Vanishing Act: Making an entire people just "disappear"

[Marty Botchford]

http://www.mediamonitors.net/bobeck2.html

Vanishing Act: Making an entire people just "disappear"

by Bobeck Modjtahedi
It was 1991 when President Bush had to persuade the American people
and congress to go to war with Iraq. When people suggested that
sanctions be used instead of going to war, George W. Bush senior
simply stated that "Sanctions won’t work". With that in mind, we went
off to war.

Skip ahead only ten years and what do we see: sanctions. The one thing
that couldn’t win the war is the only weapon America seems to think
can. Throughout these ten years, however, not much has changed in the
Iraqi power structure. American administrations have come and gone,
but one thing has remained constant: the sanctions on Iraq. What has
changed is the heath and well being of the Iraqi people as they have
spiraled into mediocrity.

Through each major administration we have heard the repeated calls
that sanctions are the only way to rid Iraq of its despotic leader.
Yet, if they are, why is Sadam still in power today, and why is he
more powerful than ever? Sanctions have never had a long history of
being effective. They have obviously failed in Cuba, as they have
failed in North Korea and Vietnam at the expense of millions of lives
over the course of many generations. Somehow this country has
inherited the dangerous notion of "the end justifies the means."
Future generations will regard the sanctions on Iraq as this
generation’s holocaust; and in bewilderment they will ask "why?"

But surely, most Americans think, there must be a reason for these
sanctions to be in place. Yet, there truly is not, at least based on
the list of justifications the United States has provided. The US has
provided the following rationalizations for the sanctions:
humanitarian reasons, the need to get Sadam Hossein out of power, and
disarmament of Iraq. Clearly the former cannot be a viable reason
because the US fervently supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when he
was at the peak of his inhumane actions. In fact, in 1988 when Iraq
used gas on humans the US stoutly blocked any criticism of its ally
and continued to support Iraq. The middle argument is, of course, very
flawed. The US did not verbally support an uprising by the people of
Iraq until after the main insurrections of the masses to overthrow
Sadam. The US has quite openly, in fact, supported a coup by Sadam’s
generals so as to have an equally if not more corrupt government that
the US can manipulate; just without the bad publicity and stubbornness
of Sadam. Clearly, however, the US benefits from a regional mad man
such as Sadam, for he serves as a type of threat to others in the
region (example: if you don’t agree with us, will let Sadam loose on
you) and he also serves as an example and figure head for other puppet
leaders around the world ("If you mess with the United States you will
end up like Saddam). And the latter argument cannot be true because
the United States and others have spent trillions of dollars to arm
other regional powers to the teeth with chemical and biological (and
in some cases nuclear) weapons. Most of these nations have repeatedly
proven themselves more volatile and aggressive than Iraq, and
certainly more willing to flaunt their might; especially in the case
of Israel. It is surprising then that Israel does not have to respond
to inspectors or the such. One can only wonder…when will the sanctions
on Israel begin?

The devastation that has occurred as a direct result of these
sanctions is astronomical and not appreciated by the average citizen
of the United States. What is shocking is that every year a new report
from a major group affiliated with the United Nations comes out
demonstrating the extreme wreckage the sanctions have brought about,
yet the UN does nothing but file these reports away in a closet. In
defense of many of the United Nations members states, they are largely
against the continued sanctions against Iraq however there votes are
void and useless when blocked by the United States’ and United
Kingdom’s dictatorial veto power in the Security Council. So while the
world watches in horror the US and UK continue their fight against an
invisible enemy. The UN itself estimates that an average of 250
children under the age of five dies every day as a result of the
sanctions. Furthermore, the World Health Organization confirms similar
statistics stating that between 7,000 and 8,000 children under the age
of five die each month.

In repeated reports the UN has found grave numbers that only seem to
become more grotesque In March of 1999 they reported:

"Iraq has experienced a shift from relative affluence to massive
poverty. In marked contrast to the prevailing situation prior to the
events of 1990-91, the infant mortality rates in Iraq today are among
the highest in the world, low infant birth weight affects at least 23%
of all births, chronic malnutrition affects every fourth child under
five years of age, only 41% of the population have regular access to
clean water, 83% of all schools need substantial repairs. The ICRC
states that the Iraqi health-care system is today in a decrepit state.
UNDP calculates that it would take 7 billion US dollars to
rehabilitate the power sector country-wide to its 1990 capacity."

Of course, we must recognize that these people are dying slow and
painful deaths drawn out across their increasingly short lives. In
fact, UNECIF found that "32 percent of children under five, some
960,000 children are chronically malnourished - a rise of 72 percent
since 1991 Almost one quarter (23%) are underweight - twice as high as
the levels found in neighboring Jordan or Turkey." Considering that
the results of malnutrition cause irreversible damage to a child’s
physical and mental self after the age of five, the future of Iraq
seems sadly bleaker than its present state. Another UNICEF report
found that:

"The increase in mortality reported in public hospitals for children
under five years of age (an excess of some 40,000 deaths yearly
compared with 1989) is mainly due to diarrhea, pneumonia and
malnutrition. In those over five years of age, the increase (an excess
of some 50,000 deaths yearly compared with 1989) is associated with
heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, liver or kidney
diseases."

All said, well over 500,000 children (making a total of over a million
people overall) have died as a result of the sanctions on Iraq.
However, the social consequences of sanctions on Iraq may be more
costly as they are likely to tear into generations to come. Far to
many of the nations educated persons and skilled workers have been
forced into low-level jobs where their training is useless, or forced
into fleeing the country in hope of better work. Furthermore, 20-30%
of the countries primary school age children are not in school because
they are forced to become the providers for their homes. Naturally, as
with any society, the increase in economic turmoil has caused an
increase in crime. People have increasingly found no other way to make
money, and thus live another day, other than to commit crimes against
others. This has inevitability caused a major rift in this culture
that was once accustom to a virtual lack of crime and life in relative
luxury of safety. The unfortunate result of the sanctions is that only
Sadam Hussein and his close associates have benefited from these
sanctions off the increasingly lucrative and profitable black market.

Ever since Resolution 986, the oil-for-food program, passed most
American have falsely believed that the problems of Iraq have
diminished. Unfortunately this could not be more incorrect. While the
program has allowed certain food products to enter the country, it has
been more of a way for the UN and the US to save face and get
essential oil supplies without fixing the problem. The program is
essentially rotten to the core. All the business is conducted between
the governments at hand instead of free market commerce. This lack of
competition allows the UN and US to set the standards for exactly what
and how much it will exchange, essentially abusing the system to get
the most for itself. However the major problem with this means for
commerce is that it leaves the responsibly of distributing the goods
to the Iraqi government; which the UN is so often label as corrupt and
the sole reason the sanctions remain in place. The problem, then, is
that the Iraqi government is corrupt and has been reported several
times for abusing its gained resources to make money for its
individuals in power. Once again it is the UN and its affiliate
organizations that are the best witnesses against themselves. It is
apparent that the program as a whole is a failure. UNICEF reported
early on that "There is no sign of any improvement since Security
Council Resolution 986/1111 ["Oil for Food"] came into force." Denis
Halliday reported to students at Harvard (after his resignation from
his post as UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian
Coordinator in Iraq in protest of the continued sanctions) that:

Within the limited revenues allowed by the Security Council for
imports under 986, funds are not adequate for the inclusion in the
monthly food basket of animal proteins, meat, fish, chicken, and
minerals and vitamins essential in a balanced diet for the well-being
of adults and critically important for young children. The 986 food
basket has focused on calorific intake, via grains, sugar, tea, and
other basic supplies, which taken together with the breakdowns
mentioned above has shattered the life expectancy of Iraqi infants and
children.

Even with the program the children of Iraq remain dangerously
malnourished and essentially in the same position as before resolution
986 took place. The basic supplies they are receiving are essentially
what they had originally had the greatest access to. Aside from the
products mentioned above the Iraqis deeply need sanitation and
agricultural materials that have been labeled as potential means for
Iraqi weaponry. The subsequent destruction of the nation’s agriculture
naturally contributes to the problem in a long-term sense; for even
when the sanctions are lifted the nation’s agricultural infrastructure
will take decades to rebuild. The lack of access to safe drinking
water has killed significant portions of the Iraqi population. However
to get an idea of how ridiculous the above standards for restricted
items are one must only listen to the reason behind sanctioning
pencils: "We are told that pencils are forbidden because carbon could
be extracted from them that might be used to coat airplanes and make
them invisible to radar." (Taken from Farid Zarif in "Smart Bombs,
Dumb Sanctions", deputy director of the UN humanitarian aid program).

Most politicians in the United States who are in favor of sanctions on
Iraq dismiss any opposition to such policy as ignorance of the
problem. This is clearly not the case because some of the most learned
individuals on the subject, and highly regarded intellectuals in all,
are strongly against the sanctions policy. Furthermore, so are most
international organizations. The long list of opponents includes the
aforementioned Denis Halliday and Scott Ritter (former US Weapons
Inspector in Iraq) as well as Noam Chomsky-- clearly among the leading
intellectuals of the modern era. Among the most prominent groups to
stand against or at least disapprove of the sanctions (officially or
otherwise) are UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and the New
England Journal of Medicine among other major publications. In fact in
a blistering editorial the New England Journal of Medicine states:

The Cuban and Iraqi instances make it abundantly clear that economic
sanctions are, at their core, a war against public health. Our
professional ethic demands the defense of public health. Thus, as
physicians, we have a moral imperative to call for the end of
sanctions. Having found the cause, we must act to remove it.

As for the high level officials in both the United States and Britain
that defend the sanctions, Noam Chomsky put it best when he stated in
"Frontline" (in response to Tony Blair’s statements that the sanctions
were not responsible for children’s deaths and Madeline Albright’s
statements saying that the US "disowned" any responsibility for the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of children):

Every time Tony Blair opens his mouth, he looks more disgusting and
ridiculous, and his performance marked a painful and shameful day in
the history of Britain. As for Madeleine Albright, her comments over
the years have captured very clearly the moral level of U.S. actions.
In 1996, an interviewer on "60 Minutes" on national television asked
her for her reaction to reports from the United Nations that half a
million Iraqi children had died from the sanctions. Her answer was,
"Well, this is a price that we feel that we are willing to pay." So we
- we - are willing to pay the price of dead Iraqi children. We do not
care if we carry out mass slaughter; the deaths could, I think,
properly be called a form of genocide.

The list of those who have fought against the sanctions policy is as
extensive as the statistics that show the brutality of sanctions. The
odd thing is that many Republicans, as well as some Democrats, are
beginning to oppose the policy. Almost certainly not because they feel
sorry for the Iraqi children that are dying in apocalyptic numbers,
but rather for lucrative campaign contributions and support from the
oil lobby (which too is beginning to oppose the sanctions). In fact,
major European nations (Italy, Russia, Germany, and France…or course
notably not the UK) are starting, if they have not already done so,
doing business with Iraq due to the outrage within their nations
against the sanctions, and of course for economic interests.

As well as being morally outrageous, the sanctions clearly defy all
major international charters, resolutions, laws, bills, and rights. It
is important to remember then that the US as a signatory of these
documents must uphold and follow them to the letter. Among others, the
sanctions violate the following:

The Constitution of the World Health Organization (1946)
The enjoyment of the highest standard of health is one of the
fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race,
religion, political belief, economic, or social condition.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health
and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right
to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances
beyond his control.

The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted by UN
General Assembly (1974)
[N]o state may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any
other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from
it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to
secure from it advantages of any kind

Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977)
(1) Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

(2) It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless
objects indispensable to the agricultural areas for the production of
foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and
supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying
them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the
adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out
civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

UN General Assembly Resolution 44/215 (Dec. 22, 1989)
Economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion
against developing countries: Calls upon the developed countries to
refrain from exercising political coercion through the application of
economic instruments with the purpose of inducing changes in the
economic or social systems, as well as in the domestic or foreign
policies, of other countries; Reaffirms that developed countries
should refrain from threatening or applying trade and financial
restrictions, blockades, embargoes, and other economic sanctions,
incompatible with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations
and in violation of undertakings contracted multilaterally and
bilaterally, against developing countries as a form of political and
economic coercion that affects their political, economic, and social
development.

International Conference on Nutrition, World Declaration on Nutrition,
FAO/WHO (1992)
We recognize that access to nutritionally adequate and safe food is a
right of each individual. We affirm...that food must not be used as a
tool for political pressure.

What is even more shocking is that by its own definition and laws the
United States categorizes itself as a terrorist states according to:

International Terrorism, as defined by the US legal code (Title 18 '
2331)
(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State,
or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States or of an State;

(2) appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or

(3) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by
which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to
intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators
operate or seek asylum;

(Special thanks to Iraqaction.org for its vital information and legal
code assistance)

Clearly no one wishes to see the current Iraqi regime in power, except
for perhaps the leaders of the United States and England. Sadam’s
regime is clearly among the worst in the world. However, the way to
rid the Iraqi people of their despotic leader is not through punishing
them and slaughtering their civilians. The only way to get rid of
Sadam’s despotic rule is through a popular uprising of the masses,
something the US does not wish to have because it might lead to
democracy—a system of government that would threaten our stranglehold
on the region. And it is clear that people cannot fight a war when
they are fighting for their lives as well as the lives of their
families. The average Iraqi has come to blame the US outright for
their hardships, and not Sadam, and slowly he is gaining support from
his people yet again. When we lift the sanctions, the people will
begin to lift Sadam from power; until then they cannot see any
alternative to his rule.

Not only have the sanctions robbed the Iraqi people of their lives and
future, it has robbed them of their humanity and dignity. As Mohammed
Abdul Razaq told the New York Times, "First I sold my television, then
my furniture, then my car, then my house…Everything that I built up
over a lifetime is gone. A bomb is something you hear far away, or at
worst, it kills you in a second. Sanctions kill you every day."

Those that have witnessed it first hand best describe the shocking
reality of what is being done to the people of Iraq. Dennis Halliday
stated that "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It
is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."
However no quote can better show the silent murder that is taking
place, than that of Ashraf Bayoumi (the former head of the World Food
Program Observation Unit) when he stated:

You kill people without blood or organs flying around, without
angering American public opinion. People are dying silently in their
beds. If 5,000 children are dying each month, this means 60,000 a
year. Over eight years, we have half a million children. This is
equivalent to two or three Hiroshimas.

Through starvation, torture, oppression and genocide the masses of
Iraq have been silenced. It is then our responsibility to be their
voices, to stand for them where they have fallen, and to fight where
so many have been defeated.

To all those who support the sanctions on Iraq: how can you. Is it
because the child you are killing is from a distant land? Is it
because you will never meet him? Or hear his screams? Or his desperate
pleas for food and help? Is it because he doesn’t matter? Or is it
because you simply don’t care? No matter what your reasons may
be—shame on you.

May you plea and pray from your Lord to grant you forgiveness…for
future generations never will.

And in bewilderment they will ask "why?"

Mr. Bobeck Modjtahedi is a student and humanitarian activist from
California and currently the President of the International Student
Action Committee.

Source:

by courtesy & © 2001 Bobeck Modjtahedi