The Scoop #3 June 2000
A free newsletter of the Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace (CCMEP)
Telephone 303.320-5994 * Email ccmep@hotmail.com
To get CCMEP announcements by email send a message to CCMEP-DEN-subscribe@egroups.com
Speaking Truth to Bill on Iraq
[The following is a scathing critique of President Clinton's justification for his policy in relation to Iraq. It was written by the latest Colorado delegate to Iraq; Glenn Helkenn, to challenge the President's recent reply to Representative Conyer's (D-MI) "Dear Colleague Letter" to Clinton. (The original letter requested the de-linking of economic and military sanctions and gained 77 signatures in Congress, including Colorado Reps DeGette & Udall.)]
Glenn: May Peace be with you Mr. Clinton, I am providing you with a section by section critique of your administration's current policy towards Iraq. Please respond in as much detail as possible at your earliest convenience. Not only have I done considerable academic research into this issue, I just recently traveled to Iraq for 16 days to see for myself the situation there and the effects of your current policy.
From what I have seen with my own eyes, I must tell you that your current policy borders on the criminal. As an honorably discharged veteran (7 years service with army intelligence), I am highly familiar with international rules of war and military ethics. Your policy of using long term, economic sanctions and low intensity bombing has created widespread suffering among the civilian population of Iraq, mainly the children, the sick, the poor, and the elderly. The direct targeting of the civilian population in such a manner is a clear violation of international law, established military ethics, and your own clear moral statements in relation to how governments should be allowed to resolve conflicts. Perhaps you remember making the following statement before the press in New Delhi, India (3/21/00):
'I think that the targeting of innocent civilians is the worst thing about modern conflicts today. And the extent to which more and more people seem to believe it is legitimate to target innocent civilians to reach their larger political goals, I think that is something to be resisted at every turn'.
This is EXACTLY what your current policy in relation to Iraq is doing! I have seen it with my own eyes! Below you will find your policy statement with my own commentary and responses interspersed:
Bill #1: "I share your view that our policy toward Iraq should be focused on Saddam Hussein, and not on the people of Iraq. We are working to make sure that the pressure of sanctions is placed on the government of Iraq, where it belongs."
Glenn #1: Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President. From what I have seen during my recent trip to Iraq, the pressure of sanctions is ONLY on the backs of the people, and they are suffering terribly. The regime is in fact strengthened by the current US policy because the people of Iraq see the US as the greater threat than the regime.
Bill #2: "Food, medicine, and other humanitarian goods have always been exempt from the sanctions on Iraq. Moreover the US has consistently advocated allowing Iraq to sell oil to finance humanitarian imports, as reaffirmed in our sponsorship of Security Council Resolution 986 in 1995. The oil-for-food program enabled Iraq to sell over $20 billion worth of oil used to import over $4 billion worth of food, nearly $750 million worth of medicine, and over $700 million worth of other humanitarian supplies."
Glenn #2: While such an array of statistics might overwhelm the uninitiated, they are meaningless unless they are set against the actual needs and current situation of the Iraq population in relation to the devastation caused by both the Iran/Iraq war (which the US encouraged under Reagan, supplying arms and equipment to both sides, but for the most part favoring Saddam's Iraq) as well as the Gulf War and 10 years of continued sanctions and bombing that have followed. Because of this, the last 2 directors of the United Nation's humanitarian program in Iraq (which oversees the oil for food program) resigned in protest stating firmly that the current program is NOT adequate to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and that the United States and Britain are a consistent hindrance to UN humanitarian efforts under this program (Neither of them cited any resistance by the Iraqi regime in implementing the UN humanitarian program). UNICEF 1998 statistics show that 200+ children die each day in Iraq as a DIRECT RESULT OF THE SANCTIONS.
Bill #3: "The greatest problem the people of Iraq face today is that Baghdad systematically limits the distribution of humanitarian goods to preserve the suffering of its own people as a diplomatic asset. UN statistics since 1996 make clear that problems of malnourishment and disease are abating much faster in northern Iraq-where the UN controls distribution of food and medicine- than in central and southern Iraq where the regime remains in control."
Glenn #3: This claim is simple misinformation by the US government, with no hard evidence to support it. The primary reason that conditions are improved in the north as opposed to the south and central regions of Iraq is that the UN humanitarian program allocates 22% more per capita to the north than to the other regions. The UN not only controls distribution in north, it also closely oversees the distribution in the south and central regions of Iraq. All of the recent UN humanitarian directors have consistently stated there is no room for the Iraqi government to secretly divert humanitarian supplies away from the people, and there is not evidence that it does so. If you have any concrete evidence of oil for food funds being diverted please respond with it at your earliest convenience. Hans von Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq has repeated stated that any delays in the distribution of goods under the oil for food program which might be misconstrued as 'withholding' is due to complications caused by the war-devastated Iraqi infrastructure and NOT due to any malice on the part of the Iraqi government.
Bill #4: "There is no reason to believe that Saddam would use new oil revenues to feed his people should sanctions be lifted. Since 1991 he has squandered Iraq's resources on weapons of mass destruction, grandiose palaces, a new city bearing his name, and other monuments to his own ambition. Only by ensuring that the UN controls how Iraq can spend its money and oversees the distribution of food and medicine inside Iraq can we have any expectation that Iraqi revenues will go to feed the Iraqi people rather than Saddam's war machine and his ego."
Glenn #4: There is ample reason to believe that Saddam Hussein would use the resources of his country to benefit the people because prior to 1991 he did that for over 10 years. For instance, Iraq provided universal free health care under the most advanced system in the middle east under Saddam Hussein's regime. All regimes must cater somewhat to the needs of their people to stay in power, and prior to the Gulf War the Ba'ath party had a very good record of meeting the needs of its people.
Also, I am not naïve on this point, ruling elites in all countries (including the US) are self-serving in pursuing their own luxury and interests at the expense of their people. Since I live in a poor inner-city black and Chicano community in North Denver, I see the constant deprivation of the people while those in power in THIS country build grandiose mansions and estates, expensive high-rise office towers and business complexes, and most importantly WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ($300 billion on the US military industrial complex, $50+ billion just on building, developing and maintaining OUR government's arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons).
I fail to see how the US might have anything to teach the Iraqi regime in this regard, remembering that the US government was responsible for the nuclear annihilation of over 150,000 civilians during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or how US control over the distribution of goods might make that distribution any more just, given our own government's record in this area (31 million adults and children go hungry each day in the US, more than the entire population of Iraq). It's time to stop pointing fingers and take a closer and more critical look at our own actions. Let the Iraqi people deal with their own oppressive dictator on their own terms, we Americans have plenty of oppression and injustice to face up to and begin to deal with here at home.
Bill #5: "While we are working to limit their impact on the Iraqi people, the sanctions on Iraq continue to be essential to contain the Iraqi regime. As my Administration has consistently stated, the sanctions on Iraq will remain in place until Iraq has complied with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. The sanctions prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military. They deny him the cash that gave him broad influence in the Middle East before the Gulf War. They keep him weak and internationally isolated. They are a constant reminder to his people and to the world that Saddam Hussein is not fully sovereign in Iraq. They prevent Saddam from disrupting regional stability. Finally, they impede his ability to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. The risks of altering our policy of containment are clear, and therefore, while working to minimize the impact of the sanctions on the Iraqi people, we must remain resolute in containing the Iraqi regime."
Glenn #5: Both of the top UNSCOM inspectors of 1998, Chief Weapons inspector, Richard Butler and his second in command Scott Ritter, have recently condemned economic sanctions as both inhumane and ineffective in relation to the stated goal of preventing Iraq from acquiring or producing weapons of mass destruction.
According the report issued by UNSCOM in 1998 Iraq was making considerable progress and was nearing full compliance with UN resolutions at that time. The report also stated that Iraq's military capability was completely crippled in terms of being able to project power outside its own borders or threaten other states in the region. However, Iraq complained that the US was using UNSCOM as a front for spying operations and denied access to certain sites by the US inspectors. Your administration used this as a pretext to pull out the inspection teams and begin an extensive bombing campaign that continues to this day. The allegations made by Iraq in relation to spying were later confirmed by high ranking US intelligence officials (Washington Post, 1/6/99).
Basically, what this all comes down to is that
the United States has no business usurping the sovereignty of
another state, period. Also, it should be noted that Iraq has
NEVER attacked the United States, no Iraqi soldier has set foot
on sovereign US soil & no Iraqi bomber has ever flown into US
airspace. Middle East conflicts (such as the Iraq / Kuwait
dispute) are best
settled by the people of the middle east themselves. If the
United States gets involved because it is pursuing it's own
"economic interests" one must begin to question how
justified such motives are. The only "constant
reminder to the Iraqi people and the world" being sent by
your current policy is that the United States will ruthlessly
pursue the economic interests of its multinational
corporate class and spread its military domination across the
world (especially the oil-producing Arab world).
The risks of continuing such a policy of global domination are clear; we have already seen an increase in the terrorist threat here in the US from our destructive policy in the gulf (i.e. Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian who has declared war on Americans due to the US military occupation of his home country beginning with the gulf war) Repression, Intimidation, & violence never actually increase security (in the very short term, they may give the illusion that they do) but, rather they create enemies where there were none before and harden the resolve of those that already exist. Again may Peace be with you, Glenn Helkenn.