« the dress of the statue of liberty is arab | Main | LA Times Editors Note »

Voices in the Wilderness

Myth 1: The sanctions have produced temporary hardship for the Iraqi people but are an effective, nonviolent method of containing Iraq.

Sanctions target the weakest and most vulnerable members of the Iraqi society—the poor, elderly, newborn, sick, and young. Many equate sanctions with violence. The sanctions, coupled with pain inflicted by US and UK military attacks, have reduced Iraq’s infrastructure to virtual rubble. Water sanitation plants and hospitals remain in dilapidated states. Surveys by the United Nation’s Children’s Fund (Unicef) and the World Health Organization (WHO) note a marked decline in health and nutrition throughout Iraq.

While estimates vary, many independent authorities assert that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under five have died since 1990, in part as a result of the sanctions and the effects of the Gulf War. An August 1999 Unicef report found that the under-five mortality rate in Iraq has more than doubled since the imposition of sanctions.

In 1999, the United Nations observed:
In addition to the scarcity of resources, malnutrition problems also seem to stem from the massive deterioration in basic infrastructure, in particular in the water-supply and waste disposal systems. The most vulnerable groups have been the hardest hit, especially children under five years of age who are being exposed to unhygienic conditions, particularly in urban centers. The World Food Program estimates that access to potable water is currently 50 percent of the 1990 level in urban areas and only 33 percent in rural areas.

The UN sanctions committee, based in New York, continues to deny Iraq billions of dollars worth of computer equipment, spare parts, medical equipment and medicines, books and periodicals, all necessary elements to sustaining human life and society. Agricultural and environmental studies show great devastation, in many cases indicating long-term and possibly irreversible damage.

Others have argued that, from a North American perspective, sanctions are more economically sustainable than military attacks, since sanctions cost the United States less. In fact, hundreds of millions of US tax dollars are spent each year to sustain economic sanctions. Expenses include monitoring Iraqi import-export practices, patrolling the "no-fly" zones, and maintaining an active military presence in the Gulf region.

Sanctions are an insidious form of warfare, and have claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Iraq and Sanctions: Myth and Reality from Voices in the Wilderness. (see also: War: Myth & Reality, and Background: Sanctions and War

Comments

So, what recourse would the United Nations have under international law if military force is banned, and the threat of economic sanctions is banned?
Do you intend to continue shrieking about the primacy of international law while denying international bodies any way of enforcing those laws?
Let's present a hypothetical case here. President-for-life Zillah has engaged in a campaign of stripping productive land from a group he likes, and presenting it to a group he dislikes. Due to the chaos caused by this, ten thousand people die of starvation.
The United Nations condemns the humanitarian crisis in Zillahland and demands that the situation be rectified. Zillah does nothing.
The United Nations demands that Zillah step down. Zillah refuses.
What does the UN do now? Both military force and sanctions have been outlawed; how will the UN enforce its resolutions?

(This hypothetical has nothing at all to do with Iraq. By choice.)

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)