Viewpoint Lifting sanctions wont end pain, and it
could fuel new aggression
By CHARLES N. DAVIS
The May 21 NCR eloquently
describes the suffering of the Iraqi people. It also lays the blame for that
suffering on the United States and the sanctions program being enforced by the
United Nations. I believe that is a severe misreading of the situation.
As the Presidents National Security Adviser Samuel R.
Berger, points out: Saddams intent is clear: He is cynically trying
to exploit the suffering of his people for which he is responsible to build
support for eroding sanctions so that he can resume his efforts to acquire
weapons of mass destruction.
Berger said that the United States is prepared to lift the ceiling
on how much oil Iraq is able to export and to use as much oil revenue as is
necessary to meet humanitarian needs as long as it is done under the strict
supervision of sanctions. Critics, he said, forget that
starving Iraq is Saddams strategy. The oil-for-food program ... further
restrains him while relieving the suffering of ordinary Iraqis.
There is practically no human rights violation that Saddam Hussein
has not perpetrated in attempting to achieve his objectives of maintaining
control of his country and of conquering or dominating his oil-producing
neighbors. A brief review of that record:
Saddam invaded Iran in the 1980s using poison gas. In the 1990s he
conquered Kuwait and launched missiles against Israel. In Iraqs forced
retreat, he set fire to hundreds of oil wells.
After the Persian Gulf War, Baghdad used military force to
suppress rebellions by Shiites and Kurds. In 1994, Iraq continued its efforts
to crush internal resistance with an economic embargo of the Kurdish North and
a military campaign against Shiite Muslim region in the South.
The following is from a statement made by Mr. Max Van Der Stoel,
the Special Rapporteur of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Iraq in 1998:
The ordinary situation in the country is one of widespread, systematic
and constant denial of basic human rights. The regime assassinates religious
leaders and carries out terrorist attacks and mass executions against any
person who might be perceived as a threat to the Iraqi government. The
government has also displaced well over 150,000 persons of Kurdish origin to
secure the wealth of the oil-rich region of Kirkuk.
The government uses its resources to rebuild its military forces
and to construct numerous elaborate palaces. Despite the expanded
oil-for-food program, the government bears primary responsibility
for the continuing suffering of the Iraqi people.
Nonetheless, there is a belief by some that lifting the sanctions
would improve the lot of the Iraqi people. Again, the record shows otherwise:
In August, 1998, a State Department communique said: Since the
implementation of the oil-for-food program in 1991, the Iraqi regime has
drastically reduced its own food purchases by some $300 [million] to $500
million per year. ... Were the sanctions lifted today, Saddam Hussein would
doubtless divert the vast sums he could generate in oil sales to reconstituting
his arsenal.
And Iraq is close to achieving a nuclear weapons capability. Paul
Levanthal and Steven Dolley wrote in The Washington Post in 1998 that
Scott Ritter, previously of the U.N. Weapons Inspection Team, testified to
Congress that UNSCOM had received evidence of some credibility which
indicated that Iraq had the components to assemble three implosion type
[nuclear] devices minus the fissile material. Levanthal and Dolley say
the prudent assumption should be that even the possibility that Iraq has
already procured this fissile material cannot be ruled out.
Philip Shenon, a reporter for The Washington Post, wrote in
1998 that sanctions accomplish two fundamental goals: Under the
oil-for-food program, they enable the Iraqi people to get food and
medicine, and they have deprived Iraq of the ability to buy advanced weapons
and so-called dual-use technology that would allow Iraq to make arms of mass
destruction.
To my mind, if Iraq were to spend its oil revenues on arms, the
world would again see a repetition of Saddams previous atrocities: use of
poison gas, invasions of its neighbors, environmental destruction, missiles
launched against Jerusalem and cities in other countries this time armed with
nuclear warheads.
Removal of sanctions would also almost certainly not improve the
lot of the people. The oil-for-food program would be cut off and
the funds from oil exports would not go to the people but to the military. In
this event, Americans would be barred from the country so that they could not
report on continued Iraqi suffering.
In the late 1950s, Charles N. Davis flew antisubmarine warfare
missions for the United States Navy. He later became an analyst of political
and military affairs in the Soviet Union for the Defense Intelligence Agency
and the National Intelligence Council. Now retired, Davis writes on arms
control issues and church reform, especially divorce and remarriage.
National Catholic Reporter, June 18,
1999
|