The Hostage Nation

A major shift is occurring in US policy on Iraq. It is obvious that Washingtonwants to end 11 years of a self-serving policy of containment of the Iraqiregime and change to a policy of replacing, by force, Saddam Hussein and hisgovernment.

The current policy of economic sanctions has destroyed society in Iraq andcaused the death of thousands, young and old. There is evidence of that daily inreports from reputable international organizations such as Caritas, UNICEF andSave the Children. A change to a policy of replacement by force will increasethat suffering.

The creators of the policy must no longer assume that they can satisfy votersby expressing contempt for those who oppose them. The problem is not theinability of the public to understand the bigger picture, as former US secretaryof state Madeleine Albright likes to suggest. It is the opposite. The biggerpicture, the hidden agenda, is well understood by ordinary people. We should notforget Henry Kissinger's brutally frank admission that "oil is much tooimportant a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs".

How much longer can democratically elected governments hope to get away withjustifying policies that punish the Iraqi people for something they did not do,through economic sanctions that target them in the hope that those who survivewill overthrow the regime? Is international law only applicable to the losers?Does the UN security council only serve the powerful?

The UK and the US, as permanent members of the council, are fully aware thatthe UN embargo operates in breach of the UN covenants on human rights, theGeneva and Hague conventions and other international laws. It is neither anti-UKnor anti-US to point out that Washington and London, more than anywhere else,have in the past decade helped to write the Iraq chapter in the history ofavoidable tragedies.

The UK and the US have deliberately pursued a policy of punishment since theGulf war victory in 1991. The two governments have consistently opposed allowingthe UN security council to carry out its mandated responsibilities to assess theimpact of sanctions policies on civilians. We know about this first hand,because the governments repeatedly tried to prevent us from briefing thesecurity council about it. The pitiful annual limits, of less than $170 perperson, for humanitarian supplies, set by them during the first three years ofthe oil-for-food program are unarguable evidence of such a policy.

We have seen the effects on the ground and cannot comprehend how the USambassador, James Cunningham, could look into the eyes of his colleagues a yearago and say: "We (the US government) are satisfied that the oil-for-foodprogram is meeting the needs of the Iraqi people." Besides the provision offood and medicine, the real issue today is that Iraqi oil revenues must beinvested in the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure destroyed in the Gulfwar.

Despite the severe inadequacy of the permitted oil revenue to meet theminimum needs of the Iraqi people, 30 cents (now 25) of each dollar that Iraqioil earned from 1996 to 2000 were diverted by the UN security council, at thebehest of the UK and US governments, to compensate outsiders for lossesallegedly incurred because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. If this money had beenmade available to Iraqis, it could have saved many lives.

The uncomfortable truth is that the west is holding the Iraqi people hostage,in order to secure Saddam Hussein's compliance to ever-shifting demands. The UNsecretary-general, who would like to be a mediator, has repeatedly beenprevented from taking this role by the US and the UK governments.

The imprecision of UN resolutions on Iraq - "constructiveambiguity" as the US and UK define it - is seen by those governments as auseful tool when dealing with this kind of conflict. The US and UK dismisscriticism by pointing out that the Iraqi people are being punished by Baghdad.If this is true, why do we punish them further?

The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001, saysthat the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is byfar the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food programThe report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution ofhumanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory (as it was when we headed thisprogram). The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due tocontaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UKgovernments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible forthis tragedy, not Baghdad.

The expectation of a US attack on Iraq does not create conditions in the UNsecurity council suited to discussions on the future of economic sanctions. Thisyear's UK-sponsored proposal for "smart sanctions" will not beretabled. Too many people realize that what looked superficially like animprovement for civilians is really an attempt to maintain the bridgeheads ofthe existing sanctions policy: no foreign investments and no rights for theIraqis to manage their own oil revenues.

The proposal suggested sealing Iraq's borders, strangling the Iraqi people.In the present political climate, a technical extension of the current terms isconsidered the most expedient step by Washington. That this condemns more Iraqisto death and destitution is shrugged off as unavoidable.

What we describe is not conjecture. These are undeniable facts known to us astwo former insiders. We are outraged that the Iraqi people continue to be madeto pay the price for the lucrative arms trade and power politics. We arereminded of Martin Luther King's words: "A time has come when silence isbetrayal. That time is now."

We want to encourage people everywhere to protest against unscrupulouspolicies and against the appalling disinformation put out about Iraq by thosewho know better, but are willing to sacrifice people's lives with false andmalicious arguments.

The US Defense Department, and Richard Butler, former head of the UN armsinspection team in Baghdad, would prefer Iraq to have been behind the anthraxscare. But they had to recognize that it had its origin within the US.

British and US intelligence agencies know well that Iraq is qualitativelydisarmed, and they have not forgotten that the outgoing secretary of defense,William Powell, told incoming President George Bush in January: "Iraq nolonger poses a military threat to its neighbors". The same message has comefrom former UN arms inspectors. But to admit this would be to nail the entire UNpolicy, as it has been developed and maintained by the US and UK governments.

We are horrified by the prospects of a new US-led war against Iraq. Theimplications of "finishing unfinished business" in Iraq are tooserious for the global community to ignore. We hope that the warnings of leadersin the Middle East and all of us who care about human rights are not ignored bythe US government. What is now most urgently needed is an attack on injustice,not on the Iraqi people.

Hans von Sponeck was UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998 to2000; Denis Halliday held the same post from 1997 to 1998.