best it has just about sustained the situation. It's grossly under-funded, and it has not even begun to address the needs, the dietary needs of the Iraqi people. It's producing quantity at best, and even that [ration] amounts to about three weeks out of four in terms of need quantitatively. In terms of quality it falls very short. There are no animal proteins in the program, no vitamins, no minerals, so it's a very inadequate diet. And on top of that you have a medical sector which gobbles up the rest of the money to a great extent, so again we have not managed to provide the basic needs of the Iraqi people. There's a great shortage of antibiotics and all of the sophisticated drugs to which Iraq was used to, given the high standard of medical care prior to 1990. And the balance of the sectors that desperately need money, such as electric power production, domestic agriculture, education, water and sewage systems.... there's really no serious money for an investment there, and that needs, I reckon, $40 to $50 billion dollars for rehabilitation and rebuilding those sectors. That's the situation right now" . Halliday resigned from his post in September 1998 in protest of the sanctions against Iraq. He had worked for the UN for 34 years.

Myth: "Iraq is mismanaging the oil-for-food program, either deliberately or through incompetence" .

Fact: The US State Department claims that because there has been some improvement in the mortality rates in northern Iraq, where the UN controls distribution of food and medicine, this proves that Iraq is to blame for the crisis in southern and central Iraq. As Hans Van Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, who took over after Halliday's resignation, has even noted, the claim of mismanagement is simply not true .

Since the bombing of the "The 1991 War" was concentrated in southern Iraq, the destruction of civilian infis most severe there. Yet the oil-for-food program provides no funding for the distribution of food and medicine in southern and central Iraq. Southern and central Iraq also receive far less support per capita from the international community than northern Iraq. Northern Iraq receives 22% more per capita from the oil-for-food program and gets about 10% of UN-controlled assistance in currency, while the rest of the country receives only commodities .

"The Iraqi government have bent backwards to run an efficient ration card system, which provides that every Iraqi is entitled, first of all, to food under this program, and that they each get exactly the same quality and quantity, such as it is, throughout the entire country...and we're talking about 23 million people," notes former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday. "They handle all the distribution themselves for everybody, other than those in the Kurdish North, who number about 3 million...they get their food distributed by the World Food Program (WFP) and WHO when it comes to health care" .

There is also a certain irony in the examples of alleged mismanagement that the State Department cites. For instance, they allege that Iraq's purchasing of a gamma knife, an instrument used for neurosurgery, and MRI machine constitutes mismanagement. This "exotic treatment," however, is necessary to combat the skyrocketing rates of cancer due, in no small part, to the remains of the depleted uranium munitions used against Iraqi forces in the "The 1991 War."

Myth: "Iraqi obstruction of the oil-for-food program, not UN sanctions, is the primary reason the Iraqi people are suffering" .

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 itself demonstrates that the suffering of the Iraqi people preceded any possible interference.

Oil-for-food program or not, the plight of the Iraqi people, especially that of children, has been unconscionable. Since the onset of the sanctions, almost one-quarter of all infants are born underweight and the same number is malnourished . The situation doesn't get any better as they get older either, as 32% of children under five are chronically malnourished, with the mortality rate increasing over six-fold to be among the highest in the world . Stemming mainly from hunger and disease, the result is the death of 4,500 children under the age of 5 per month (October 1996 UNICEF). That translates roughly to 150 children killed each and every day. In all, if pre-war trends in child mortality had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under five in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 .

Myth: "Holds on inappropriate contracts help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods to further personal interests" .

Fact: Requests for desperately-needed equipment routinely get held up in the Security Council for months at a time. The delays have gotten so bad that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Office of the Iraq Program Director Benon Sevon have written letters decrying the excessive holds placed on items ordered under the Program .

The holds that perpetuate the detrimental health impacts of the sanctions have gained the attention of one House member. In the summer of 2000, Representative Tony Hall of Ohio wrote a letter to then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "about the profound effects of the increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply and sanitation systems on its children's health." Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under five years of age--diarrheal diseases--has reached epidemic proportions, and they now strike four times more often than they did in 1990... Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the US government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment... I urge you to weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation" (The Progressive, August 2001).

Unfortunately for the people of Iraq, the letter was addressed to Madeleine Albright-the same person who stated that the death of over a half of a million children was "the price we're willing to take."

Despite the minimal coverage by Congress, holds continue to expedite the process of destruction within Iraq. "Earlier this year [2001], US diplomats blocked child vaccines for Iraq, including for diphtheria, typhoid, and tetanus. Over $3 billion worth of contracts remain on hold. To date, no hearings have been held" .

Myth: Iraq is hoarding both food and medical supplies from his people to evoke Western sympathy .

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 .

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. In my mind 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" .

Myth: "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" .

Fact: According to the State Department, "Iraq continues to attack coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, which were established to prevent attacking civilians, in violation of UNSC R688 and 949" .

The constant bombing of the "no-fly zones" in Iraq by the United States and Britain, however, is not authorized under any UN resolution. As Halliday comments, "The bombing of the 'No-Fly' zones, which don't exist under any resolution of the Security Council, has continued and still continues despite [the crisis in] Yugoslavia. It's a very tragic way for the USA and the UK to operate. It's completely outside the Security Council. It's a unilateral action which shows total disregard for the other member states of the Security Council" .

The United States government puts forth an effort to appear UN-backed by using the term "coalition," though the "coalition" consists of only two countries: the US and the UK.

Myth: The United Nations levied the sanctions against Iraq, so the US is not to blame.

Fact: 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. The UN, we are the UN: we are implementing what we are allowed to implement, so 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" .

August 6, 2001 marked 11 years of malnutrition, 132 months of disease, and 4,017 days of undrinkable water. Every few hours another child dies—a child who knew nothing of the "The 1991 War," nothing of the oil-for-food program, and nothing of weapons inspections. The child only knew that she wanted to live. How many more parents must weep for their fallen children before we realize what we have been doing?

Myth: Iraq "has not fully declared and destroyed its WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programs" or complied with weapons inspections. Iraqi economic sanctions "prevent the Iraqi regime access to resources that it would use to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction" .

Fact: There is an inherent contradiction in the State Department's claim between failing to destroy weapons of mass destruction and the reconstitution of such programs. Granting that Iraq would 'reconstitute weapons of mass destruction' is to grant that some weapons have been dismantled, which then goes against the claim that they have not been destroyed.

The truth is that Iraq has been, by and large, disarmed. "Following the 1991War, Iraq was forced into an unprecedented disarmament process and its military might has been considerably diminished by the work of UNSCOM. Chief Weapons Inspector Richard Butler said that 'if Iraqi disarmament were a 5-lap race, we would be three-quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap.' Iraq's neighbors have said that Iraq no longer poses any threat. Even an Israeli military analyst has said that Iraq's biological weapons program was over-hyped" .

As for UNSCOM inspections, the lack of success lies mainly with the US government's hidden agenda. UNSCOM had eight years of virtually unrestricted inspections. Former UN Weapons Inspector Raymond Zilinskas stated that "95% of [UNSCOM's] work proceeds unhindered" . But contrary to the UN goal of weapons inspections, the US government has sought to use the inspections as intelligence gathering missions. Halliday states, "[T]he difficulty with UNSCOM has been the inclusion of espionage, of spies, of various intelligence organizations which, under the UN auspices, is something that is appalling to all of us. Now as it happens, UNSCOM staff, including Butler, are not staff members of the organization. They are hired under secondment from other organizations, but nevertheless we expect them to behave in a manner consistent of a civil servant, and that clearly was not done. And the CIA and others have owned up to what they did, in fact that they used the UN as a cover for espionage, which is a very unfortunate thing and what, of course, the Iraqis had been saying for many years and the UN had denied for many years. They were right; we, obviously, were wrong. So it's a humiliation for the UN".

Further evidence of this comes directly from one of the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq, Scott Ritter. "Fingers point at the US primarily in using the weapons inspection process not so much as a vehicle for disarming Iraq, but rather as a vehicle for containing Iraq and for gathering information that could be used to remove Iraqi Government. The US perverted the system; not the weapons inspectors" . Ritter resigned from UNSCOM because of this perversion.

Myth: Iraq retains the capability to inflict significant damage upon Iraq's neighbors and its own civilian population" and "Without sanctions, Iraq would be free to use his resources to rearm and make good on his threats against Kuwait and the region" .

Fact: Former UN Weapons Inspector Raymond Zilinskas states "Although it has been theoretically possible for the Iraqis to regain such weapons since 1991, the duplicity would have been risky and expensive, and the probability of discovery very high" .

Scott Ritter is more blunt. "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is a resounding 'NO!' 'Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale?' 'NO!' It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability" .

*Jeff Lindemyer is a student at UC Berkeley, California, who is currently residing in Minnesota where he works as an intern for Lindemyer.

Arabic and Foreign Press

The new "smart" sanctions on Iraq

By Dale Hildebrand

Director, Inter-Church Action

daleica@web.ca

3 July 2001

A new US-British plan is proposing to overhaul the comprehensive sanctions that have been imposed on Iraq for nearly 11 years.

This proposal requires careful analysis by those who have opposed the sanctions on humanitarian grounds. Critics have called for the complete removal of all UN sanctions against the country.

The UN itself makes no distinction between military and economic sanctions in its Security Council Resolutions of 661 and 687. The goals of eliminating Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles have been largely achieved, while 100% verification of their destruction is impossible and has become a rationale to retain sanctions against Iraq in perpetuity. The UN Compensation Commission has been discredited in terms of the highly irregular processing of claims where the Commission acts as both judge and jury

What is the motivation behind the "smart" sanctions?

It is important in any analysis of the proposed changes to the sanctions to examine their motivation since this may also reveal insights into how they might be implemented and what their effect may be. Since December 1998, when weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq followed by intensive US-UK bombing, support for the sanctions against Iraq, particularly from the so-called frontline Arab states, has steadily declined. The result has been an increase in trade that circumvents the UN sanctions, including Iraqi exports of oil to Syria, Jordan, and Turkey that have increased the Iraqi government’s access to cash not controlled by the UN escrow account. Jordan and other countries have relaxed border controls and have voiced support for a total elimination of the sanctions.

Increased opposition to the sanctions has been spawned mainly by a growing realization of their humanitarian impact. The smart sanctions proposal is therefore largely an attempt to shift public opinion away from blaming the sanctions for the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

The motivation for the proposed policy change is best summed up in the words of Colin Powell, in recent comments to the Senate House International Relations Committee, boasted that by floating the new smart sanctions proposals, "we stopped the talking about Iraqi children, and instead are talking about weapons of mass destruction." There is no recognition that the humanitarian crisis has been real, only that the US has a public relations problem to address.

If the primary purpose of the smart sanctions is to manage perceptions and regain support for containment of Iraq, they are unlikely to be designed to seriously address the root causes of the precipitous decline in living standards in Iraq since the imposition of the sanctions in 1990.

What would change?

Nevertheless, aside from the objectives behind the new proposals, they must also be examined based on their potential to end the suffering of Iraqis and restore Iraq’s standard of living to pre-sanctions levels. The key to this happening is acknowledged in the UN’s own report from a panel tasked to examine the humanitarian needs in Iraq. It stated in 1999 that the crisis in Iraq would continue to be dire "in the absence of a sustained revival of the Iraqi economy." The new proposals fail to address this fundamental need for reasons explained below.

The current proposals would allow a broader range of goods into the country, although the extent of the increase is dependent upon details not yet released. It has been reported that some lists of prohibited goods have been drawn up. One report referred to a 23 page list of items but as only one of four categories of proposed banned goods.

The key to the new proposals is the continued ban on so-called "dual use" goods. In the early days of the sanctions, dual use items included everything from baking soda to truck tires. What will be the criteria employed for dual use? Will the list be open to interpretation and contain imprecise lines such as, for example, "any good that might be used for chemical weapons", which would again allow hardliners on the 661 sanctions committee to continue to ban a wide range of goods at their own discretion?

Some critics argue that in modern economies, it is extremely difficult to separate goods that can be used in a military capacity from those that have a purely civilian purpose. For example, computer technology is now an essential component of an economy but it is also indispensable to a modern military capacity. An American official involved in drawing up the new lists of banned items said that the new plan is designed to prevent Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, missiles, and the technologies to build them.

The latter emphasis is important because in effect, preventing military capacity from developing requires the widespread suppression of whole industrial sectors, such as chemical and mechanical engineering, biotechnology, and others. Many researchers, professionals, and technicians in western countries move easily between the private sector and military contractors because their skills can be employed equally for civilian and military uses. Thus the concept of dual use, when applied not only to specific physical goods but also to capabilities and technologies, can quickly become a pretext for blocking development of large segments of the civilian economy. The London based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that up to 85% of civilian goods are already allowed into the country under the existing sanctions. This underscores that there are other key factors contributing to the malaise of the Iraqi economy.

The new proposals do not allow Iraq to resume normal exports. While it is true that Iraq’s main export is oil, there are other components to Iraq’s export economy that have been devastated as a result of the sanctions. Before 1990, Iraq was the largest exporter of dates in the world. Thousands of workers once employed by this industry are now unemployed and a large percentage of the date palms have been neglected given the lack of export markets. Even from a disarmament perspective, there is no reason to limit Iraq’s exports and these restrictions should be abolished

Sanctions have blocked most rebuilding of the country’s civilian infrastructure destroyed in 1991 and damage to the electrical, sanitation, transportation and communication sectors is estimated at $200 billion. Without huge re-investment and normal trade relations, Iraq will not be able to generate the level of economic activity needed to restore employment levels and reduce hyper-inflation, both factors that have made daily life extremely tenuous for the Iraqi people.

The maintenance of the UN escrow account into which all oil revenues must be deposited has been a key tool to contain and control Iraq’s economy. Regardless of the criteria in place to have goods approved for import by Iraq, the bottom line is that representatives on the sanctions committee can block any purchase by Iraq at any time. Nearly all the holds on contracts to be paid by the escrow account have been instigated by the US or Britain, highlighting those countries’ role in continuing a long history of colonialism related to its strategic resource of oil.

Furthermore, up to 30% of all revenues (currently 25%) will be diverted to pay for UN salaries and more compensation claims, an amount of money that Iraq can ill afford to pay given the massive needs of the country. In fact, US officials have also warned they will use Iraq’s oil money to pay compensation to Iraq’s neighbors who currently are heavily reliant on Iraqi oil, should Iraq decide to retaliate against those who cooperate with a new sanctions regime. Amidst all the tools at its disposal, the escrow account is the lynchpin allowing Iraq’s opponents complete control over the country’s economy.

Unfortunately, it is also a major obstacle in allowing Iraq to reestablish some semblance of normal economic life. The escrow account must be abolished.

One of the characteristics of the past 11 years of sanctions developments has been the shifting and of objectives in Iraq. Some of these have been clearly outside of the UN framework, such as past US, assertions that sanctions will exist until Iraqi Government is deposed from power. "Regime change" was never a part of the UN sanctions objectives.

Controlling Iraqi air power through the no-fly zones is another example of non-UN objectives, despite US claims that existing resolutions authorize the zones.

Resolution 1284 was another example of moving goalposts where Iraqi compliance with weapons inspections, as stipulated in the original UN resolutions, would now be rewarded with a suspension of sanctions, rather than their elimination. The new smart sanctions proposals may introduce yet another new element if recent statements by US officials are any indication. These officials now talk openly about the sanctions’ objective of preventing Iraq from rebuilding certain military capabilities.

This is a very significant shift and throws into doubt the possibility of ever ending the sanctions. Whereas Security Council Resolution (SCR) 661 (3 April 1991) makes clear reference to the "destruction, removal, and rendering harmless" of Iraq’s prescribed weapons, and contains a clause that states the sanctions would have "no further force or effect". Once this was completed, the objective of military capability prevention is open-ended and further solidifies what sanctions opponents have always feared, particularly after the "suspension" language of SCR 1284. A rationale for continuing the sanctions--in whatever modified form to make them more palatable to world opinion--indefinitely, or until the US and its allies construct the kind of political regime in Iraq that will be acceptable to them!!

The acid test for any changes to UN sanctions against Iraq is the ability to restore the health of the society and population. On the basis of UN relief agency data there is no indication that rates of acute child hunger and mortality have improved from the appalling levels recorded by UNICEF in 1999. Given the depth of the civilian catastrophe caused by sanctions, the burden of proof is on those who argue this proposal will solve the disaster. It is painfully obvious from the comments of those proposing new smart sanctions that concern for Iraq’s men, women and children is at best peripheral to their objectives and at worst, irrelevant.

Not surprisingly, given the lack of results from previous adjustments, the current smart sanctions proposals are being portrayed as a significant shift and departure from anything done so far. While the exact details have not been released to the public, the main elements of the plan are known and in this estimation, will not lead to a resolution of the problem in Iraq.

Views on Stupid US Sanctions

Arab, Foreign Official and Popular Stances

toward Stupid Sanctions

Editor-in-chief of Arab Ahram magazine, Egyptian writer Usama al-Saraya said to INA correspondent that " sanctions are rejected whatever their name or form be because we want to end the blanket embargo on Iraq."

French military expert Piere Gallois criticized France's negative stand towards Iraq. "The French position vis-a-vis the military aggression and embargo on Iraq is a clear evidence of the lack of morals in the French foreign policy and its submission to the U.S desires even if they contradict French national interests." He wondered " what is the interest of France in participating in a destructive proposal that history in the future will judge as war crimes and crimes against humanity."

Head of the committee supervising the solidarity festival held in Abu Umran Island village in Sharqia province in Egypt Hassan Awadh said "the wicked proposal is a Zionist-American scheme that not only targets Iraq but the Arab Nation as well."

In a joint statement, NASYO regional centre in Eastern Asia and Malaysian journalists Associations Said "the US aim of submitting smart sanctions is to prolong the embargo on Iraqi people."

Iraq Support Committee of Arab Engineers Unions: "smart sanctions tend to confiscate the Iraqi and Arab decision and impose American mandate on Iraq which implemented all its commitments in the Security Council Resolution. "

European engineers said in a statement " smart sanctions are a colonialists attitude and wicked plan targeting security, stability and safety of Iraq and the Arab Nation…they also aim to harm economies of Iraq's neighbors and put their economic, social and political security at stake.

Editor-in-chief of US-based al-Mahjar newspaper Khalid al-Dimisi "Washington and London wanted from their dump proposal to break up the Arab rank and the special Arab relations, especially between Jordan, Iraq and Syria."

France's Loss is Russia's Gain

in the Anglo-American "Smart Sanctions" Game

By Burhan Al-Chalabi*

Middle East Online

A lot has been written recently about the unexplained change in the French political stand towards Iraq.

Considerable astonishment has been expressed about the contradictions in the French position; on the one hand, the French have been consistent in the past in calling for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and for reducing the burden of sanctions against the people of Iraq.

The French have always maintained that their stand against sanctions is a matter of principle and was in the French national interest. On the other hand, the French offered to support the British-American proposal of “smart sanctions” against Iraq.

In support of their initial political stand, the French established diplomatic representation in Baghdad, receiIraqi Government officials and withdrew their participation in the so-called "No-Fly Zone". The French also carried out huge volumes of trade with Iraq under the "Oil-for-Food" programme. So why the sudden and unpredicted change in the current French position with regard to the British-American proposal for "smart sanctions" against Iraq?

It has always been evident that the "smart sanctions" proposal was not designed to lift or suspend sanctions. The purpose was purely tactical and political manoeuvering. The proposal was designed to divert public attention away from the problems created by ten years of US economic sanctions and containment of Iraq. Also to address questions such as, who should bear the responsibility for the deaths of Iraqi children caused by sanctions? How long can Arab and other neighboring countries sustain economic hardships due to stagnation in Iraq's economy? What will happen to the so-called “friendly” Arab governments in the face of the sustained Intifadha that has focused attention on the US policy of double standards? What could be done to limit Iraq's successful attempt to break its Arab and international isolation and its relative success in dismantling sanctions through various bilateral trade treaties?

In essence, the "smart sanctions" offered the Iraqi people nothing. They were a refined regime for strengthening sanctions against the people of Iraq. They would also cause substantial economic hardship to Iraq's neighboring countries. Basically the “smart sanctions” did not address any of the main issues; the deaths of Iraqi children, the rebuilding of Iraq, nor reducing the burden of sanctions.

If looked at in isolation of overall French political strategy, the answer to the French stand is perhaps not so obvious, the reason being that the roots of this political stand go as far back as the war in Kosovo and the ensuing consequences in the US-European relationship.

During the Kosovar war, just like during the 1991 war, the US had a different political agenda to that of UN or European allies. In Iraq, the US agenda was political and economic containment of Iraq, while the UN agenda was that of disarming Iraq within the terms and conditions of Resolution 687. To achieve containment, the US used the UN agencies to spy on Iraq for the benefit of US strategic interests and outside the legality of the UN.

Bosnia offered the first major test of the West's resolve in the post-Cold War era. The European political agenda was that of reducing tension and hostilities between the warring factions in the Balkans. This was to be achieved by UN peace-keeping forces. The US political agenda was completely different. It was driven by a mixture of media-fueled public opinion and sometimes simplistic moral outrage, but most significantly by the personal ambition of a small group at the top of America's foreign policy elite to make a name for themselves, in the only political game in town at the time.

The American answer to Bosnia's ills was a concept called "Lift and Strike"; basically to re-arm the Bosnians and Croats and bomb Serbia. The European allies discovered the US covert operations to destabilize the region and punish the Serbs. Also discovered were the bugging and spying activities that followed. These activities were conducted by US agencies against UN and European commanders and diplomats. The American agenda in the Balkans set a new precedent in the allies’ relationship with the US.

The American unilateralism in Bosnia led to a diplomatic and political backlash. Europe felt it could no longer rely on the US in times of crisis. Instead, European countries started to hedge their bets. Britain signed the first Anglo-French St. Malo Agreement and then agreed to the establishment of the so-called European army.

The St. Malo agreement is at the heart of what seemed to be a shift in foreign policy by the French towards Iraq. Reason being, France is strategically looking to establish a European Federation with Britain as a major player: a Europe that can at least be an alternative power on the world political platform; the name of the game for the French is European federation and integration. The French always viewed the special British relationship with the US as a hindrance to the European dream.

That is why the French have looked for every single opportunity to co-operate with the British and gain their trust and confidence. Supporting Iraq against a British proposal was a low priority at this moment in time; winning the British over was more important. The French assessment must have been that the British proposal is bound to fail in the face of determined and sustained Iraqi opposition. Therefore, supporting the British was, for the French, an opportunity that should not be wasted.

The French, like the Russians, formed the view that it did not matter what resolution the British proposed at the UN. What really mattered is that if Iraq was willing to co-operate with the UN to make a success of the resolution. This was not the case in this instance. Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to nullify UN resolutions that did not serve its interest. Resolution 1284 is but one example.

In protecting their strategic European interest, the French have betrayed the faith and trust of the Iraqi people. However, the Russians have assumed superiority in reading the new strategic picture of the Middle East. The Russian stand has won them friends in the region and has offered the first serious challenge to the US New World Order.

With an apparent increase in self-confidence, the Russians have demonstrated their willingness and ability to be a major player in world politics. Withdrawing the British “smart sanctions” proposal from the UN has shown that the Russians have played their political card correctly. The French on the other hand have lost ground in furthering their interest and political influence in the Middle East. The Russians have come out winners on the side of Iraq in the latest twist in US-Iraqi politics.

*Dr Burhan M. Al-Chalabi is a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, UK.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------