This paper is a detailed assessment of the sanctions on Iraq, their history, their effects, and the objectives behind them. The paper systematically examines and refutes the official justifications for the sanctions policy and reveals its devastating impact on the lives of the Iraqi people. Using official reports, it documents the escalation of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq under the UN sanctions regime, and exposes the international community’s unconscionable complicity in an ongoing tide of genocide, undertaken falsely in the name of humanitarianism. It also analyses the variety of myths employed to veil the reality of the crisis in Iraq - and Western responsibility for it - from the public. The paper finally assesses the sanctions regime in context with an ongoing Western military strategy against Iraq, thus clarifying the political, economic and strategic objectives of policy. In this manner, the theory that Western policy towards Iraq has any genuinely humanitarian basis to it is fundamentally contested, and the challenge these facts hold for the idea of the general benevolence of world order under U.S./Western hegemony is fundamentally challenged. It is hoped that this paper clarifies the utter failure of the contemporary world order to genuinely implement ethical values, to protect human rights, to foster self-determination, to create a just and peaceful world community. Given the atrocious scale of the Western-imposed humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq, and the variety of successfully propagated Orwellian myths created to veil this catastrophe from the general public, the relevance of the concept of a global “civil society” for understanding the actual structure of world order is extremely questionable. We are living today in a world based fundamentally on the twin prongs of power and greed, vices that have come to penetrate almost all aspects of policy. Unless this obvious fact is recognised by the academic community, that community will totally fail to understand reality beyond the construction of endless theories that have little relevance in capturing the patterns of historical and current affairs which can be empirically discerned. The facts details here have immense implications in this respect that must be taken into account if we are to genuinely understand international relations, and thus forge a peaceful and just world.

I. The U.S.-UN Sanctions on Iraq

In violation of international law, the United States - which is primarily responsible for the international community’s policies towards Iraq - was fully aware of the devastating effect of both the bombing campaign against Iraqi civilian infrastructure and the sanctions regime. Recently released internal U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents reveal that the United States anticipated the dire civilian health consequences of destroying Iraq’s drinking water and sanitation systems in the Gulf War. The documents also illustrate U.S. awareness that sanctions would prevent the Iraqi government from repairing the degraded facilities, and lead to the inevitable destruction of the Iraqi water system, resulting in a devastating humanitarian crisis for the Iraqi people.

The primary document on the subject, dated January 1991, outlines explicitly how sanctions will block Iraq’s citizens from access to clean water leading to dire health consequences:

“Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline. With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease.”

The document goes on to note that the quality of untreated water in Iraq “generally is poor”, and that the consumption of such water “could result in diarrhea.” Iraq’s rivers “contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur.” Yet as the document points out, under the UN sanctions regime the importation of chlorine “has been embargoed... Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low.” Not only water, but food and medicine will inevitably be affected: “Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants.”

Addressing potential countermeasures to obtain drinkable water that could be adopted by the Iraqi government during the sanctions regime, the document finds that they cannot be effective:

“Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited. The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs.”

The use of rainwater is also out of the question:

“Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter and spring, but it falls primarily in the northern mountains, it says. Sporadic rains, sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains. But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide adequate pure water. Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons. It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements.”

The ultimate effect of the UN sanctions regime therefore constitutes a humanitarian disaster. The U.S. document admits that the lack of clean water will lead to dangerous health problems, including potential epidemics, until the entire water system will be effectively destroyed under the internationall U.Sposed sanctions regime:

A February 1991 DIA document elaborates that under the sanctions regime:

“Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing… Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm… Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks.”

A March 1991 document similarly finds that:

A March document describes the impact of the sanctions regime on Iraqi refugee camps:

The United States, in other words, was clearly aware that sanctions would devastate the water treatment system of Iraq, resulting in increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. According to the 1979 protocol, Article 54 of the Geneva Convention:

“It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.”

Of course the role of the Iraqi government in exacerbating the devastating impact of sanctions cannot be denied. As the London-based Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU) reports:

Yet this in no way absolves the Western powers under U.S. leadership of their principal responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe currently racking Iraq under the UN sanctions regime. Even without the Iraqi government’s mismanagement and corruption, sanctions would continue to contribute to the devastation of civilian life in Iraq. But even disregarding this fact, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime would compromise the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people to maintain its own survival. Indeed, Western understanding of this elementary fact only illustrates that the international community expected UN sanctions, combined with internal corruption, to devastate Iraq, yet went ahead with them regardless. As a British House of Commons International Development Select Committee points out:

II. The Impact of the Sanctions

II.I Genocide through Economic Warfare

Rick McDowell of the Chicago-based organisation Voices in the Wilderness (VW), visited Iraq in late May 1997, as part of a delegation in support of a campaign to end the U.S.-supported UN economic sanctions against Iraq. For the sixth time since January 1991 the delegation had travelled to Iraq, this time nearly six months after the UN ‘Oil for Food’ Resolution 986. The delegation visited hospitals in Baghdad and the southern port city of Basra. Members met with UN and relief officials, doctors, government workers, religious leaders, and Iraqis from all walks of life. Instead of improvements in the availability of food and medicine the delegation “found, instead, a deterioration of all conditions necessary for the sustenance of life. Travelling to Iraq for the third time in nine months, I encountered a resigned hopelessness amongst the people, a population historically known for its resilience.” A decade of “the most comprehensive sanctions in modern history have reduced Iraq and its people to utter destitution”, observed McDowell. “The United Nations Security Council’s economic sanctions, invoked only ten times since the inception of the United Nations, and applied eight times since the end of the Cold War, constitute an extension of the devastating Allied bombing campaign of 1991.”^[17]

UN figures show that more than 1.7 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the sanctions. British and American government officials publicly deny that sanctions have contributed to the suffering in Iraq. Yet as time has passed, the state of Iraq has steadily degraded, as documented in successive UN reports. In 1995 UNICEF reported:

“Sanctions are inhibiting the importation of spare parts, chemicals, reagents, and the means of transportation required to provide water and sanitation services to the civilian population of Iraq... What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement towards food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place. All vital contributors to food availability - agricultural production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and income generation, are dependent on Iraq’s ability to purchase and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian population.”^[18]

The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported in September 1995 that:

“Famine threatens four million people in sanctions-hit Iraq - one fifth of the population - following a poor grain harvest... The human situation is deteriorating. Living conditions are precarious and are at pre-famine level for at least four million people... The deterioration in nutritional status of children is reflected in the significant increase of child mortality, which has risen nearly fivefold since 1990.”^[19]

The World Health Organization (WHO) observed in March 1996 that: “Since the onset of sanctions, there has been a six-fold increase in the mortality rate for children under five and the majority of the country’s population has been on a semi-starvation diet.”^[20] The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reported in the same year that: “4,500 children under the age of 5 are dying each month from hunger and disease... The situation is disastrous for children. Many are living on the margin of survival.”^[21] A year later in April 1997, UNICEF in association with the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP), reported that: “One out of every 4 Iraqi infants is malnourished... Chronic malnutrition among children under five has reached 27.5 per cent. After a child reaches two or three years of age, chronic malnutrition is difficult to reverse and damage on the child’s development is likely to be permanent.”^[22] Six months on, UNICEF noted that: “32 percent of children under five, some 960,000 children are chronically malnourished - a rise of 72 per cent since 1991. Almost one quarter... are underweight - twice as high as the levels found in neighbouring Jordan and Turkey.”^[23] By April 1998 the situation had deteriorated further:

“The increase in mortality reported in public hospitals for children under five years of age (an excess of some 40,000 deaths yearly compared with 1989) is mainly due to diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition. In those over five years of age, the increase (an excess of some 50,000 deaths yearly compared with 1989) is associated with heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, liver or kidney diseases.”

Approximately 250 people die every day in Iraq due to the effect of the sanctions, the UNICEF report added.^[24]

The UN’s Department of Humanitarian Affairs reports that Iraq’s public health services are nearing a total breakdown from a lack of basic medicines, lifesaving drugs and essential medical supplies. The lack of clean water (50 per cent of all rural people have no access to potable water) and a collapse of water treatment facilities in most urban areas are contributing to the rapidly deteriorating state of public health. The prohibition of critical items under the sanctions has meant that Iraq lacks the spare parts and minerals essential to the task of repairing and maintaining its water and sewage treatment facilities. Because of this, the condition of many Iraqis is barely improved at all, even by the food they receive. The untreated water is contributing immensely to disease and death.

As airborne and waterborne diseases are on the rise, deaths related to diarrhoea diseases have tripled in an increasingly unhealthy environment. There has also been a dramatic increase in childhood cancers, including leukaemia, Hodgkin’s disease, lymphomas, congenital diseases and deformities in foetuses, along with limb reductional abnormalities and increases in genetic abnormalities throughout Iraq, which may also be linked to the use of depleted uranium during the Persian Gulf War by the Western allies. The children born since the Gulf War suffer in silence, often without access to painkillers, drugs, antibiotics or hope. Some childhood cancers realised an 80 per cent cure rate prior to sanctions. Following the imposition of sanctions, without cancer-fighting drugs, the survival rate for children with these same cancers is 0 per cent.^[26] All this related to the comprehensive collapse of Iraq’s infrastructure:

Due to the absence of hard currency the economy of Iraq, estimated to have the second largest oil reserves in the world, has collapsed. Average public sector wages for the few in employment have fallen to less than $5 per month, while hyper inflation has resulted in astronomical rises in the price of goods. Prior to sanctions, the Iraqi dinar was worth $3. By May 1997 this was reduced to $.000625. While skilled workers, including doctors and engineers, have deserted their jobs to become taxi drivers or cigarette salesmen, Iraqi professionals are also leaving the country in increasing numbers. With an estimated 80 per cent of Iraqis affected by sanctions, families have been forced to take recourse to selling household and personal possessions just to buy food and medicine. This has been accompanied by the disintegration of the social fabric, as evidenced by the widespread rise in begging, street children, crime and prostitution. The UN’s Humanitarian Panel reported to the Security Council in 1999:

As a consequence, Iraq “has experienced a shift from relative affluence to massive poverty” according the United Nations. “The data provided to the panel point to a continuing degradation of the Iraqi economy with an acute deterioration in the living conditions of the Iraqi population and severe strains on its social fabric…

“… In marked contrast to the prevailing situation prior to the events of 1990-91, the infant mortality rates in Iraq today are among the highest in the world, low infant birth weight affects at least 23% of all births, chronic malnutrition affects every fourth child under five years of age, only 41% of the population have regular access to clean water, 83% of all schools need substantial repairs. The ICRC states that the Iraqi health-care system is today in a decrepit state. UNDP calculates that it would take 7 billion U.S. dollars to rehabilitate the power sector country-wide to its 1990 capacity.”^[30]

II.II Oil for Food or Oil for Blood?

UN Security Council Resolution 986, issued on 14 April 1995, called on the international community to implement an ‘Oil for Food’ programme in Iraq. The exact nature of the programme was established in an agreement between the UN Secretariat and the Iraqi government from May 1996. The programme, which came into effect in December 1996, allows Iraq to export oil and use a portion of the money raised to purchase basic goods from other countries. However, the ‘Oil for Food’ programme was never meant to be an adequate substitute for the independent functioning of the Iraqi economy. Security Council Resolution 986 refers to the programme as a “temporary measure”. As noted in the March 1999 report of the UN Humanitarian Panel to the Security Council, “in order for Iraq to aspire to social and economic indicators comparable to the ones reached at the beginning of the decade humanitarian efforts of the kind envisaged under the ‘oil for food’ system alone would not suffice and massive investment would be required in a number of key sectors, including oil, energy, agriculture and sanitation”. Indeed, ‘Oil for Food’:

As a consequence, ‘Oil for Food’ has not prevented the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. The 1999 report of the UN Humanitarian Panel to the Security Council observes that:

“The gravity of the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people is indisputable and cannot be overstated. Irrespective of alleged attempts by the Iraqi authorities to exaggerate the significance of certain facts for political propaganda purposes, the data from different sources as well as qualitative assessments of bona fide observers and sheer common sense analysis of economic variables converge and corroborate this evaluation.”

Since all 15 members of the sanctions committee must approve contract applications made by the Iraqi government, the arbitrary obstruction of entirely legitimate contracts has become a routine aspect of ‘Oil for Food’. The UN Secretary-General's report of 29 November 2000 warns that such holds are:

It is noteworthy that such obstructions from the international community have continued to increase in number, and in proportion to the total value of contracts. Indeed, 20 per cent of holds by value were established entirely without any reason given by the holding missions.

In light of these horrifying facts, the ‘Oil for Food’ resolution that is so often cited by Western governments as the sign of their commitment to the Iraqi people, and the international instrument through which the needs of Iraqis could be adequately met, is completely insufficient. Even assuming that food distribution is adequate, the devastation of the Iraqi economy means that the population continues to starve. When Tun Myat, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, returned to New York last October after spending six months in Iraq, he noted that escalating poverty nullifies the ongoing distribution of food:

Thus, at the beginning of 1997, the World Health Organization reported on the escalation of the humanitarian crisis despite ‘Oil for Food’:

“Iraq’s health system is close to collapse because medicines and other life-saving supplies scheduled for importation under the ‘oil-for-food’ deal have not arrived... Government drug warehouses and pharmacies have few stocks of medicines and medical supplies. The consequences of this situation are causing a near-breakdown of the health care system, which is reeling under the pressure of being deprived of medicine, other basic supplies and spare parts.”^[41]

By November of the same year, ‘Oil for Food’ only remained farcically ineffective in terms of addressing the fundamental humanitarian crisis. UNICEF observed that: “There is no sign of any improvement since Security Council Resolution 986/1111 [‘Oil for Food’] came into force.”^[42] By April 1998, UNICEF noted the sheer impotence of the ‘Oil for Food’ programme: “The Oil-for-Food plan has not yet resulted in adequate protection of Iraq’s children from malnutrition and disease. Those children spared from death continue to remain deprived of essential rights addressed in the Convention of Rights of the Child.”^[43] By March 1999, a UN report concluded that Iraq had fallen into a state of “massive poverty” due to the sanctions, and that the country should be allowed to receive foreign investments in oil and other exports. Moreover, the report declared that ‘Oil for Food’ had failed to meet the needs of the Iraqi people.^[44]

The United States and United Kingdom have actively continued to espouse the myth that the ‘Oil for Food’ programme provides adequately for the needs of the Iraqi people. The blame for ongoing mass starvation, disease and so on, is laid squarely on Iraqi corruption in the distribution of goods. The disparity in development between the north and southern/central Iraq is one of the factors that the U.S. has claimed proves its case. Data indicates that Iraqis inhabiting the northern region that is autonomous from Saddam’s regime, are better off than those elsewhere in the country who are subject to the regime’s rationing system. Among the conclusions of an August 1999 UNICEF report on this matter were that in the autonomous northern region, under-5 mortality rose from 80 deaths per 1000 live births in the period 1984-1989, to 90 deaths per 1000 live births during the years 1989-1994, but then fell to 72 deaths per 1000 live births between 1994 and 1999. Infant mortality rates followed a similar pattern. This discrepancy between child mortality in the north, where the UN controls distribution under the ‘Oil for Food’ programme, and in the rest of the country where the Iraqi government controls distribution, has been highlighted by the Western powers to conclude that the humanitarian crisis is wholly a result of Saddam Hussein’s corrupt distribution policies and wilful starvation of the Iraqi people.

This conclusion, however, flies in the face of rather stark realities. The March 1999 report of the UN Security Council’s Humanitarian Panel highlighted the lack of evidence against Iraq in relation to the government’s alleged lack of cooperation with the ‘Oil for Food’ programme:

“While there is agreement that the Government could do more to make the ‘oil for food’ programme work in a better and more timely fashion, it was not clear to what extent the problems encountered could be attributed to deliberate action or inaction on the part of the Iraqi Government. It is generally recognized that certain sectors such as electricity work smoothly while drug supplies suffer from delays in distribution. But mismanagement, funding shortages (absence of the so called ‘cash component’) and a general lack of motivation might also explain such delays. While food and medicine had been explicitly exempted by Security Council resolution 661, controls imposed by resolution 986 had, at times, created obstacles to their timely supply.”

This UN report clearly illustrates that whether there is any deliberate obstruction or otherwise by the Iraqi government is at the very least unclear. It further clarifies a number of other factors inhibiting the potential benefits of ‘Oil for Food’, particularly funding shortages and arbitrary holds by members of the Security Council. Furthermore, with respect to funding shortages, absence of the ‘cash component’ under the ‘Oil for Food’ deal is particularly critical. In government-controlled areas of Iraq, the government is not given cash in return for oil sales under the ‘Oil for Food’ programme, but only receives delivery of goods. The consequence of this is that the government is extremely inhibited in its ability to provide for the needs of the Iraqi people - for example, to hire a lorry to make a delivery if it does not have one available at the time.

An authoritative FAO study points out that:

Former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General Dennis Halliday, head of the UN’s ‘Oil for Food’ programme until his resignation in September 1998, further reported that 5-6,000 Iraqi civilians are dying every month under the sanctions regime, irrespective of ‘Oil for Food’, and despite an “efficient” and “equitable” Iraqi rationing system.^[46] Refuting statements by British Foreign Office minister Peter Hain to the effect that ‘Oil for Food’ could have worked if not for Saddam’s obstruction, Halliday countered that:

UN official Michael Stone similarly observed that:

The real reasons for the discrepancy between northern and southern Iraq thus has nothing to do with the Iraqi regime. On the contrary, it has everything to do with the protocols of the UN sanctions regime. The north receives 22 per cent more per capita from the ‘Oil for Food’ programme than does the center/south; the autonomous north receives a cash component for distribution of goods, while the center/south receives only goods; there are 34 Non-Governmental Organizations working in the north, while there are only 11 in the rest of the country; there was a massive influx of aid to the north immediately after the Gulf War, whereas the rest of the country did not receive any aid during that time; goods have been approved by the UN for distribution in the north far faster than in the center/south; the north enjoys porous borders with Turkey, Syria, and Iran, so more goods are able to penetrate through to the north by smuggling than in the rest of the country; finally, 85 per cent of the Iraqi population live in southern/central Iraq.^[51]

As noted by the Washington DC-based antiwar group founded by former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsey Clark - the International Action Center (IAC) – ‘Oil for Food’ is designed less to help the people of Iraq than to lend the sanctions regime a humanitarian gloss for public relations purposes:

“The oil-for-food deal cannot solve the health problems in Iraq and it’s not meant to. The oil-for-food deal is and always will be used by the U.S. to divert attention from the genocidal effects of the sanctions. It is only a complete lifting of the sanctions and a withdrawal of the U.S. from the region that can end the crisis in Iraq.”^[55]

II.III The Objective of the Sanctions: Paying the Price

In May 1996 U.S. Ambassador to the UN – later Secretary of State - Madeleine Albright, appeared on the America TV show, 60 Minutes. Host Lesley Stahl asked: “We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?” Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it.”^[56] The question we are led to ask in light of this horrifying declaration is: what price?

Rather than damaging Saddam Hussein, the sanctions have in fact had the entirely opposite effect. According to a House Select Committee report on sanctions to the British Parliament in 2000:

The fundamental basis of legitimacy for the sanctions regime is, at least officially, the objective of blocking Saddam Hussein’s access to materials that could be used in programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Yet an examination of some of the materials that are banned from reaching Iraq under the sanctions discloses that many of them are irrelevant to this objective. Indeed, a vast number of materials and technologies banned under the sanctions have absolutely no connection with any possibility of being used in Saddam’s weapons programmes. The materials banned under the sanctions are supposed to be ‘dual-use’ technologies, i.e. they have both civilian and military applications. Yet many of the goods banned by the sanctions regime appear to be, in fact, only single use items with solely civilian applications. Voices in the Wilderness has compiled a partial list of some of these items that only by a convoluted twist of the imagination could be used to contribute to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons development programmes:

“Accumulators; Adhesive paper; Aluminium foil; AM-FM receivers; Ambulances; Amplifiers; Answering machines; Armored cable; Ashtrays; Auto polish; Axes; Bags; Baking soda; Balls (for children, for sport); Baskets; Bath brushes; Batteries; Battery chargers; Beads; Bearings; Bed lamps; Belts; Benches; Bicycles; Books (all categories included); Bottles; Bowls; Boxes; Broil Busses; Calculators; Cameras; Candles; Candlesticks; Canvas; Carpets; Cars; Carts; Carving knives; Cellophane; Chalk; Chess boards; Chiffon; Children’s wear; Chisels; Clocks; Clutches; Coats; Coaxial cable; Cogs; Coils; Colors for painting; Combs; Compressors (for cooling); Computers and computer supplies; Copper; Cupboards; Cups; Desks; Desk lamps; Detergents; Dictaphones; Dish ware; Dishwashers; Dolls; Doorknobs; Doormats; Drawing knives; Dresses; Drills; Dryers; Dust cloths; Dyes; Dynamos; Easels; Electric cookers; Electric cords; Envelopes; Eyeglasses; Fabrics; Fans; Fax machines; Fibers; Files; Filing cabinets; Filing cards; Films; Filters; Flashlights; Flowerpots; Forks; Fountain pens; Furniture polish; Fuses; Gas burners; Gauges; Generators; Girdles; Glass; Glue; Gowns; Grills; Grindstone; Hairpins; Hammers; Handkerchiefs; Hats; Headlights; Headphones; Hearing aids; Hedge-trimmers; Helmets; Hoes; Hooks; Hookup wires; Hoses; Hydraulic jacks; Ink (the prohibition on writing); Ink cartridges; Insulator strips; Interrupters; Jackets; Jacks; Joints; Jacks; Jumpers; Kettles; Knives; Lamp shades; Lathes; Lawn Mowers; Leather; Levers; Light bulbs; Light meters; Lime; Magazines (including journals); Magnesium; Magnets; Masonite; Mastic; Matches; Measuring equipment; Mica; Microfiche; Microphones; Microscopes; Mirrors; Mops; Motorbikes; Motors; Mufflers; Mugs; Music cassettes; Music CDs; Musical instruments; Nail brushes; Nailfiles; Napkins; Notebooks; Oil cans; Oil gauges; Oil lamps; Oscillators; Packaging materials; Pails; Painters brushes; Paints; Pans; Paperclips; Paper for printing; Paper for wrapping; Paper for writing; Pens; Percolators; Pesticides; Photocopiers; Photometers; Pincers; Pincettes; Pins; Plastics; Plates; Plexiglas; Pliers; Plugs; Plywood; Porcelain; Pots; Potties; Press drills; Pressure cookers; Printing equipment; Pulleys; Putty; Radiators for cars; Razor blades; Razors; Reels; Relays; Riveters; Roasters; Rubber; Rugs; Rulers; Sandals; Sandpaper; Saucers; Saws; Scales; Scoreboards; Screws; Seals; Seats; Shampoo; Sheers; Shelves; Shirts; Shock absorbers; Shoe polish; Shoes; Shopping carts; Shovels; Silicon; Silver polish; Skirts; Soap; Soap pads; Sockets; Socks; Solder; Soldering irons; Spark plugs; Spatulas; Sponges; Spoons; Stamps; Staplers; Starters; Stoves; Straps; Suits; Sun hats; Swimming suits; Switches; Tables; Tacks; Tags; Telephone cables; Telephones; Tents; Thermometers; Threads; Timber; Timers; Tin; Tire pumps; Tissue paper; Toasters; Toilet paper; Tongs; Toothbrushes; Toothpicks; Towels; Toys; Tractors; Transformers; Trash cans; Tripods; Troughs; Typewriters; Vacuum cleaners; Valves; Vans; Vaseline; Vases; Venetian blinds; Ventilators; Videotapes; Voltage regulators; Waffle irons; Wagons; Wallets; Wallpapers; Washing machines; Wastepaper baskets; Watches; Water pumps; Wax; Welders; Wheelbarrows; Window shades; Wood; Wool; Wrenches; Zoom lenses.”^[58]

Given that the nature of the many items banned under the sanctions regime clearly have a primarily civilian application with only a negligible/arbitrary military use (e.g. the banning of pencils because their graphite can theoretically be used in the process of creating nuclear weapons), the idea that the sole objectives of the sanctions is the obstruction of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programmes is disingenuous. For if that were the case, then there would be no need to ban items with a fundamentally civilian use. The specifically civilian application of such a vast number of items banned by the sanctions, illustrates that the aim of the sanctions regime is far broader and designed deliberately to target the civilian population. Former UN Assistant Secretary General and Chief UN Relief Coordinator for Iraq, Dennis Halliday, who resigned his post in protest against the sanctions regime, stated in November 1998 that:

“[S]anctions continue to kill children and sustain high levels of malnutrition. Sanctions are undermining cultural and educational recovery. Sanctions will not change governance to democracy. Sanctions encourage isolation, alienation, and possibly fanaticism. Sanctions may create a danger to peace in the region and in the world. Sanctions destroy Islamic and Iraqi family values. Sanctions have undermined the advancement of women and have encouraged a massive brain drain. Sanctions destroy the lives of children, their expectations and those of young adults. Sanctions breach the Charter of the United Nations, the Conventions of Human Rights, and the Rights of the Child. Sanctions are counterproductive, and have no positive impact on the leadership, and sanctions lead to unacceptable human suffering, often the young and the innocent.... I can find no legitimate justification for sustaining economic sanctions under these circumstances.”^[59]

Halliday asserted that he resigned his post “because the policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that...

His disgust is mirrored even by those who formerly appeared to be supporters of U.S. policy. Scott Ritter, an ex-U.S. Marine and former head of the United Nations Weapons Inspection Team in Iraq, certainly does not agree that the sanctions in their current form are justified: “We’re killing 5,000 kids under the age of five every month. Now people say Saddam’s killing them, but ultimately, sanctions are killing them, and we shouldn’t be supportive of something that causes innocent people to suffer to such a degree.”^[61]

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

As such, any action pursued to jeopardise the rights enshrined as above is prohibited under international law. According to the Geneval Conventions:

“1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

A United Nations Resolution issued on December 1989 elaborates as follows

The sanctions policy – and those bodies and governments that support and promote the policy – are therefore doing so illegally. There is no legitimacy at all to the sanctions regime. This fact is perhaps best articulated in the charge sheet against the Western powers drawn up by the president of the International Commission of Inquiry on Economic Sanctions, international law expert Ramsey Clark - former U.S. Attorney General under the Kennedy and Johson administrations. The charges were issued at the International Court On Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the UN Security Council on Iraq, held in Madrid in November 1996. Clark charges American, British and UN officials with “causing the deaths of more than 1,500,000 people including 750,000 children under five, and injury to the entire population of Iraq by genocidal sanctions…

“The criminal acts charged include the deliberate and intentional imposition, maintenance and enforcement of an economic blockade and sanctions against the people of Iraq from August 6, 1990 to this date with full knowledge constantly communicated that the blockade and sanctions were depriving the people of Iraq of essentials to support and protect human life. These essentials include medicines and medical supplies, safe drinking water, adequate food, insecticides, fertilisers, equipment and parts required for agriculture, food processing, storage and distribution, hospital and medical clinic procedures; a multitude of common items such as light bulbs and fluorescent tubes; equipment and parts for the generation and distribution of electricity, telephone and other communications, public transportation and other essential human services. Also denied the people of Iraq is knowledge of the existence of, and procedures and equipment to provide protection from, depleted uranium and dangerous chemical pollution released in the environment of Iraq by defendants. The United States has further subjected Iraq to random missile assaults which have killed civilians.”

The formal criminal charges are extremely significant, since they have been issued not merely by a renowned U.S. legal expert, but by one who was formerly an official legal expert for the U.S. government under the Presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson. Furthermore, the panel of judges of the International War Crimes Tribunal presided over by Ramsey Clark - which ruled U.S., British and UN officials to be guilty of these charges among many others in relation to the Gulf War - consisted of many legal and human rights experts from around the world, including the leading British QC and member of the House of Lords, Lord Tony Gifford; U.S. Attorney, former President of the National Lawyers Guild and director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner; U.S. lawyer and first Vice-President of the American Association of Jurists, Deborah Jackson; Organising Secretary for the American Association of Jurists in Canada, John Philpot; former Japanese Judge and Attorney, Susumu Ozaki; former member of the German Bundestag and Lieutenant Colonel in the German Bundeswher, Dr. Alfred Mechtersheimer; Resident Magistrate of the High Court in Arusha, Tanzania, Aisha Nyerere; member of Tunisian Bar Association and former President of Association of Young Lawyers, Abderrazak Kilani; former Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court and elected President of the All-India Lawyers Union (1989) P. S. Pot; among others. The charges have been reproduced below in their entirety:

1. The United States and its officials aided and abetted by others engaged in a continuing pattern of conduct from August 6, 1990 until this date to impose, maintain and enforce extreme economic sanctions and a strict military blockade on the people of Iraq for the purpose of injuring the entire population, killing its weakest members, infants, children, the elderly and the chronically ill, by depriving them of medicines, drinking water, food, and other essentials in order to maintain a large US military presence in the region, and dominion and control over its people and resources including oil.

2. The United States, its President Bill Clinton and other officials, the United Kingdom and its [former] Prime Minister John Major and other officials have committed a crime against humanity as defined in the Nuremberg Charter against the population of Iraq and engaged in a continuing and massive attack on the entire civilian population in violation of Articles 48, 51, 52, 54 and 55 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention 1977.

3. The United States, its President Bill Clinton and other officials, the United Kingdom and its Prime Minister John Major and other officials have committed genocide as defined in the Convention against Genocide against the population of Iraq including genocide by starvation and sickness through use of sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction and violation of Article 54, Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Civilian Population, of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention 1977.

4. The United States, its President Bill Clinton and other officials, the United Kingdom and its Prime Minister John Major and other officials have committed and engaged in a continuing course of conduct to prevent any interference with the long term criminal imposition of sanctions against the people of Iraq in order to support continuing US presence and domination of the region.

5. The United States, its President Bill Clinton and other officials, the United Kingdom and its Prime Minister John Major and other officials with US Ambassador Madeleine Albright as a principal agent have obstructed justice and corrupted United Nations functions, most prominently the Security Council, by political, economic and other coercions using systematic threats, manipulations and misinformation to silence protest and prevent votes or other acts to end sanctions against Iraq despite reports over a period of five years by every major UN agency concerned including UNICEF, UN World Food Program, UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, which describe the deaths, injuries and suffering directly caused by the sanctions.

6. The United States, its President Bill Clinton and other officials have engaged in a continuing concealment and cover-up of the criminal assaults during January through March 1991 on nuclear reactors, chemical, fertiliser, insecticide plants, oil refineries, oil storage tanks, ammunition depots and bunkers in violation of humanitarian law including Article 56, Protecting Works and Installations Containing Dangerous Forces, exposing the civilian population of Iraq, and military personnel of Iraq, the United States and other countries to radiation and dangerous chemical pollution which continues for the population of Iraq causing deaths, sickness and permanent injuries including chemical and radiation poisoning, cancer, leukaemia, tumours and diseased body organs.

7. The United States and its officers have concealed and failed to help protect the population of Iraq from the cover-up of the use by US forces of illegal weapons of a wide variety including rockets and missiles containing depleted uranium which have saturated soil, ground water and other elements in Iraq and are a constant presence affecting large areas still undefined with deadly radiation causing death, illness and injury which will continue to harm the population with unforeseeable effects for thousands of years.