Ten years ago, during the night of the 16th to 17th of January 1991, the bombings of the ‘Gulf War” began. Iraq had invaded Kuwait 5 months earlier and was refusing to pull out despite heavy international sanctions. With “collateral damage” including 100 000 to 200 000 deaths, 5 million persons and 200 billion dollars in material damage(1), this war was the single most devastating event in the Middle East since World War I. But for the Iraqi people, it was only going to be the beginning of a long nightmare that is still dragging on...
Indeed, since a decade, the Security Council -driven by the USA and the UK, with the continued support of Canada- has maintained against Iraq the most severe sanctions regime in the history of the United Nations. This has prevented the reconstruction of the country and has condemned all sectors economic and social activity to an inescapable wasting away. The combined effects of bombings and sanctions have created one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes of the last decades and led to the death of approximately one and a half million people, including, according to UNICEF, 600,000 children under 5 years old. Yet, despite the abundance of tragic figures provided by all UN agencies working in the areas of childhood, nutrition, health, education, agriculture, development, etc. and the loud resignations of high officials of the United Nations(2), media coverage-television most notably-continues to be totally oblivious to the suffering of the Iraqi people. But beyond the media, it is our collective responsibility which is questioned by this unending human tragedy.
Center>What “Desert Storm” was really like
In 1991, the fireworks of illuminating rockets and the complacent re-enactments of the “surgical precision” of “Allied” “smart bombs” kept the true horror of war away from our television screens. In his book(3), René Dumont speaks differently of this war as an other examples, let us recall the pointless carnage of the “highway of death”, where, on a 40 kilometer stretch in Southern Iraq, thousands of fleeing soldiers and civilians were literally grilled or shred to pieces by bombings of extreme intensity. According to the testimony of a British soldier, there had never been as many dead per square meter, since Hiroshima...
While taking place, the bombing campaign was presented as targeting the Iraqi armed forces as well as their command and supply lines. But only a few months later, it became clear that the civilian infrastructures of Iraq had been targeted: bridges, roads, food warehouses, irrigation systems, water plants, electrical production and distribution facilities, refineries, pipelines, etc. US military strategists admitted that they had resorted to “strategic bombing”, aiming at everything which allowed Iraq to sustain itself with the goal of accelerating the impact of sanctions(4).
An even more convincing proof of the deliberate selection of prohibited targets(5) has recently been provided in the case of the supply of drinkable water. Indeed, in September 2000, Professor Thomas J. Nagy from George Washington University revealed(6) the existence of a document entitled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities”, prepared by the US Defence Intelligence Agency. It stresses that, in this field, Iraq depends on imported specialised equipment and purification chemicals. “Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidents, if not epidemics (...)“. The document was issued the day after the war started and circulated to all major Allied commands... Later, the country’s eight multi-purpose dams, the majority of pumping stations, as well as municipal water and sewerage facilities were repeatedly bombarded and sanctions have in fact prevented the importing of the required equipment and products for their restoration. Ten years later, almost half the Iraqi population still does not have access to drinkable water and problems related to contaminated water are the main causes of death among Iraqi children.
Since many years, especially in the South of Iraq, an alarming incidence of certain types of cancer has been observed: leukemias and lymphomas, in particular, have increased 4- to 10-fold according to serious estimates. Severe and multiple congenital malformations of various kinds never seen before have appeared in significant numbers. Similar pathologies are observed among several “Gulf War” veterans. More and more, experts are pointing at depleted uranium (DU) as the key factor, since more penetrating, DU-coated bullets and shells were used extensively against Iraq during that war.
The first indications of danger in this regard were provided by official research in the US and Britain. In 1990, for example, before the “Gulf War”, the Atomic Energy Commission of Great Britain estimated that the use of 50 tons of DU in the battlefields in case of a war with Iraq could lead to an increase of approximately 50,000 cases of cancer over the next decade. Assessments of the actual quantity of DU used against Iraq, in particular the South of Iraq, during the 6 weeks of bombings in 1991 vary between 300 and 900 tons!
However, since 1991, Western governments have shirked their moral and financial responsibilities towards civilians and veterans, and denied that DU represents the slightest hazard for health. Moreover, the USA has hindered any progress on this question, by blocking the import of the needed detection instruments by Iraq and preventing the World Health Organisation (WI-JO) from investigating.
In Canada, for several years, the efforts of several veterans led only to the production of enormous reports denying that they are any more sick than the Canadian population at large! But tests performed this year on the body of deceased veteran Terry Riordan from Nova Scotia revealed a strong presence of DU in his bones and forced the Canadian government to offer free testing. The most recent surprise: during the DU conference which took place in Manchester, England, from November 6th to 10th 2000, three international experts, including Dr. Rosalie Bertell from Canada, declared that the tests performed by the Canadian army did not reveal much, simply because they were inappropriate for the task of detecting the problem(7).
During the UNSCOM(8) crisis in December 1998, the USA and Great Britain launched a new bombing campaign nicknamed “Desert Fox”. Iraq then announced that it would no longer respect the no-fly zones covering two thirds of the country, in the North and South, zones that were declared following the “Gulf War” by the same two countries, without any specific approval by the United Nations. According to the Independent of 23 June, 2000, the USA and Great Britain had carried out 21,600 aerial sorties against Iraq since December 1998, causing 300 deaths and wounding 800 more among the civilian population which they claim to be protecting with these zones! This amounts to almost daily bombings, without any significant mention by the media...
The combined effects of the 1991 bombings and continuing sanctions have brought the Iraqi people from a situation of “relative prosperity to massive poverty”(9). The economy has collapsed, the Iraqi dinar, which was worth $3/10 in 1990, had a value of no more than 1/20 of a cent in January 2000. According to a report by a group of international oil experts published in March 2000, this crucial sector of the Iraqi economy is in a state of constant degradation and even threatens to collapse for lack of equipment and spare parts, which are blocked by the United States.
Adding to this picture of general impoverishment, on May 12th 1996, Madelein Allbright, then American ambassador to the UN, after being asked on the programme “60 Minutes” whether the live of half a million children was “worth the price” (to get rid of the Iraqi president) answered that it was “a difficult choice but the price.. .we think that the price is worth it”.
UNICEF reports that the children continue to die at the rate of 150 to 200 per day, that the cases of severe malnutrition in children of less than five years have more than tripled between 1990 and 1999, that 55% of the schools are inadequate for learning and that more than one million children do not attend school for economic reasons linked to the embargo.
At a time when the United States want to bring Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein to justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity, it is useful to recall that on May 12th 1996, Madeleine Allbright, then American ambassador to the UN, after being asked on the programme “60 Minutes” whether the life of half a million children was “worth the price” (to get rid of the Iraqi president), answered that it was “a difficult choice, but the price...we think that the price is worth it”. Now article 54 of protocol I added to the Geneva Conventions affirms that it is forbidden to starve civilians as a means of waging war and article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention affirms that no protected person can be punished for a crime he did not commit and forbids collective punishments.
Even though the impact of sanctions on the Iraqi civilian population is obvious, it still took almost 10 years and 1.5 million deaths for human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (Al) to start giving it attention. In fact, it is in March 2000, that the general assembly of AI-USA determined that “certain economic measures including the embargo on the importation of food, medicines, spare parts for repairing water purifying or electricity producing equipment and on other items essential for the lives of civilians, in the context of armed interventions, constitute a violation of International humanitarian law(11) (...) Two weeks later, the general assembly of the French-Canadian section of (Al) unanimously supported the Al-USA resolution.
Furthermore, on August 18th 2000, the UN sub-commission on the promotion and protection of human rights called on the international community and in particular the Security Council to lift the aspects of the embargo affecting the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi population.
Within the framework of this programme, the revenues From oil sold(13) by Iraq are deposited into a sequestered account at the Banque Nationale de Paris in New York, administered by the United Nations Office in charge of the programme for Iraq (OIP). They are allocated in the following manner: 53% for the Centre and South of Iraq ,86% of the population), 30%(14) for a war compensation fund, 13% for the three northern autonomous governorships, 4% for administrative costs of the various United Nations bodies in Iraq.
Concerning purchases, Iraq negotiates agreements with suppliers but it is the latter who must submit the purchase :contracts to the UN Office in charge of the programme for Iraq (OIP). Until the year 2000, all the contracts were then submitted to the Sanctions Committee (or Committee 661), composed of one representative of each country present at the Security Council. However, starting with phase VII (resolution 1284, December L999), lists of items for direct approval by the OIP will Progressively be adopted by Committee 661.
(…) for most ordinary Iraqis the monthly food ration constitutes the most important part of household revenue and that they are often reduced to exchanging or selling items of this ration in order to satisfy other essential needs...
During the last year, notwithstanding the very high price of oil and the “improvements” applied to the OFF programme, real improvements to the daily lives of the Iraqi population remain very minimal. In his most recent report of November 29th 2000, Secretary-General Kofi Annan underlines a certain progress(15), but paints a sombre picture of the general situation in the different sectors.
He indicates, for example, that for most ordinary Iraqis the monthly food ration constitutes the most important part of household revenue and that they are often reduced to exchanging or selling items of this ration in order to satisfy other essential needs... Also that 37% of schools visited during this phase were considered as less than minimally secure! That less than one quarter of children suffering from malnutrition and women who are pregnant or nursing have received at least one ration of high-protein biscuits. That none of the 15 public health centres and none of the 68 community day cares evaluated in October 2000 had a governmental vehicle for the distribution of nutritional supplements.
Furthermore, the programme remains affected by obstruction measures, in particular by the United States but also by the United Kingdom, who both systematically block or delay the adoption of a large number of contracts, most of which are linked to the rebuilding of infrastructures’(16)...While in mid-June, the total value of blocked contracts had been reduced to $1.34 billion, it reached a new height of $2,7 billion last December 15th. In the electricity sector, contracts valued at $871 million are blocked, preventing the linking-up of 150 000 homes. In the telecommunication sector(17), out of a total of $230.5 million worth of contracts submitted, more than 60% are blocked.
Blocked contracts negatively affect the transportation of foodstuffs and quality control in the food sector, as well as special projects to alleviate the effects of the worse drought in 50 years. Another deliberate delay with disastrous effects: the Sanctions Committee took 4 months to adopt a list of items for rapid approval in the equipment and spare parts sector for the oil industry...
The sanctions regime and the OFF programme generate bureaucratic delays at all levels, which have disastrous cumulative effects. In general, an enormous amount of time elapses before the actual arrival of merchandise in Iraq, once concluded the initial agreement between the Iraqi government and a supplier.
According to the most recent report by the secretary-general, the general situation of the “53% account” for the Centre and South of Iraq is as follows since the beginning of the OFF programme (December 1996): the total value of submitted contracts is 19.72 billion, the total value of approved contracts is $16.22 billion, but the total value of merchandise delivered is only $8.834 billion(18). This represents the approximate sum of $108.26 per year per citizen living in Iraq! In the telecommunications sector, the value of merchandise having reached Iraq represents only 2.2% of the value of contracts submitted!
It is clear that the OFF programme can absolutely not substitute itself to the whole economy of a country of 24 million people and that maintaining the sanctions and the programme simply perpetuates their misery. This programme constitutes a tutelage system since Iraq does not control her oil revenues and cannot trade directly with any country.
The “alleviation” of the sanctions and the “improvements” to the programme, of which Canada is particularly proud, also have the pernicious effect of presenting as saviours the very ones who are responsible for the destruction of a country.
Alain Gresh delivered, in last October’s issue of Le Monde Diplomatique, the results of one of the rare inquiries conducted on the procedures and workings of this commission. Without mincing matters, he speaks of it as “one of the essential mechanisms in the strategy to annihilate Iraq”.
In this report, we learn that for the first time in the history of international law since the Second World War, a country does not have the right to assume its defence, that Iraq alone must pay all the procedural expenses and that documents in proof are not required for individual complaints. We also learn that “important” plaintiffs are served by the best law firms on the planet, that produce documents tens of thousands of pages long, of which only a summary is delivered to Iraq at the last minute and sometimes 5 years late! Furthermore, Iraq is not authorised to draw on her export revenues to ensure her own defence.
The shameless looting of Iraq through the mechanism of this commission becomes clear when we realise that this devastated country, whose children die without adequate care, is forced to pay in war reparations a portion of her oil revenues (30%) almost as large aswhat she could devote to the survival of half her population. But all this is only theory. In practice, the situation is even more serious. In fact, while the value of merchandise effectively delivered in the Centre and South of Iraq for the 4 years of the Oil for Food programme was $8.834 billion, last November, the amount of indemnities already paid out for war reparations reached $11 billion!
This commission, says Gresh, “has received applications for compensation valued at 320 billion, 180 billion of which are for Kuwait only - the equivalent of nine times the gross domestic product of the country in 1989, which does not seem to surprise anyone”. Even by reducing this sum by two thirds and by adding to it the interest charges for periods of 10 to 15 years, we reach an amount of around 300 billion, which would condemn Iraq to devote to it a third of her revenues, at the current very high price of oil, during the next 50 or 60 years.
Mounting opposition
At the international level, we observe a mounting movement of opposition vis-à-vis the policy of bombings and sanctions against Iraq. This is being demonstrated by an increased number of calls to lift the sanctions, the restoration of diplomatic relations with Iraq and by a growing number of civil humanitarian flights to Baghdad whose international airport has been closed until recently. If these constitute very encouraging developments, we should not lose sight that this has practically no real impact on the everyday life of the Iraqi people, whose conditions can only be significantly improved by the lifting of the sanctions.
In Québec and in Canada in general, the silence of major television media about the hardships resulting from the sanctions and the disinformation about the stakes of this conflict have not prevented a considerable number of organisations and individuals to oppose the Canadian policy supporting the sanctions and the of bombings against Iraq. This amount has been the case with the Association québécoise des organismes de cooperation Internationale, the Canadian Religious Conference, the Orthodox Church of Canada, the Quebec Women’s Federation, Interchurch Action for Development, the New Democratic Party and Bloc québécois and, more recently the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Canada, Quebec’s major trade unions the CSN and CSQ, the Association des écrivains québécois pour la jeunesse, etc. Since a few months now, there exists a Canadian Network to End Sanctions on Iraq (CANESI, www.canesi.org) and a coalition in Québec is taking shape.
We recall that last March a combination of testimonies called for a radical change in the Canadian policy during the meeting of the Permanent Committee of the House of Commons on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (PCFAIT) in Ottawa. To the point that this multi-party committee subsequently recommended unanimously the lifting of economic sanctions and the resumption of diplomatic relations with Iraq. However, setting aside these unanimous recommendations, thousands of letters of protest by citizens and the renewed opposition by numerous parliamentarians, the federal government continues its unfailing support for the sanctions and bombing against Iraq.
Last summer, it has once again sent a frigate of 35 million $CAN to strengthen the maritime blockade against Iraq and is sending another one this winter. Very recently, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Trade, John Manley, justified yet again the sanctions and bombings by claiming that “the strategic objective of the Iraqi Government has been to preserve a part of its arsenal of mass destruction. The Iraqi Government is using the humanitarian distress of the population as leverege(…) Canada respects the right to self-defense of threatened American and British aircraft.” Such a position continues to make Canada one of the most reactionary nations on the planet regarding the issue of Iraq.
On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the “GuIf War”, the signatories of this text are firm in denouncing the odious, illegitimate and illegal character of this huge operation of havoc and looting in a country the civilian population of which continues to pay the price.
This operation, which is allegedly mounted to protect the neighbouring countries of Iraq and its Kurdish population against a threatening and brutal dictator(19), aims more realistically at the destruction of Iraq as a regional power and at the usurpation of its tremendous oil resources.
We recognize the particularly repressive and brutal character of the Iraqi regime, which has a long history of mercilessly suppressing all internal opposition, but we refuse to believe in the fairy tale of any humanitarian motivation behind the policy of bombings and sanctions against Iraq. We categorically denounce the Canadian participation in these crimes committed against an innocent civilian population. We are convinced that the citizens of Canada, who have never been informed and even less consulted on these policies and their effects, would equally refuse that such crimes be committed in their name and with their tax dollars.
2 MMs. Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who in turn presided over the United Nations Humanitarian Programme in Iraq, as well as Mrs. Jutta Burghardt, responsible for the World Food Programme in Baghdad.
3 Cette guerre nous déshonore, Editions du Seuil, Paris, May 1992.
4.Washington Post, June 23rd, 1991.
5. by article 54 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, because these installations are crucial for the survival of the civilian population. 6. Sunday Herald (Scotland, September 17th 2000). 7 These revelations were made on November 14th on Radio CBC in Halifax by Journalist Margaret McGee who took part in the Conference of Manchester. 8. UNSCOM: United Nations Special Commission, charged with the inspection and destruction of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. We note that Scott Ritter, responsible for inspections within UNSCOM (1991-1998) has revealed that the reports of this body have been falsified and that it has been infiltrated by CIA Agents who transmitted to the USA and to Israel information on targets to be bombarded! Ritter describes the Iraqi threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction as NIL. 9. Report of the humanitarian department at the Security Council, March 1999.
10. Unless the opposite is indicated, all the sums in dollars in this article are US$. 11. The reader shall understand that if Al-USA, which is the pioneer of the Al movement on this question, has taken 10 years to arrive at such a conclusion, nevertheless these sanctions violated the International Humanitarian Law as of the moment they were adopted, and more importantly they then prohibited all trade with Iraq whatsoever, including food and medication, although the country imported 70% of its food. 12. On 5 December 2000, resolution 1330 of the Security Council extended the “Oil for Food” programme for a 9th phase of 180 days starting the next day. 13. Starting with a ceiling of 2 billion per phase of 180 days, then as of phase IV with a 5,5235 billion ceiling, the latter has been completely lifted starting with phase VII (resolution 1284, December 1999). 14. Resolution 1330 (December 5th 2000) has reduced this percentage to 25%, the remaining 5% having been added to the”53%” account. 15. For example there have been no new polio cases reported during the last 9 months. Also there has been an important revitalisation of the poultry programme. 16. The Secretary General deplores the number of blocked contracts and the fact that even when additional required information was provided, many of these contracts remain blocked... 17 According to the Secretary General’s report, the installations of this sector are in such bad shape that no efficient communication service will be soon available unless a rapid intervention takes place. 18 It is not rare that contracts be submitted during a phase, approved during the next one and items delivered one or two phases later. 19 We do not put in question the particularly repressive and brutal character of the Iraqi regime, which has a long history of mercilessly repressing all internal opposition but we refuse to believe in the fairytale of any so-called humanitarian motive of the American policy against Iraq.