Letters exchanged between Peter Hain, Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday
1. Open letter to Peter Hain (then Foreign Office Minister) from Hans
von Sponeck:
The Guardian, 3rd January 2001.
Dear Minister Hain,
17 December 2000 was the first anniversary of UN Resolution 1284. This
resolution was offered by the UN security council last year as a step
forward in resolving outstanding disarmament, and arms monitoring issues
as a precondition for the suspension of comprehensive economic sanctions
against Iraq.
As many feared, including myself, this resolution was a still-born creation.
For this neither the British nor the Iraqi governments but rather the
people of Iraq continue to pay dearly and daily. The European public is
increasingly unwilling to accept such a policy. There is deep concern
because of the suffering of innocent civilians and the irrefutable evidence
of violations of international law by the UN security council.
Without a transparent political agenda and a determined end to contaminating
information, I do not see an end to this costly human tragedy in Iraq.
Your speech of 7 November at Chatham House has not helped in this regard.
Let me single out nine specific points of what you have said:
"Our air crews risk their lives patrolling the skies above southern
Iraq."
The public does not know that you do this without a mandate by the UN
security council. It is in your hands to stop endangering your pilots
by withdrawing them from Iraqi skies. It angered your office that I introduced
air-strike reporting for 1999 while serving in Iraq. I did so as the UN
secretary general's designated official for security because of the dangers
for the security of a highly mobile team of UN observers travelling daily
on the roads of Iraq. The report showed that out of 132 incidents, UN
staff was witness to such air strikes on 28 occasions.
The public does not know that in the very areas you established as 'no-fly
zones' to protect (7) the population living there, 144 civilians died
and 446 were wounded by UK/US airforces. The FCO classified these reports
as Iraqi propaganda with a UN imprimatur" even though much of it
was collected and verified by UN staff travelling in the areas at the
time of the strikes.
"Our sailors are involved in activities to curb the illegal export
of Iraqi oil."
This is known. You are silent, as you have been in all your statements,
about the UK condoned export of illegal oil from Iraq into Turkey. Your
silence is understandable albeit not acceptable if you want the full story
to be known. US/UK concurrence to this illegal export of oil is in exchange
for Turkish government agreement to the use of Incirlik airbase in south-eastern
Anatolia for allied sorties into the northern no-fly zone of Iraq.
"I firmly believe that he (President of Iraq) remains determined
to develop his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capacity."
You offer no evidence. What I in turn 'firmly believe' is that you want
to keep a picture of Iraq alive even though it no longer reflects the
realities on the ground. This is not surprising. Without it the case for
sanctions would be over. I remind here of what former Unscom chief weapons
inspector Scott Ritter recently said: "There is absolutely no reason
to believe that Iraq could have meaningfully reconstituted any element
of its WMB capabilities in the past 18 months." Around the same time,
Dr Blix, executive chairman of Unmovic, answered the question whether
there was any indication that Iraq was trying to rearm. "No, I do
not think you can say this. We have nothing to substantiate this."
Iraq resolution 1284 "represents the collective will of the Security
Council and has the full force of International Law."
You know how deceptive this assertion is. Three out of five permanent
members and Malaysia did not support this resolution. Yes, security council
decisions constitute international law. This puts a formidable responsibility
on the shoulders of the UN security council. You are aware, no doubt,
of the increasing numbers of serious objections by international legal
experts to the continued application of these laws. The evidence is overwhelming
that after ten years of sanctions these 'acts' have become illegal.
(UN) "resolution 1284 removed the ceiling on the amount of oil Iraq
is allowed to export."
This is a political ploy. Your government knows well from annual UN reports
on the state of the Iraqi oil industry that Iraq cannot pump more oil
unless the UN security council allows a complete overhaul of the oil industry.
You mention "recent increases' in (oil) production." Why do
you do this when you know that the Iraqi oil output has not increased
at all but exports have fluctuated around 2.2m barrels per day?
"With this large amount of revenue available, one cannot help but
ask why we still see pictures of malnourished and sick children?"
My first reaction to this tendentious statement is to ask whether your
officials ever show you UN documents? Unicef has repeatedly pointed out
that this reality is only going to change when the sanctions regime is
once again replaced by a normally functioning economy. Let me add that
more often than not, it is the blocking of contracts by the US/UK which
has created immense problems in implementing the oil-for-food programme.
The present volume of blocked items amounts to $2.3bn the highest ever.
"It is an outrage that the Iraqi government wilfully denies food
and medicine...".
Please forgive me if I say that it is an outrage that against your better
knowledge you repeat again and again truly fabricated and self-serving
disinformation. Why do you ignore UN stock reports which give you the
monthly distribution situation and which, verified by UN observers, show
for food, medicines and other humanitarian supplies an average of over
90% distributed per month?
"Contrast the situation with northern Iraq where the same sanctions
apply but Saddam's writ does not run."
This statement is correct. The Kurdish areas are indeed doing better.
I am distressed, however, about the false impression you create with the
simplistic causality you offer. A fair comparison would mention that i)
the Kurdish population received 19.4% of the oil revenue, i.e. a disproportionately
higher amount than the population in central/southern Iraq; ii) sanctions
are regularly broken in northern Iraq; iii) there is extensive cross-border
trade with Turkey and therefore good income earning opportunities; iv)
the UN security council does not block many contracts benefiting the Kurdish
areas; v) the climatic conditions in the hilly areas of the north are
more favourable. Why are you, Minister, not mentioning these factors?
"... there are those who are undermining sanctions and challenging
the authority of the UN."
Yes, this is true, and it includes me. Do accept, Minister Hain, that
I do so with the utmost discomfort. I am fully aware that this weakens
the very machinery which has been set up to deal with conflicts like this
one. However, I see no other alternative when the fundamentals of human
rights and international law are applied in a biased and lopsided manner.
The human rights coin has two sides, Minister. Lawlessness of one kind
does not justify lawlessness of another kind! This has grave consequences
not only for the suffering of the Iraqi people but also for the importance
we should ascribe in Europe to the laws earlier governments have helped
to create. The FCO should carefully study the deposition of Professor
Bossuyt to the Human Rights Commission in June 2000. It provides comprehensive
legal arguments by a large group of jurists of the serious violation of
international law by the UN security council in which the UK has always
played such an important role.
Let me end by saying, the Iraq file cannot be handled objectively and
in the interest of the people of Iraq unless the hidden agenda disappears.
When this happens then but only then does this sentence in the closing
paragraph of your Chatham House speech get the value it deserves. "
We support human rights, transparency and accountability for other people
because the values we demand for ourselves!" Yes, this is how it
should be, Minister!
Yours Sincerely
H.C. Graf Sponeck
Former Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq
Geneva, December 2000
2. Response from Peter Hain
In reply, Peter Hain wrote a letter
to the Guardian on 6th January 2001.
Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday responded with the following joint
letter:
3. Admit you have failed, Mr Hain
Monday January 8, 2001
The
Guardian
The issue of Iraq in 2001 is too critical for the future of its people,
Europe's relations with the Middle East and the standing of international
law for us to remain silent about Peter Hain's article (I fought apartheid,
I'll fight Saddam, January 6).
We write from privileged experience since we were charged by the UN secretary
general to oversee the oil-for-food programme soon after its inception,
from 1997 until last year. We both resigned in protest against what we
perceive as a failed Iraq policy, with all its tragic human consequences,
and the violation of international law.
Arguing for an end to economic sanctions is not at all about "propping
up a dictator". Have sanctions targeted the proper parties? No. Have
sanctions imposed in 1990 retained their legality? The UN Charter, the
International Covenants on Human Rights and a host of other treaties allow
only one answer: they have not.
Peter Hain is indeed "ducking the debate". We all know, professionally
and personally, how difficult it is to admit failure. What a powerful
and honourable signal Hain would send, if such awareness of failure would
translate into courage for change.
Hain has been hiding behind a smoke-screen for a long time with his defence
of an indefensible policy conducted with little respect for facts. "Iraq
was a threat to humanity and this threat is real now," he maintains.
This is a house of cards held aloft by those who want to maintain the
status quo. Disinformation is morally and legally also indefensible. Hain's
reference to UN resolution 688 as the legitimisation for the "no-fly-zones"
in Iraq is an example. This resolution makes no reference to a right to
take over Iraqi airspace, resulting in the tragic killing of civilians
as detailed in the 1999 UN security reports.
Hain repeatedly stresses that those who oppose sanctions offer no alternative.
This is false. Both of us, for example, have said time and again that
the UN security council should delink economic sanctions from the disarmament
debate while imposing arms controls on Iraq and those countries which
wish to sell arms to Baghdad, keeping in mind resolution 687, paragraph
14, which calls for the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free
of weapons of mass destruction; we have argued that the hidden agenda
of hardline geo-strategic interests be dropped and a dialogue be started;
we have also argued that the unrealistic demand for quantitative disarmament
be replaced by negotiations on weapon systems containment.
We, too, fight against "appeasement of oppression". Ours, however,
is a fight against the violation of international law by the UN security
council and the sacrifice of innocent civilians as pawns.
Denis Halliday
UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq 1997-98
HC von Sponeck
UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq 1998-2000
|