Greetings RN list, When I first encountered the argument that even military sanctions against Iraq should be dropped, I could not see why. The following article from the International Action Center does a good job of explaining why... Still, though, we ought never to forget that ideally, there would be no arms trade whatsoever. One more small but still important reservation I have with the IAC article: it says "it is the United States, not Iraq, which is the greatest military threat and violator of human rights--in the Middle East and around the world." I do not doubt that the US is a more threatening military power than any other country in the world. But can we truly say it is the greatest violator of human rights? Reports from the Chetchen war are appalling, also the war in Sudan. If we include the policies of the IMF and the World Bank as being "US" policies, then certainly the US government bears enormous responsibility for many, probably most, human rights violations in the world. But still, human rights violators in other countries than the US bear some responsibility too. I think, to be clear, it would be better for that sentence to read like this: "it is the US government (and those who wield the most influence over US government policy), not the Iraqi government, which poses the greatest military threat and is most responsible for human rights violations in the Middle East and around the world." Following the article from the IAC is Frank Scott's March column, which also investigates the reasoning behind the sanctions being imposed on Iraq, linking that reasoning to commercial capitalism (or corporate globalization). This article makes other important links too, all in a few tightly written paragraphs! all the best, Jan ************************************************************************* Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:36:28 -0500 From: Eric Fawcett <•••@••.•••> Subject: sfp-47: Sanctions a cover for taking over Iraq? To [remove]add your address to this list, email: •••@••.••• with no message in the text and Subject: [unsubscribe]subscribe sfpcan. Messages posted on http://scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This analysis makes sense of an apparently brutally stupid US/UK policy. If true then the leaders of both countries are guilty of a stupendous crime against humanity that truly deserves comparison with the evils of Nazism. The 20th has been called Hitler's century - he lost the war, but won the "peace", and his foul ideology has infected the victors of WWII. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ U.S. strategy vs. Iraq & UNSC Resolution 1284 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By Richard Becker, Western Regional Co-Coordinator, International Action Center It should be apparent by now to even the most casual observer that a major goal of U.S. foreign policy is to overthrow the government of Iraq, deprive that country of its sovereignty, and reduce it to the status of a colony. They even have a name for it in Washington: "regime change." There is virtually no debate at the top on the legitimacy and desirability of this aim--just some minor differences of opinion over how best to achieve it. For nearly a decade the U.S. rulers have waged war against Iraq and its people by military, economic, financial, political and diplomatic means. The United States funds, sponsors, trains and organizes political and military opposition to the Iraqi government. What drives U.S. policy, which has remained virtually unchanged under both the Republican Bush and Democratic Clinton administrations? In short, it's for domination and profit: domination of the key Persian/Arabian Gulf, which holds up to two-thirds of the world's petroleum reserves, and the immense profits to be made by exploiting those fabulous resources. Iraq itself sits atop a sea of oil. It is ranked second in the world in reserves. This reality, of course, must be concealed to the greatest degree possible, especially from the U.S. public. It wouldn't go over very well to tell people that the Pentagon is spending $50 billion to $60 billion a year to blockade and starve Iraqi children in order to safeguard the present and future profits of Exxon, Chevron and Citibank. So the modern-day incarnations of Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels in the State Department and White House have spun a different story. They are motivated by their deep "concern" over "human rights violations" and "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, Iraq's president, is relentlessly presented in their bought media as the personification of all that is evil--"worse than Hitler," they sometimes say. As if the U.S. ruling class, with its blood-drenched history at home and abroad, and armed to the teeth with every imaginable nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional weapon, could really be "concerned" about either Iraq's internal policies or armaments. Anti-sanctions movement ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Unfortunately, some in the anti-war and anti-sanctions movement have taken a position that, unintentionally or otherwise, lends credence to the imperialist policy makers' arguments. This viewpoint can be summarized as follows: 1) Economic sanctions are wrong because they are causing great suffering among the Iraqi people, while not hurting the regime; 2) Saddam Hussein should be indicted as a war criminal and removed from office; and 3) economic sanctions should be "delinked" from military sanctions, meaning that economic sanctions should be ended while military sanctions are kept in place. A letter currently circulating in Congress argues this line. This position implicitly credits the U.S. government, and the United Nations Security Council which it dominates, as qualified to sit as judge and jury on Iraq. In other words, the U.S. government is legitimate and the Iraqi government is not. Moreover, this position gives credit to U.S. policy's stated and phony aims by agreeing with them. "Yes," this perspective says, "Saddam is evil. He must be replaced by a democratic government and Iraq must be disarmed so that it cannot threaten its neighbors." This view disregards, in addition to Iraq's right to self-determination, the fact that it is the United States, not Iraq, which is the greatest military threat and violator of human rights--in the Middle East and around the world. There is no greater proof of the U.S. leaders' criminality than the sanctions themselves. Nine-and-a-half years of near-total blockade have killed at least 1.25 million Iraqis and inflicted unimaginable suffering on a whole country and people. To call the sanctions genocidal is no exaggeration. Opposition to sanctions ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Opposition to the sanctions has grown around the world, especially in the two years since the February 1998 crisis that brought the United States to the brink of a major new military attack on Iraq. In the Middle East, the opposition is so wide, deep and bitter that even some of the most pliant U.S. client regimes feel compelled to call for the blockade to be lifted. Three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council--Russia, China and France--favor ending the sanctions. But the U.S. leaders want to keep the sanctions, which they see as a vital element in their "regime change" strategy. As they were designed to, the sanctions have destroyed or severely weakened much of Iraq's infrastructure, industry and agriculture, as well as the country's military capacity. The latter had always been wildly exaggerated in the Western media. The sanctions, along with continued bombing raids, are intended to grind down Iraq and its people. The United States, as President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other top U.S. officials admitted during the 1998 crisis, intends to keep sanctions in place until the current government is removed or overthrown. To do this, they must keep alive the myth that Iraq possesses fearsome weapons or the capacity to produce them, with which it threatens its neighbors. Enter UN Security Council Resolution 1284 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The Security Council passed Resolution 1284 in December 1999, after nearly a year of rancorous debate. It supposedly provides for lifting the sanctions on Iraq if the country agrees to allow UN weapons-inspection teams to return and verify that Iraq no longer has any more "weapons of mass destruction." For eight years, Iraq was the most inspected country in history. Hundreds of UN weapons-inspection teams, known as UNSCOM, made thousands of visits to every corner of the country. Twenty-four-hour video cameras were set up in every factory that was deemed to have "dual-use technology." "Dual-use" means that a facility has the potential to produce military as well as civilian goods--as does much of modern industry anywhere. Yet the sanctions and the horrific suffering of the Iraqi people remained unchanged. In the fall of 1997, Iraq halted the inspections, declaring they would not be allowed to resume until it was made clear how and when they would lead to an end to the blockade. In addition, the Iraqis charged that many of the inspectors were actually spies for the government most committed to maintaining the sanctions indefinitely: the United States. While U.S. officials and media at first ridiculed this charge, even they were forced to admit that it was true a few months later. Weapons inspection began again in March 1998. They continued until December, when the UNSCOM teams fomented a new crisis, leading to the intensive U.S./ British bombing of Iraq for four days, Dec. 16-19, 1998. Since that time, there have been no inspectors in the country. Resolution 1284--a tactic to maintain sanctions ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, speaking to delegates from the Iraq Sanctions Challenge in Baghdad on Jan. 18, described the U.S. position as "pretending to seek a solution" in the year-long Security Council negotiations. Resolution 1284, Aziz said, "presents that sanctions would be suspended if Iraq cooperates. But Iraq has cooperated for many years, from 1991 to 1998, and got as a reward missiles and bombs. "If you watch CBS News or read the New York Times," Aziz continued, "you would hear that there is a resolution to end sanctions, but the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein refuses and so is responsible for the miserable situation. It's propaganda." Under Resolution 1284, Aziz explained, Iraq would be subject to even more strict controls than under the old system. The resolution invokes all the past UN resolutions against Iraq, and adds the word "verification" to the mission of the weapons inspection team. This means that Iraq must prove that no "weapons of mass destruction," nor the capacity to produce them, exists. Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. attorney general who headed the recent Sanctions Challenge to Iraq, points out that "it's impossible to prove a negative, to prove that no weapons exist in an area as large as Iraq." And in fact, as Clark explained, that is exactly the point: to set conditions that cannot be met, thus allowing the sanctions to continue without limit. There are no provisions for financial arrangements or controls in Resolution 1284. The subject was left for later discussions. Given that Iraq has received less than one-third of the value of the $19 billion in petroleum it has sold under UN Resolution 661--the so-called "Oil for Food" deal--the new financial arrangements are likely to be even less satisfactory, according to Aziz and other Iraqi officials. Clearly, Resolution 1284's real objective is to keep the sanctions in place while making it appear that Iraq itself is responsible for their continuation. 'Dual-use' bulls ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ At the same time, $6 billion in contracts under the "Oil for Food" resolution remain blocked by the Security Council. The vast majority of contracts to repair the damaged water, sewage, electrical and other infrastructure have been denied or put on hold. The usual excuse given by the United States and Britain, which lead the way in blocking contracts, is that the commodities in question could be "dual use." So neither pipes nor chlorine, both desperately needed to rehabilitate the water system, have been allowed into the country. The extreme to which the "dual-use" pretext can be taken was illustrated by Iraq's recent attempt to import 15 breeding bulls. The contract was denied. When asked why, State Department mouthpiece James Rubin replied, "It's not the bulls we have a problem with, it's the vaccine that goes with them." Rubin claimed that the vaccines, necessary for modern animal husbandry, could be used to make biological weapons. The story of the 15 bulls shows just how bankrupt the "delinking" argument is. In reality, it plays into the hands of those who want to perpetuate the sanctions forever, or until a government to their liking is established in Baghdad. The anti-war and anti-sanctions movement needs to call for the unconditional lifting of the genocidal sanctions, an end to the constant assaults on Iraq's sovereignty, and for the United States to get out of the Middle East, where it has done so much damage over the past half-century. International Action Center 39 West 14th Street, Room 206 New York, NY 10011 email: •••@••.••• http://www.iacenter.org phone: 212 633-6646 fax: 212 633-2889 ************************************************************************* Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:29:12 -0800 From: frank scott <•••@••.•••> Subject: march column COASTAL POST (415)868 1600 FAX (415) 868 0502 P.O. Box 31 Bolinas CA 94924 http://www.coastalpost.com email: •••@••.••• March, 20000 The Merchant of Menace Commerce has been a major force in the material progress of humankind. It has helped us evolve from a race facing unimaginable struggle for survival, to a developed state in which a major portion of humanity is still struggling, while another lives in material excess. Our commercial process has helped develop a life of privilege for many, but it still consigns others to deprivation and misery. Why have we advanced so far, and yet left so many in poverty and despair? While the privileged classes often achieve material affluence only at the cost of mental misery? The answer is that both the progress and the deprivation are direct results of a particular process of commerce known, though rarely understood, as capitalism . People communicating and trading in markets has motivated much of what is good about humanity. But the anti-democratic and anti-social process of capitalism that has dominated commerce for hundreds of years is the cause of maddening inconsistencies in production, distribution and consumption. And just as important, it is threatening the air, land and water that are the foundations of life. A worldwide movement calling for democratic power to be exercised over global trade, really amounts to an argument for radical change in the system of commerce. But the longer it takes to agree on that point , the more threatening the problem becomes. We are seriously menaced by the continued merchandising of pollution, waste and human suffering, all in pursuit of a private profit that creates devastating social loss. The mercantile force is currently putting on its election show, spending incredible amounts of money to imply a democratic system where none exists. Two major candidates, Bradley and McCain, offer some change from the front runners , but neither are about anything different when it comes to commerce . Both believe that our present system is wonderful. We merely need to make some personal adjustments and re-introduce honesty to the practice of politics - if it ever was there - and everything will be fine. Sure. While this election performance has been occupying the minds of a minority, the majority has witnessed other spectacles that tell more about our problems than any of the empty vessels presently being hyped as our next president. Among these are two major cases of international child abuse . Some political figures are belatedly speaking out against these situations, though very carefully, in obedience to the dollar power of their employers in commerce. More than a million people have been killed in Iraq as a result of our wicked sanctions. There is some sign that the barbarians may be tiring of the bad publicity it generates internationally, if not here in the states. Due to that publicity, we may soon end the depraved policy that is murdering an entire nation, especially its innocent children. A less bloody but equally notorious case here in the USA, is the fiasco of the Cuban child, Elian Gonzalez. Months have passed in which nothing but propaganda and evil have triumphed, while a child and a family are defiled, all in political pursuit of money and power. The rich and fanatic Cuban-American minority in Miami may be blamed for this sordid episode, but they could not act without the complicity of those in power. And the performance of that second group has been disgraceful . Whining platitudes about the good of the child and the evils of Castro have been the blatherings of most politicians, who cannot speak any truth without including rhetorical sops to the Gusano Gestapo, hopefully assuring future financial contributions. And this cowardly performance by the political establishment occurs while brave Cuban-Americans who are not part of the fanatic cult have been moved to speak up, at risk to their own physical safety. Nothing has helped , except to recently move the story off the front pages. We have been witness to every form of exploitation of this child, with the exception of his being sexually molested on national TV. The total disregard for Elian's well being is an example of how we treat tens of thousands, perhaps millions of children in America, and millions more across the globe. We profess love for some kids, but we murder them in places like Iraq , and we consign them to miserable lives of poverty and even jail them as adults in our own nation. Then we select a trophy child like this abused Cuban, and in so doing make a mockery of ourselves and the warped double standards that motivate our society. It is not a demonic individual , but commercial capitalism that is responsible for the murders in Iraq and the child abuse in Miami Beach. Just as it is that system which defoliates forests, pollutes air and degrades morality, all in pursuit of profit. Iraq is made a bloody example , not because of its dictator, but because it disobeyed the culture of the great white gas guzzler. And we carry out a vindictive policy towards Cuba , not because of Fidel, but because that tiny nation dares to practice a commerce that puts people before profits. The fanatic, if sincere cult in Miami would be gone in a nano-second without the support of a fanatic but insincere cult in Washington, USA. And that Washington cult, and the economy which it serves, will maintain control as long as the election process continues in its present form. The national democratic structure is built on a foundation of the commercial forces that are the root cause of our problems. The marketing of politics perpetuates the molesting of the public mind and the abuse of the public body. This perverse process will continue until democracy stops the capitalist merchant of menace which dominates our commercial life. Copyright (c) 2000 by Frank Scott. All rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that the author is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author . frank scott http://www.marin.cc.ca.us/~frank email: •••@••.••• 225 laurel place, san rafael ca. 94901 (415)457 2415 fax(415)457 4791
