BY EVA CHENG
Fifty-six years ago, on August 6, 1945, the US dropped a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima, Japan, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people. On August 6, 1991, under the cover of the United Nations, the US did it again — it imposed economic sanctions on Iraq which have not only led to more than 1.5 million deaths but have also permanently stunted the development of a whole generation of Iraqis.
While the bombing of Hiroshima was over in minutes, the devastating sanctions are still firmly in place on Iraq 11 years later.
Now, dutifully supported by Britain, the United States is pressing to escalate the sanctions, under the pretext of making them "more focused".
The first US-British proposal for such "smart" sanctions against Iraq came in June but was defeated in the UN Security Council after Russia threatened a veto — but no-one has any doubts that the two powers will try again soon.
Calculated devastation
Between January 17 and February 28, 1991, the US launched 110,000 air raids against Iraq, one bombardment every 30 seconds, deploying 72,800 tonnes of explosives — equivalent to 7.5 Hiroshima bombs.
Tonnes of depleted uranium were also dropped on Iraq, which has resulted in the sharp escalation of leukemia and tumours, cancers and malformed foetuses among Iraqis. Some of the US shells also contained plutonium and uranium-236, which are even more dangerous pollutants, according to Iraq Sanctions Challenge, a US-based solidarity group.
Though the US-led coalition claimed its target was the regime of Saddam Hussein, its actions then and since have shown not the slightest regard for the wellbeing of Iraq's civilian population.
Eleven years after the bombing, an Iraq Sanctions Challenge delegation which visited Iraq early this year still found an "extremely high level of radioactivity in soil samples in the Iraqi desert south of Basra".
Much of the country's life-supporting infrastructure was also targeted during the war. Basing himself on a US Defense Intelligence Agency document, Professor Thomas Nagy of George Washington University last September revealed detailed US calculations during the Gulf War on the tremendous strategic value of targeting Iraq's "water treatment vulnerabilities".
Nagy quoted the report as saying, "Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidents, if not epidemics, of disease and certain pure-water dependent industries becoming incapacitated."
The Geneva Convention bans any attempts to "attack, destroy or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population".
As it turned out, the 1991 bombing repeatedly hit Iraq's eight major dams, wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of the seven major pumping stations were also destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities which resulted in sewage pouring into the Tigris River — the country's main water source. The country's extensive water purification facilities were destroyed.
Tens of thousands have died from polluted water since the war officially ended. The crippling sanctions, and the frequent subsequent bombing raids since, have kept safe drinking water out of the reach of most Iraqis.
This had led to an explosion of water-borne diseases, such as typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis, cholera and polio (which had previously been eradicated). Diarrhoeal diseases have become the prime killer of children under five.
Many other diseases have also become epidemic in Iraq, particularly nutrition-related and preventable ones, a far cry from conditions before 1991. Kwashiorkor, for example, is caused by severe malnutrition and results in a victim wasting away — its incidence has exploded in Iraq from 485 in 1990 to 30,232 in 1998.
Sanctions banning the import of chlorine and even the most basic equipment to repair and maintain water and sanitation systems has continued this downward spiral.
Describing the conditions he saw during a visit last year, former US attorney-general Ramsey Clark wrote in an appeal to the UN Security Council, "The hospitals are in wretched condition: dark, cold, dirty, stairwells crumbling, walls peeling, beds without sheets, plumbing inoperable, electricity erratic, equipment without parts, medicines, oxygen, anaesthetics, antiseptics, antibiotics, X-ray film, catheters, gauze, aspirin, light bulbs, pencils [are] always scarce, often unavailable. Common life-saving medicines, from dehydration tablets to insulin, are never in adequate supply."
Ridiculous scams
The "oil for food" program of 1996 was introduced in the name of easing the impact of the sanctions on civilians. It has proved to be a financial bonanza for the country's neighbours, but not for its citizens.
Of the US$32 billion worth of oil sold by Iraq under this program before July 2000, only US$8 billion reached the Iraqis.
Nearly US$10 billion of the oil revenue went to "compensate" Kuwait and several major US corporations; US$1.5 billion went to maintain the UN operations in Iraq (including the now-defunct spy operation, UNSCOM, which was supposed to investigate Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction"); US$12 billion frozen in the mandatory escrow account with a French bank and US$3.5 billion for contracts that the "661 [sanction scrutiny] Committee", controlled by the US and Britain, still hadn't approved.
Ridiculous "reparations" claims have also flooded in. Israel asked for substantial sums, including to compensate for alleged damage to its flower industry. Jordan is claiming US$8.6 billion, twice its annual production in 1991, for a war that lasted 42 days. Egypt also made claims for lost revenue for Egyptians working in Iraq.
As of last September, 2.6 million such claims have come in from 100 countries asking for a breathtaking total of US$300 billion — $15,000 for every Iraqi man, woman and child. An Iraqi professional might earn US$3-5 a month.
The "food for oil" program has proved to be such a scam that two consecutive heads of the program, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, each with 34 years of experience in the UN, have resigned in protest. Both have since become active campaigners for lifting the sanctions.
Weak pretexts
A key pretext for the US and Britain continuing the sanctions was to clamp down on Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction".
In the name of Hussein's alleged "non-compliance" with UNSCOM requirements, the two powers launched bombing raids on Iraq on December 16, 1998. In doing so, they ignored an International Atomic Energy Agency report confirming that it had eliminated Iraq's nuclear weapon programs "efficiently and effectively", as well as the testimony of Rolf Ekeus, UNSCOM executive chairperson from 1991-97, that "in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally" but for residual uncertainties in some areas.
Britain and the US have also claimed the sanctions and air raids are needed to protect the "no fly zones" they have imposed over northern and southern Iraq.
First imposed in April 1991 and August 1992 respectively, the two zones were supposed to protect the Kurdish and Shiite Muslim populations from Hussein — but ample evidence has emerged that the US has approved and even facilitated regular Turkish air raids on the Kurdish regions in Iraq's north.
Under the pretext of maintaining those zones, the two powers have launched frequent air raids against Iraq, raining bombs and missiles on such military targets as reservoirs, homes and hospitals.
Further, according to the US and Britain, Iraq has repeatedly violated various UN resolutions, such as Resolution 687 which calls for disarmament in the Middle East.
But according to Anthony Arnove in his 2000 book Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, the US continued to sell arms to Iraq's neighbours (Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran), in clear violation of the same UN resolution. Moreover, Arnove points out, while Israel's possession of more than 200 nuclear weapons also breaches many UN resolutions, the US chooses to stay quiet about it.
In recent months, the efforts against Iraq have escalated. In February, only weeks into his presidency, under the pretext of preventing Hussein from installing defence equipment, US President George W. Bush launched massive air strikes against the country.
While Britain's Tony Blair immediately backed the raids, the three other permanent members of the UN Security Council, Russia, China and France, condemned them, as did close US allies Egypt and Jordan.
Russia, China and France have steadily become stronger critics of the US and Britain's dirty war against Iraq.
The aim of the "smart" sanctions is in part to end a situation whereby the humanitarian conditions in some parts of Iraq, primarily in the north, have been easing because of revenue from smuggled oil exports.
A draft British proposal circulated in June offered countries sharing land borders with Iraq the right to purchase 150,000 barrels of oil per day in exchange for an end to oil smuggling. However, little of this would ever reach the Iraqis themselves, most going to "reparations".
Speaking on June 19 upon returning from a trip to Iraq, Halliday and von Sponeck described the "smart" sanctions proposal "dangerously provocative", "dishonest in their intentions" and giving "the false impression that the embargo against Iraq was being eased".
US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, unwittingly confirmed their view three months earlier, on March 8, when he acknowledged that the "smart sanctions are meant to rescue the sanctions, not to abandon them".