strike on iraq

"No one wants to acknowledge the amount of nonmilitary damage, the destruction of cold food
and medicine storage, the power supply," Halliday says. "I went there to administer the largest
humanitarian challenge in U.N. history. I didn't realize our level of complicity in the suffering."

According to preliminary numbers in a study conducted by Richard Garfield, an epidemiologist
at Columbia University and a specialist on the health effects of the embargo, the death rate for
Iraqi children age 5 and under has spiraled up, nearly tripling since sanctions were imposed in
1990. At that time, child deaths in Iraq were on a par with much of the Western world.

"There is almost no documented case of rising mortality for children under 5 years old in the
modern world," Garfield says. "When the U.S. hit a bomb shelter in the Gulf War, it admitted a
grave mistake and changed its rules . . . yet these sanctions are resulting in about 150 excess
child deaths per day."

U.S. officials usually dismiss such talk of American responsibility as so much agitprop. They say
that Iraq is a conspirator in its own decline. And they add that the country is now allowed to
pump enough oil to stave off the worst suffering. Under the oil-for-food program, Iraq can sell
$5.2 billion worth and use some of that money to buy food, medicines and limited medical
technology.

That allows Iraq to buy about one-third of the food and medicine it purchased before the war,
according to Halliday.

Then-U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright went on CBS's "60 Minutes" in 1996 and assayed
a defense of the toll taken by sanctions.

A reporter stated that some estimates placed child deaths in Iraq at half a million (Halliday uses
the same figure), and asked if the price was worth it. "I think this is a very hard choice," she
replied, "but the price -- we think is worth it."

More recently, Albright returned to "60 Minutes" as secretary of state and advised reporters
that "you can't lay that guilt trip on me. . . . I believe that Saddam Hussein is the one who is
responsible for the tragedy of the Iraqi people."

Halliday wades warily into this moral calculus of blame. He is not inclined to defend Saddam
Hussein and senior Baath Party officials, and he acknowledges problems in the distribution of
food and medicine. And Iraqi officials have, on occasion, insisted on ordering sophisticated
medical machinery when wiser people would zero in on basic medicines and foodstuffs. There
are a few streets in downtown Baghdad, he concedes, that seem strikingly cosmopolitan, full of
well-fed shoppers.

That, however, is but to concede the obvious: In all tragedies, even more so in authoritarian
nations, the poorest and most rural suffer worst. What's more to the point, say two other U.N.
inspectors who spoke on condition of anonymity, is that even the best-run sanctions program
could not deliver enough food and medicine to ameliorate all the suffering.

Halliday seizes on that point, extends it. Let's suppose that sanctions have contributed, through
poor nutrition, stunting and dysentery, to but 100,000 deaths.

"I've been to hospitals where they have enough heart medicine for two patients and there are 10
who need it. How do you count that? How do you spread it?"

He leans across the table toward a visitor. He uses a word he has hitherto danced around.

"These are criminal calculations."

He refused to talk about them at first, the four leukemia kids. It seemed one of those maudlin
stories the press favors, Dickensian puff pastry that will only encourage those who favor a more
punitive policy to dismiss Halliday as a "damn bunny-hugger."

He relents, finally, and tells of his visit to the Saddam Hussein Medical Center in Baghdad.
Once a modern hospital, it's now filled with dust, baking in the heat of an infernal summer. The
air conditioning rarely works. He found four children there, three girls and a boy, gravely ill with
leukemia.

There was not enough medicine for all of them. So he broke his first rule in Iraq: He searched
for medicines on the black market, traveling by car on the hot dusty track to Amman, Jordan.

He describes his next steps in a clipped, weary monotone.

"I walked back into the hospital. . . . We went to the ward, we had picked up some presents
for Christmas. We found that two of the children were already dead."

He didn't go to hospitals much after that. He had no solutions. And he "didn't want to be one
more foreigner gawking with no answers."

He recounts this in his sun-filled apartment on the East Side of Manhattan. He is 57, with
bred-in-the-bone reserve. He was an assistant secretary general at the United Nations. It's
considered bad form to publicly rebuke a member nation.

"I used to lecture my staff about such things." He chuckles at himself. "Now I talk a lot about
ends justifying means."

The leukemia incident wasn't the only time he bent the rules. Frustrated at the rising death toll in
late 1997, worried that the United Nations lacked the will to stand up to the United States, he
took the highly unusual step of lobbying France, Russia and China to relax sanctions. And one
long night in Baghdad, he typed and retyped an uncharacteristically passionate letter to his boss,
Secretary General Kofi Annan.

"I wrote a very nasty letter, probably too nasty," he says. "I said that we were managing a
process that was resulting in thousands of deaths. I told him you have to stand up and speak."

The letter fed a growing sense that he needed to leave. But he refused. His staff needed a
leader, and enough could be done in the margins of sanctions policy to save thousands of lives.

Since his departure he's traveled a lot -- on his own dime, he says -- to New Zealand, Iceland
and all over Europe. He was invited even to Great Britain to sit on a government-sponsored
panel and criticize that nation's policy toward Iraq. He has refused to return to Iraq, though,
even when invited by Saddam Hussein. He doesn't want to appear sympathetic to the regime.

In this country, he's found himself appearing mainly on talk radio shows and college campuses.
The establishment press and Congress paid far greater attention to the resignation of a different
U.N. official: UNSCOM arms inspector Scott Ritter.

Ritter's narrative of Iraqi deception and the apparent willingness of the Clinton administration to
look the other way resonated in a nation that has lived with the unfinished business of Saddam
Hussein and Iraq since the end of the Gulf War. Ritter, the war hero, has come to function as
sort of a doppelganger, his outsize personality and tougher prescriptions overshadowing
Halliday's.

"You can't match Ritter. He's a hero, he's got a great message to sell," Halliday says. "I play as
just some jaded U.N. official. I can't match his sex appeal."

The jokes conceal a tension that ran through relations between the humanitarian staff and the
arms inspectors in Iraq. The arms inspectors are convinced, based on voluminous documents
and intelligence sources, that Iraq still harbors at least the raw stuff of weapons of mass
destruction: poison gas, biological weapons, perhaps worse.

It's a history best paid notice: Saddam Hussein has used some of these weapons on his own
people.

But Halliday says he found it nearly impossible to get the arms inspectors to work with his staff,
and to persuade them to allow some technology into the country, to repair energy and water
systems.

"I would drive home through raw sewage, watching children all but bathe in it," Halliday says.
"But they wouldn't meet with us. They seemed worried we'd convert their cowboys into
bunny-huggers."

His doubts about the UNSCOM mission run deeper. It's a dangerous world, in which
companies and nations across the so-called civilized world hawk the most murderous weapons,
legally and illegally. To insist on staying inside Iraq until every weapon is destroyed seems a
fool's errand, he says.

"The inspectors destroyed tons and tons of arms and that was great," he says. "But they need a
timetable."

Nor is getting rid of Saddam Hussein necessarily the answer, he argues. The dictator's son, for
one, is far worse, he believes. As are the many thousands of young Iraqis who have no access
to Western thought and education, and who increasingly believe that Saddam Hussein is too
moderate.

"Beware what you ask for," Halliday says. "Killing Saddam does not necessarily solve
anything."

Some American officials argue that there is an exile movement with hooks deep into Iraq, and
that a carefully coordinated guerrilla movement could establish power someday.

Weeks after that interview, Halliday called again. He's worried that the United States appears
intent on war, he's flying to Washington to hold a few meetings. Hours later, he's in Washington.

The civil servant's reserve is slowly falling away. He confesses he's getting radicalized, that he
feels the need to speak more deeply, more passionately. Of late, he's taken to asking American
audiences if they could survive on some beans, some rice, a little yogurt and impure water.

"I feel somewhat guilty for abandoning my colleagues in Iraq during this talk of bombing," he
said a week ago. "Now I see the American generals talking about possibly 10,000 more Iraqi
deaths. This is not a strategy, it's simply to the point of madness.

"One day, we'll all be called to account and clobbered in the history books."


© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

 

Traderfut2000:

Ok, now we know what you read.

What do you think? (the short version)

And by the way, what did I say that you found "astonishing"?

Peace,
Salaam,
Rs7

 

Why a War Against Iraq is Illegal Under Int. Law
Tuesday, 10 September 2002, 9:34 am
Article: Moana Cole

Why a War Against Iraq is Illegal Under Int. Law
“To Initiate A War Of Aggression… Is Not Only An International Crime; It Is The Supreme International Crime Differing Only From Other War Crimes In That It Contains Within Itself The Accumulated Evil Of The Whole”.

(Robert Jackson, U.S. Representative At The Nuremberg Trials)

New Zealand must urge General Assembly and Security Council members and all Heads of State to denounce US unilateral action of planning and preparation for warfare against Iraq as contrary to its Charter and Customary International Law. As the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg noted, “resort to a war of aggression is not merely illegal, but is criminal”.

The principle of renunciation of the use or threat of force is now one of the fundamental principles of International law and, as such, is stated with the utmost clarity in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which imposes definite obligations on states participating in international affairs. Sates are bound in their international relations to renounce “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN”. Thus, any use of force by a state must be regarded as unlawful if it is not subject to an armed attack.

The US seeks to justify a pre-emptive strike on Iraq on the basis of self-defence. Self-defence presupposes an attack in which the permissible force must be “be immediately subsequent to and proportional to the armed attack to which it was an answer”. The legality of pre-emptive self-defence has been rejected on the basis that use of force used to deter future use of force constitutes punitive rather than defensive action.

The UK seeks to justify a war with Iraq based on Iraq’s failure to comply with weapons inspectors and thus breaching Security Council Resolution 678 (1990). The Security Council has not identified Iraq as in material breach of the ceasefire resolution for its current failure to comply with the weapons inspectorate; therefore the Security Council cannot condone a pre-emptive military strike as a proportional response to non-compliance with weapons inspectors.

The US and UK claim they are motivated by a concern over Iraq's potential possession of non-conventional weapons. However, Scott Ritter, who personally led the inspections, investigations and destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes said on July 23 2002: "There is no case for war. The UN weapons inspectors enjoyed tremendous success in Iraq. By the end of our job, we ascertained a 90-95 per cent level of disarmament. Not because we took at face value what the Iraqis said. We went to Europe and scoured the countries that sold technology to Iraq until we found the company that had an invoice signed by an Iraqi official. We cross-checked every piece of equipment with serial numbers. That's why I can say that Iraq was 90-95 per cent disarmed. We confirmed that 96 per cent of Iraq's 98 missiles were destroyed”. The international Atomic Energy Agency reported that it had eliminated Iraq's nuclear weapons programme "efficiently and effectively". The Security Council’s significant power to act in international affairs must be delimited by accepted principles of international law. It is precisely the aim of an international rule of law to restrain the arbitrary use of power in international society. Equally, the legitimization of power via dubious legal processes must not be permitted. New Zealand should also be concerned about the humanitarian implications of any further military action against Iraq. Article 24 of the Charter directs the Security Council “to act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations” when acting to maintain peace and security. The promotion of human rights is one of these fundamental “Purposes and Principles.” The Security Council remains always obligated by the UN Charter to “promote and encourage respect for human rights”. Thus, the Security Council may not violate human rights, even when acting to maintain peace and security. Iraq has been subject to numerous violations since January 16, 1991.

The Gulf War The basic principles of the laws of war are those of distinction and proportionality. Under the principle of distinction, belligerents are required to distinguish between civilians and combatants at all times and to direct attacks only against military targets. This is the fundamental principle of the laws of war. The corollary principle of proportionality is designed to ensure that attacks against military targets do not cause excessive civilian damage. The Geneva Conventions define the principle of proportionality as prohibiting any “attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects ... which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” Indiscriminate weapons, which cannot be directed solely against military targets, by their very nature, violate the principle of distinction.

The 1991Gulf War subjected Iraq to the most concentrated bombing campaign in history, the Pentagon announcing it conducted 110,000 aerial sorties dropping 88,500 tons of bombs. The war resulted in 67 000 Iraqi deaths as well as grave damage to Iraq’s infrastructure with losses estimated at $170 billion. Deliberate bombing of water treatment facilities during the Gulf War originally degraded the water quality leading to the outbreak of diseases such as cholera and typhoid. The Security Council is under a legal obligation to prevent such flagrant violations.

Sanctions According to the report, Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for the Future, sanctions-based “holds” have blocked the rebuilding of much of Iraq’s water treatment infrastructure. Additionally, sanctions have blocked the rebuilding of the electricity sector that powers pumps and other vital water treatment equipment. This has resulted in 800,000 Iraqi children “chronically malnourished.” Even with conservative assumptions, the total of all excess deaths of the under five population exceeds 400,000. Combined with the deaths of older children and adults, this adds up to a great and unjustifiable humanitarian tragedy.

Continuing Military Strikes Since the 1991 Gulf War, further military operations have been launched against Iraq, by aircraft and cruise missiles at a rate of one strike per week. Some of these attacks targeted sites in Baghdad or other populated areas and resulted in civilian casualties. The Security Council’s failure to address the human rights and humanitarian impact of the war and subsequent sanctions has prompted regular expressions of concern from UN agencies, commissions, panels and other bodies. The Security Council is bound to respect the full range of human rights standards in the major international legal instruments as an extension of its underlying obligations under the UN Charter. It must ensure that its actions comply with these standards. New Zealand must urge the Security Council to resist recent trends in becoming an important political aid in constituting an integrated strategy designed to overthrow the government in Iraq in order to dominate this strategic and oil-rich region by justifying the use of force.

Moana Cole mailto: mmc62@student.canterbury.ac.nz Moana Cole is currently completing a Masters of Law research paper on the legality of the war against Afghanistan at Canterbury University

 

W's key arguements completely fall apart:

Iraq has used poison gas on its own people. Therefore, they would use WMD against countries. There is a huge difference between using WMD against defenseless peasants vs using them against Israel or the US which would obliterate Baghdad in a second if those weapons were used. Why didn't Saddam use WMD against Israel when he had a chance in the Gulf War? Because he liked Israel? Or because he knew the consequences of such action? Israel would have nuked him in a minute and he knows it.

Saddam is an evil dictator. Therefore, by association, he must be in bed with Al Qaeda terrorists. Again, where is the evidence of this? Is there one shread of evidence in the past 5-10 years pointing towards a relationship between Secular Saddam and the religious fanatics of Al Qaeda?

Saddam is in violation of UN resolutions. Therefore, the only way to handle it is to go to war. Someone needs to tell the Administration that Israel is also in defiance of many UN resolutions. Does this make it ok for the Palestinians to wage war against the Israels?

I wonder if one of the reason behind W's rush to war is to capture American support before the economy can slide into another recession. Weekly jobless claims continue to go up, unemployment is bound to follow. People care alot more about their jobs than Saddam.

 

In complete agreement,. Turkey is so afraid of those "peaceful Kurds" invading, that they are most reluctant to see Saddam go.

 

Iraq is a SECULAR state. Not a hot bed of Islamic terror!

 

Someone needs to educate King George.

In most every case, we actually elect our presidents. This is the preferred method in a democracy.

That the 2000 presidential election was a disaster and Bush was anointed president, still doesn't sit well with quite a lot of Americans.

George may feel like destiny has put him in power, that he is a descendent of a former president so he has some "Divine Right of Kings" flowing through his veins........but despite his feelings his job is to serve the will of the people, not to carry out his own personal crusade.

When I listened to his speech before the United Nations, and he referred to "My Country" I wanted to remind him that it is "Our" country. You can say it is "My Job" to serve the needs of the American people, but that is all that you entitled to "own" for the term/s of office you have.

Recent polls have shown that people are indeed concerned that almost all of the world is not showing support for unilateral action. People are stating that they want to see the issues debated here at home, in our congress, you know----the democratic way.

We are supposed to be living in a democratic society, where people are supposed to be allowed to voice their opinions without fear of being labeled "unpatriotic" or a security threat.

Can those of you old enough to remember Nixon, can you not doubt that Bush Inc. has put together a list like Nixon's of "subversives" and dangerous people?

I really don't know what Iraq and Hussein are doing. Do you?

Have we seen incontrovertible facts that support GW's position? All I have seen is "expert" witnesses express their opinions---but nothing that is fact beyond dispute.

We need a government that provides for national security, that is one of the primary jobs of the Federal government....but that security MUST be accomplished by a government that is transparent in its processes to the American people. We have seen in the past what happens to a government when they act in secret and feel above the law.

Let's open up this debate for congress. Let's let the president claim that he wants open debate, and wants to hear dissenting opinion....let him quote the founding fathers on the need for a democratic process, let him quote Abraham Lincoln on the need for a unified country in times of uncertainty and turmoil------but most of all let it take place on a stage that all voters can view and respond to.

I don't mind telling the rest of the world to go fuck themselves if indeed we have proof of a threat the way GW suggests. However, let's first convince the vast majority of Americans with that proof, then provide that proof to the rest of the world and make convincing arguments why they need to feel the same way.

If we have really done all we can to work with the world, and they are unreasonable...oh well. I don't see that we have done that yet.

In my opinion, it is all about the money, oil, and the floundering economy.

When I see that a war will benefit the defense contractors and put an economic hardship on taxpayers in the form of budget deficits, and GW acknowledge that fact and enact legislation to ensure we are not "overpaying" the defense contractors like what typically happens, that there will be tax breaks for the poor, etc.---I will believe GW is not just about making money for defense contractors.

When I see that the oil companies, and oil producers here at home who will make a killing on 40+ dollar a barrel oil pledge to voluntarily return their windfall profits in the event of a war, or Bush say that he will enact legislation to prevent gouging of the US citizens on the price of oil and gas in the event of a war and return the windfall profits back to taxpayers. When I see Bush say the dependency of Arab oil is our weakness, and that we need to solve the problem with alternative energy (not just alternative drilling) and commit funds to do so, I will believe it is not about making money for oil companies.

When I see bush do something to convince me that this War is not just a sideshow to distract us from the economic problems here at home, I will believe it is not about distracting the people from the mounting economic problems here at home.

What I see is the great and powerful "Oz" out inciting fear and war into the minds of the people....and when questioned about the economy---

He responds, "Pay no attention to the economy behind the curtain" I am convinced this is about money, oil, and distraction from the economy.



777

 

www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old?section=current&issue=2002-09-14&id=2153&searchText=

 

If you think Sadam is an innocent victim of U.S. agression then you are truly an idiot. If you think that the U.S. is a great perpetrator of evil then I would like to remind you that you are free to leave at any time. If you hate america, yet you live here because of everything it offers you, then you are the lowest scum of the earth.

 

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2002/09/12.html

Ritter was on CNN just two days a go (I think) with Aaron Brown and his old boss at the UN Inspection team. He said on the air that he is for inspections and he does NOT believe that Iraq has been disarmed completely.

This guy just can't seem to decide what he believes.