Iraq: Economic Sanctions and the Humanitarian Exemption
An Example of Failure
by Hans von Sponeck
Two well-documented facts can not be ignored in any assessment of twelve
years of sanctions against Iraq. On which ever side of the political dividing
line one may stand, one has to accept that the quality of physical and
mental life in Iraq has been regressing dramatically since the end of
the Gulf War and that the oil-for-food programme, the humanitarian exemption
for the civilian population, has not been able to reverse this trend.
Before 1990 Iraq had been well on the way towards a level of development
comparable to many western industrialized countries. Iraq had resources
and used them not just for its defence budget. Socio-economic indicators
for health, water, electricity, sanitation and certainly for education
identified Iraq as the most progresssive country in the Middle East. Since
1990, Iraq has become an increasingly impoverished and in economic and
social terms, poorly performing state. A global review of child health
by UNICEF in 2000, for example, shows that Iraq has had a 160 percent
increase in child mortality , the highest of all 188 countries surveyed
for the 1990 to 1999 period. Illiteracy is once again on the increase
in Iraq; 20 percent in 1987, 42 percent in 1998.
These facts alone should trouble all those political leaders who speak
so passionately about human rights and justice for all. There must not
be double standards. What is unacceptable for Europe must be equally unacceptable
for the Middle East.
Why the oil for food programme, the moral fig leaf of the international
community, has not been equipped with all the available resources is part
of a heated debate. The Government of Saddam Hussein does not care for
its people and makes its people suffer deliberately is the firm position
of some. Those who beg to differ are accused of playing up to Baghdad.
Where is the truth? What are the facts?
During three phases (1997-98) $ 1.3 billion were allocated for each phase
by the UN Security Council of the oil for food programme. This translates
into $113 per person per year for a population of then 21 million Iraqis.
Despite this pitiful amount, the UN Security Council decided to give to
the UN Compensation Commission 30 percent or $ 660 million per phase of
the then allowable oil revenue! The Commission has used these funds to
award reparation payments to governments, firms and individuals who claim
losses as a result of Iraq's invasion into Kuwait. If instead, these funds
had been available for Iraqis, particularly during the intitial critical
phases of the humanitarian exemption, many Iraqi lives would have been
saved.
Had there been a genuine concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people
then the justified claims against Iraq from outside for war damages should
have been deferred until the revenue picture had sufficiently improved.
This would have been the only humanly acceptable decision. Instead, the
UN Security Council was pressured into a highly political and subjective
treatment of the Iraqi people under sanctions.
To state these facts is not playing up to anyone. The hidden agenda managers
in Washington and London, however, quickly reject these as mere 'propaganda
by the other side'. Those who differ with the spin-doctors there 'do not
see the bigger picture', are 'inconsequential' and 'manipulated as useful
fools by a ruthless regime in Baghdad'. Instead, they refer to human rights
infringements and repression of freedom in Iraq. This deflects from the
issue from which the international community can not escape and that is
to understand what sanctions have done to innocent people. Let the UN
Human Rights Rapporteur who has just been in Baghdad report on how the
Government of Iraq is handling human rights in the country. This is his
mandate. The UN Security Council, on the other hand, has the formal obligation
to monitor the impact of its own policies on human rights. The UN Security
Council has international oversight responsibilities and over the years
has chosen to largely ignore these. Intermittent reporting such as in
1999 by a panel on humanitarian issues set up by the UN Security Council
is in no way a substitute for continuous monitoring of the human condition
in a country under sanctions.
What is known about the plight of the Iraqi people comes mainly from reputable
non-governmental sources and a few courageous UN agencies such as UNICEF,
WHO and FAO, not from the UN Security Council.
Why, one must ask, has the international machinery which was created
for the protection of civilian populations in countries subjected to sanctions
failed so dramatically in the case of Iraq? The UN Charter explicitly
states that the UN Security Council must discharge its duties "in
accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations"
(Article 24,2). These 'purposes' and 'principles' are about peace and
security, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all global citizens
not just for some. The founders of the United Nations in 1945, no doubt,
had good intentions with these provisions. However, as the case of Iraq
shows, the looseness and intangibility of these UN Charter provisions
has unfortunately been severely misused and arbitrarily applied to suit
national political interests. An objective and controllable implementation
of sanctions by the UN Security Council became impossible. Once again,
global principle was sacrificed for bilateral power.
The UN Charter legitimizes sanctions against governments when these have
carried out 'acts of aggression' or 'threats to international peace'.
The weakness in international law is that there is no precise definition
of such circumstances. There is no red line demarcation of what represents
a 'threat to peace' or an 'act of aggression'. This has allowed a conveniently
subjective pronouncement that Iraq continues to pose this 'threat' in
accordance with Article 39 of the UN Charter and therefore had to remain
subject to sanctions. Facts to substantiate such claims are not offered.
Washington and London will dismiss this accusation as false and irrelevant.
Those who care to look more deeply into the Iraq drama, however, will
see what the arbitrariness of application of the UN Charter and therefore
misuse of UN Security Council authority has done to the civilian population.
Imprecisely formulated UN Security Council resolutions have further facilitated
an approach to Iraq which punishes the people for not having replaced
their leader. 'Constructive ambiguity' is the term used by some members
in the UN Security Council to justify impreciseness and prolong a policy
of social and economic destruction. The plain truth is that for many such
opaqueness has been their death certificate.
Twelve years of sanctions, comprehensive economic sanctions linked to
comprehensive military sanctions and disarmament, have destroyed a target.
Unfortunately this was the wrong target. The human damage is done and
can not be reversed. Focussed economic and military sanctions instead
of collective punishment would have been a strategic alternative. To choose
it now is too late.
H.C. Graf Sponeck,
Geneva, 21 February 2002
|