Al-Samarrai is a third-year cybernetics student and a member of
the United Arab Society. Â Illustration by ZACH LOPEZ/Daily
Bruin
By Hakam Al-Samarrai
This week the United Arab Society has organized a call to end
the sanctions against Iraq, which are approaching their 11th year.
Over the years support for the sanctions from the international
community has dwindled to mainly two countries ““ the United
States and Britain. It is important that we know the facts
concerning this great human tragedy, which some United Nations
officials have labeled a “holocaust” and
“genocide.”
First it is crucial to point out the overlooked fact that 2
million innocent Iraqis have died as a direct result of the
sanctions ““ this is in a country whose total population today
is only about 23 million. How is it that these deaths are a direct
result of sanctions? Could the United States be responsible for
such atrocious acts? Isn’t the Iraqi government and more
pointedly Saddam Hussein responsible for this?
Well, that would be nice to believe, but the reality is far from
that. The United States, for more than 10 years, has been fervently
supporting and enforcing sanctions that don’t just bar
weapons from entering Iraq. The sanctions deny Iraqis their most
basic medical, educational and humanitarian needs.
Yusef Abdullah of the Food and Agriculture Organization says,
“If you feed the population, but the water is contaminated,
people will eat, get diarrhea and die. At the same time, there are
no medicines, so you get mortality, even though you’re
distributing food. If you don’t have electricity, you
don’t have water and sanitation, you don’t have
health.” (“Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of
Sanctions and War,” Anthony Arnove (ed.), South End Press,
2000).
Makes sense, but why do these conditions exist? They exist
because there are more than 200 classes of sanctioned items deemed
as “Dual-use.” “Dual-use” refers to the
potential of these items being used for either civilian or military
purposes.
But the list includes items such as pencils, paper, textbooks,
incubators, soap, flour and chlorine. The United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has reported that the amount of
drinkable water has decreased by 300 percent and polluted water has
increased by 600 percent since sanctions began. This results from a
lack of water purification and treatment chemicals, with chlorine
being the most essential of these. All these restrictions, when put
together, form a complete picture of a country being choked ““
and the victims are clearly the citizens.
Among the many U.N. officials who have resigned in protest of
the sanctions is Denis Halliday, former U.N. coordinator for
humanitarian aid to Iraq. He was recently nominated for the Nobel
Peace Prize with Kathy Kelly for their efforts to raise awareness
and bring an end to the sanctions. Halliday, upon resigning, said,
“We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is
as simple and terrifying as that.”
In other words, the sanctions are not just killing people, but
affecting the very fabric and structure of Iraqi society as a
whole. More than 10 years of sanctions have transformed Iraq from
one of the most advanced countries in the developing world into a
land stricken with poverty, famine and rampant diseases ““ all
of which are otherwise readily curable.
Yet, even with the staggering evidence of the suffering that
Iraqi people endure, there are still ignorant and ill-informed
“activists” who argue that the only right path is to
tighten the sanctions. They deem this the only alternative left,
not recognizing it as the chokehold on the Iraqi people.
A prime example of one of these “activists” is
UCLA’s Ben Shapiro, who claims he is “bringing reason
to the masses” by regurgitating information from his limited
collection of sources (“Bush knows Hussein’s goal is
power, not peace,” Viewpoint, Feb. 27). Shapiro’s logic
seems to be that if the laypeople are underfed, underpaid and
underprivileged, they will revolt.
But once presented with the full picture it becomes obvious that
this argument is for the disillusioned and irrational. Shapiro and
others like him are blind to the fact that the Iraqi people are
struggling to survive on a daily basis because of the sanctions.
Shapiro asks some very valid questions, and unfortunately he
answers them with common misconceptions and facts taken out of
context.
In reference to the Oil-for-Food program, Shapiro appears to
ask: So where have all the profits gone? Why the monumental health
problems? The profits of this program, instead of going directly
into Saddam’s pocket, are actually kept in the United Nations
escrow account with the Bank of Paris in New York City. All
requests for purchases go through the U.N., which has committees to
review and ensure that the purchased items are used properly.
Also, the funds raised through this program do not go entirely
to food or humanitarian supplies. Besides the allocation of 30
percent to pay for Gulf War reparations, the U.N. also diverts five
percent for its operations in Iraq (i.e. the inspection teams), two
percent to repair and maintain oil pipelines, and 15 percent for
humanitarian supplies for 3 million Kurds in northern Iraq (Arnove,
2000).
It is also important to note the program was not initiated until
more than six years after sanctions began, when it became clear
that the Iraqis’ declining welfare was a direct result of the
sanctions. After four-and-a-half years the program has yet to ease
the effects of the sanctions.
Denis Halliday notes “Oil-for-food was never intended to
actually solve the humanitarian crisis. It was designed to stop
further deterioration. It was designed to build on what the Iraqi
government was already doing and is still doing.”
Shapiro assumes the rest of the world is blinded by
“misconceptions,” questioning the increasing lack of
support for the sanctions internationally. He claims that Russia,
China and France, in addition to other countries, do not have
entirely altruistic motives in their support for the removal of
sanctions ““ their reasons being solely political and
economical. Even if this were the case, at least they are not
ignoring the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
Michael Schwartz addresses the United States’ often
questionable motives (“Bombing of Iraq another transparent
act of thuggery,” Viewpoint, Feb. 28), bringing to light this
country’s economic interests in the area.
For others interested in learning more about the sanctions, I
plead with you. Do not make a half-hearted attempt to research.
Instead, be willing to invest your time and your mind, because such
matters cannot be reduced to black and white issues. Since it is
U.S. influence within the U.N. that now maintains the sanctions, it
is time we admit our mistakes and work toward the truly viable
option of resolution.
If you see members of the United Arab Society on campus today,
stop and do your part by taking the time to sign the petition to
end sanctions, and donate a pencil.
Denis Halliday put it best when he said:”Genocide is
taking place right now, every day, in Iraq’s cities. To say
it’s a passive thing is not correct. It’s an active
policy of continuing sanctions. The member states (U.N.) know full
well what they’re doing and what the impact is. To hide
behind Saddam Hussein is a cop-out. It’s not acceptable to
me. We have got to take responsibility; we the Europeans, the North
Americans, and the members of the Security Council. It’s our
responsibility.”