An exchange with Mark Urban re his Newsnight report 22/9/99

[Eric Herring <Eric.Herring@DELETETHISbristol.ac.uk>]

I thought the list might be interested to see this 
exchange. If anything more is forthcoming, I'll forward it.

Cheers

Eric

--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:58:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Herring <Eric.Herring@bristol.ac.uk>
Subject: Iraqi infant mortality rates: competing 
explanations
Sender: Eric.Herring@bristol.ac.uk
To: Mark Urban <mark.urban@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Eric Herring <eric.herring@bristol.ac.uk>, Jessica 
Barrington <jessica.barrington@bbc.co.uk>
Reply-To: Eric Herring <Eric.Herring@bristol.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <SIMEON.9909301130.F@pc11.bris.ac.uk>


Dear Mark (if I may):

Thank you for taking the time to reply: it is greatly 
appreciated. Before I begin, I would just like to emphasise 
that I am not questioning your integrity or sincerity in 
any way, and I fully understand the difficulties of putting 
together packages under a great deal of time pressure and 
which must simplify extremely complex issues. 

> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:44:45 +0100 Mark Urban 
> <mark.urban@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> With regard to the infant mortality figures, it was UN 
> relief workers that drew my attention to them not the 
FCO. 

My argument is not with the infant mortality figures, but 
the reason you give for the rate being much higher in the 
centre and the south of Iraq. You claim in your package 
that UNICEF’s explanation is that this is the result of a 
deliberate policy by Saddam Hussein to inflict suffering to 
get the sanctions lifted. You said 'powerful evidence from 
one of its [the UN's] own organisations, showing how Iraq 
may have been sacrificing its own people for propaganda ... 
the UN has brought a small improvement. But, where Saddam 
rules, children die in increasing numbers’.

However, your claim is demonstrably untrue, as I showed in 
detail in my email to the item’s producer Claudia Milne: 
UNICEF has made it very clear indeed that it attributes the 
different mortality rates to the relative impact of the 
sanctions. Why did you attribute to UNICEF a position which 
not only it does not hold but it has actively gone out of 
its way to dispute? Your report didn’t specify UNICEF, but 
I presume that is the UN organisation you were referring to 
- it is the one which produced the report. 

Your package also failed to provide the evidence to stand 
up your claim. If I can quote you again:: ‘So, the UN has 
brought a small improvement. But where Saddam rules, 
children die in increasing numbers, something those running 
the UN programme can hint at but never say.’ This cannot be 
true: UNICEF has done far more than hint at the child 
mortality contrast - it has publicised it widely. However, 
I suspect that you mean something else: that those running 
the UN programme think that Saddam Hussein is deliberately 
keeping infant mortality rates high, but ‘can only hint at 
it’. The onus was then on you to provide evidence of the 
hints. You cut immediately to a clip of Benon Sevan, 
Executive Director of the UN Office of the Iraq Programme 
(OIP). He stated that ‘We can only recommend to the Iraqi 
government what to do .... the ultimate goal of the Iraqi 
government is to lift the sanctions.’ This (and the 
material I have snipped) is very ambiguous: whether or not 
it is a hinting at what you claim is highly disputable. Why 
put up such flimsy stuff and not put up UNICEF’s own 
explicit counter-arguments? Alternatively, is it that the 
UN people are telling you off the record directly that the 
mortality rate is deliberately kept high by Iraq? Even if 
some of them ar telling you this, how do you account for 
the former UN personnel such as Denis Halliday (who 
appeared on the programme) who reject that claim?

Here is my guess: I think that you saw the contrast in 
figures, were simply unaware of UNICEF’s explanation for 
the contrast, deduced for yourself (based on Saddam 
Hussein’s undoubted extreme vileness) that it was caused by 
deliberate Iraqi policy, and interpreted Sevan’s comments 
as a hint which fitted your own deduction. This is an 
understandable mistake, but a mistake nevertheless.

> I was not aware before seeing your message that Cook had 
> previously made use of them, but of course it's 
> unsurprising that he has. Had I known that he had, it 
> would not have made me any more or less willing to quote 
> the figures in my package. 

I am sure that this is true. 

> We must be just as sensitive to good FCO arguments as we 
> are to bad ones.

I agree that good arguments are good arguments, regardless 
of who makes them. My point is that the argument you 
attribute to UNICEF is not UNICEF’s at all but that of the 
FCO, and it is a bad argument.

> As for your argument that the mortality increase runs 
> back to before the Oil for Food Programme, I have no 
> doubt that there is something in it. Neverthless: 
> humanitarian to Iraq was distributed before 1996; you 
> will know from NGO progammes in various crises and 
> famines that emergency food aid can have a rapid effect 
> on infant mortality; UN agencies have had much greater 
> freedom of action in the north since 1991; there is 
> plenty of evidence from the Iraqi opposition of food 
> being used as a weapon against the Shia ever since the 
> 1991 rising; now that Iraq has the Oil for Food money 
> they spend miserably little of it of infant feeding 
> programmes; Iraq has spent huge amounts on Saddam's 
> palaces and gold rolexes - sorry to finish with a 
> well-worn FCO line, but are you arguing it's not true? I 
> have no wish to defend the sanctions policy as such. It 
> has been obviousfor the last couple of years that a new 
> approach to Iraq policy is needed. Nevertheless I am 
> convinced that a combination of Iraqi government 
> incompetance and ruthlessness has greatly increased the 
> people's suffering.

This is quite a welter of claims which would take a lot of 
time to sort out and and respond to (the main issue is less 
the facts - although trying to find out how much is spent 
on palaces and so on matters - than the meanings and 
conclusions, about policy, about his and our moral 
character, to be drawn from them). We can have a detailed 
dialogue on these if you wish.

In the meantime, what I would say that none of them 
contradict my main claim: that the UNICEF not only does not 
hold but actively disputes the position you attribute to 
it. Furthermore, these comments alter your position pretty 
dramatically. It is well documented that the infant feeding 
programme in the centre and south is miserably inadequate, 
in spite of repeated requests from the UN for this to 
improve. One of the objectives of my current research is to 
develop an explanation of this. Your package claimed 
bluntly that what is happening is that Saddam Hussein ‘is 
ruthless enough to starve his own people’ to try to get 
sanctions lifted. However, your email states that the 
situation has been produced by ‘a combination of Iraqi 
government incompetence and ruthlessness’. This begs the 
questions: what is the relative proportion of incompetence 
and ruthlessness? In which respects exactly has it been 
incompetent and how do you know this? Why did your package 
not mention and explain the incompetence? 

I am not trying to trap you here: this is a crucial issue 
about the relative mix of 
        - deliberate Iraqi policy handed down from the top 
to keep infant mortality high to get sanctions lifted 
(ruthlessness plus conspiracy) 
        - a state which prioritises regime survival over 
reducing infant mortality (note that this is a *very* 
different thing from the previous argument) 
        - comfortable bureaucrats who don’t give a damn 
about infant mortality 
        - bureaucrats who do give a damn but who are 
utterly demoralised, desperate and poverty-stricken 
        - bureaucrats who demonstrate their status by 
delaying things 
        - a society in which programmes are not implemented 
because there is the constant expectation that there is no 
need because sanctions will soon be lifted 
        - a Ministry of Health which is deeply wedded 
culturally to high tech Western medicine and which is 
reluctant to spend its time running low-tech feeding 
programmes.

Your package put all your eggs into the basket of the first 
explanation, attributed that first explanation inaccurately 
to UNICEF and failed to consider any of the others.

Let me make it clear that I feel it to be perfectly 
plausible that someone as vile as Saddam Hussein would 
deliberately keep infant mortality rates high if he felt it 
would benefit him in any way. If there is any evidence of 
it, I am keen to see it.  In my view, the Iraqi people are 
being ground to pieces in the struggle between the US and 
Britain on the one hand and Saddam Hussein on the other. 
The UN consistently lambasts BOTH sides. To give a couple 
of 
examples from Kofi Annan in May 1999: ‘more can be done ... 
to address the unacceptably high levels of child and 
maternal mortality, particularly in the south and centre of 
Iraq, through expedited implementation of targeted 
nutrition programmes and expeditious appproval by the 
Security Council Committee of applications in water and 
sanitation and other key sectors such as health, which have 
a direct bearing on the unnacceptably high malnutrition 
levels.’ Similarly Sevan complained to the Security Council 
in July 1999 that 'The improvement of the nutritional and 
health status of the Iraqi people through [a] 
multi-sectoral approach ... is being seriously affected as 
a result of [the] excessive number of holds placed on 
supplies and equipment for water, sanitation and 
electricity.' Just as we must not jump to (or rule out in 
advance) the conclusion that Iraq is deliberately keeping 
infant mortality high, so we must not jump to (or rule out 
in advance) the conclusion that those Security Council 
members responsible for the holds are deliberately keeping 
infant mortality high.

One last point: throughout your report you assumed that the 
purpose fo the sanctions was to force Iraqi compliance with 
UN resolutions requiring it to give up nuclear, biological 
and chemical weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. In 
contrast, there are many statements from US officials that 
their objective is to overthrow him, and that sanctions 
will stay until this is achieved. For example, in March 
1997 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, in direct 
contradiction of the position she is shown as taking in 
your package: 'We do not agree with those nations who argue 
that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning 
weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted'. 
Your package did not mention this and hence did not address 
the argument that Iraq has no incentive to comply with the 
relevant UN resolutions, unless it believes that other 
states will force the lifting of the sanctions against the 
wishes of the US and possibly British governments. Nor does 
it address the point that US policy can be construed as 
being in violation of the very UN resolutions with which 
Iraq is being expected to comply because SCR 687 affirms 
explicitly the 'sovereignty, territorial integrity and 
political independence' of Iraq.

I hope these comments are of value to you, and I will send 
you a copy of a paper I have written reviewing some of 
these (and other) issues. 

I would be grateful if you would copy this email to Sian 
Kevill and Claudia Milne.

If I can be of assistance on this issue in future, please 
do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Eric


> > Claudia Milne
> BBC Newsnight > 
> > Dear Ms. Milne.
> > I am a lecturer in international politics at the 
University > of Bristol engaged in research on the UN 
Security Council > sanctions on Iraq. Colin Rowat supplied 
me with your email > address. I have done various pieces on 
work for Newsnight > on international crises over the 
years. > > I saw the item last night on the UN Security 
Council > sanctions on Iraq, and I was very concerned by a 
number of > demonstrable, important and I am sure 
unintentionally > misleading inaccuracies in the report of 
your Diplomatic > Editor Mark Urban which had were wholly 
in line with the > Foreign Office position and which are 
contradicted by the > UN documents on which they are 
supposed to be based. Let me > indicate just one of these:
> > Urban: 'powerful evidence from one of its [the UN's] 
own > organisations, showing how Iraq may have been 
sacrificing > its own people for propaganda ... the UN has 
brought a > small improvement. But, where Saddam rules, 
children die in > increasing numbers, something those 
running the UN > programme can hint at, but never bluntly 
say'. > > My response: The British government has made the 
most of > the contrasts between the north of Iraq which is 
> UN-controlled and the centre and south of the country 
where > the programme is administered directly by the Iraqi 
> government and monitored by the UN. Foreign Secretary 
Robin > Cook said of northern Iraq that 'it is no accident 
that the > people are hugely better off ... The contrast 
with the rest > of the country could not be starker'.  
UNICEF calculated > that the mortality rate among children 
under five in the > north fell between 1979 and 1989, rose 
until 1994, and then > fell again until 1999 (to below the 
rate for 1979 to 1989). > In contrast, it calculated for 
the centre and south of Iraq > fell during the 1980s but 
rose catastrophically during the > 1990s to result in 
around 500,000 excess deaths among > children under five.  
All reports confirm the contrast: the > narrative at issue 
here is what explains that contrast. The > Foreign Office 
presents it as proof that the deaths are > caused not by 
the sanctions but by Saddam Hussein alone.  > > However, 
UNICEF explicitly rejects this: 'the difference in > the 
current rate [of child mortality] cannot be attributed > to 
the differing ways the Oil-for-Food Program is > 
implemented in the two parts of Iraq. The Oil-for-Food > 
Program is two and a half years old. Therefore it is too > 
soon to measure any significant impact of the Oil-for-Food 
> Program on child mortality over the five year period of > 
1994-1999 as reported in these surveys.'  Caroline Bellamy, 
> Executive Director of UNICEF, says there are a number of 
> reasons for the difference - sanctions have been more 
easy > to evade in the north, agriculture is easier there, 
and it > has been receiving aid for a much longer period.  
Indeed > aid began arriving in the north in 1991 whereas it 
began to > arrive in the rest of the country only in 1997, 
and in > large quantities only from the spring of 1998. In 
addition, > according to Richard Garfield, a Columbia 
University > epidemiologist who has studied the effects of 
the sanctions > on Iraq,  the north gets 22 per cent more 
per capita from > the oil sales programme; gets 10 per cent 
of the funds > raised in cash (unlike the centre and south 
which gets only > commodities); and gets aid from 34 
Non-Governmental > Organisations (NGOs) compared to eleven 
in the centre and > south.  On this basis, the narrative 
that the difference is > caused by harsher sanctions rather 
than harsher Saddam is > much more plausible. > 
> I would be happy to supply you with the fully referenced 
> research on which my statements are based and to supply 
you > with further research in future when you plan to 
cover this > issue again. > > Yours sincerely,
> > ---------------------- > Dr. Eric Herring > Department 
of Politics > University of Bristol > 10 Priory Road
> Bristol BS8 1TU > England, UK > Tel. +44-(0)117-928-8582 
> Fax +44-(0)117-973-2133 > 
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Politics > 
eric.herring@bristol.ac.uk 

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:44:45 
+0100 Mark Urban <mark.urban@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> Dr Herring,
> Jessica Barrington passed me your message.
> With regard to the infant mortality figures, it was UN relief workers that
> drew my attention to them not the FCO. I was not aware before seeing your
> message that Cook had previously made use of them, but of course it's
> unsurprising that he has. Had I known that he had, it would not have made me
> any more or less willing to quote the figures in my package. We must be just
> as sensitive to good FCO arguments as we are to bad ones.
> As for your argument that the mortality increase runs back to before the Oil
> for Food Programme, I have no doubt that there is something in it.
> Neverthless: humanitarian to Iraq was distributed before 1996; you will know
> from NGO progammes in various crises and famines that emergency food aid can
> have a rapid effect on infant mortality; UN agencies have had much greater
> freedom of action in the north since 1991; there is plenty of evidence from
> the Iraqi opposition of food being used as a weapon against the Shia ever
> since the 1991 rising; now that Iraq has the Oil for Food money they spend
> miserably little of it of infant feeding programmes; Iraq has spent huge
> amounts on Saddam's palaces and gold rolexes - sorry to finish with a
> well-worn FCO line, but are you arguing it's not true ?
> I have no wish to defend the sanctions policy as such. It has been obvious
> for the last couple of years that a new approach to Iraq policy is needed