Steve Chapman
              Chicago Tribune
              http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/commentary/printedition/article/0,2669,SAV-0003020031,FF.html
              March 2, 2000

              The world has changed a lot since 1990. The Soviet
              Union no longer exists, the federal deficit has vanished,
              and Jennifer Lopez is all grown up. But two things
              remain the same: Iraq is under international economic
              sanctions, and the sanctions are a failure.

              If they were a success, Saddam Hussein would no
              longer be a threat. For that matter, he would be rotting
              in jail or exile or the graveyard.

              The sanctions were supposed to put such intense
              pressure on his beleaguered regime that it would
              collapse, liberating Iraq from tyranny and ridding us of a
              principal foreign policy nemesis.

              Hussein outlasted one U.S. president, George Bush, and
              he's a good bet to outlast a second. Anybody want to
              try to for three?

              Unfortunately, a lot of Iraqis won't be able to mark the
              10-year anniversary of the sanctions later this year
              because they happen to be dead. UNICEF blames the
              embargo for the death of half a million children. Human
              Rights Watch says it has contributed to "a pervasive and
              protracted public-health emergency" that has spawned
              an epidemic of disease and malnutrition. "Lack of access
              to sufficient and appropriate food and medicine has been
              one element, but also crucial has been the degradation of
              the water and sanitation sectors, contributing to chronic
              intestinal and acute respiratory infections," reports
              Human Rights Watch.

              We have devised an ingenious weapon that decimates
              the populace of Iraq while miraculously leaving its rulers
              safe and sound.

              Scholars John Mueller and Karl Mueller wrote last year
              in Foreign Affairs magazine that the sanctions may have
              contributed to the deaths of more people "than have
              been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction
              throughout history."

              Two consecutive UN humanitarian coordinators in Iraq
              have quit the job to protest the impact of the sanctions
              on helpless non-combatants.

              Even in the

              U.S. Congress, where the deaths of enemy civilians are
              usually borne with equanimity, 70 members have signed
              a letter to President Clinton urging an end to the
              embargo for non-military goods. House Democratic
              Whip David Bonior calls the economic blockade
              "infanticide masquerading as policy."

              Supporters of the policy insist Hussein deserves sole
              credit for the suffering. In an ostensible effort to minimize
              harm to civilians, the UN implemented an oil-for-food
              program that lets Iraq sell fuel to pay for essentials, and
              Iraq now exports as much oil as it did before the Persian
              Gulf war. But under UN rules, a third of the revenues go
              to pay compensation to Kuwait, UN expenses and the
              like.

              Many critical necessities of modern life remain off-limits
              regardless. Chlorine, used to purify water, isn't allowed
              into Iraq for fear that Hussein will use it to make poison
              gas. Syringes and plastic blood transfusion bags have
              also been blocked--as have many fertilizers and
              insecticides that come in handy if you want to, say, grow
              food. The embargo also makes it impossible to repair
              elements of the country's infrastructure that were
              pulverized by our B-52s.

              Hussein himself could make life easier for his subjects if
              he would divert money from building weapons and
              palaces or simply do everything the UN wants him to
              do. But he has shown himself to be quite stoic in
              enduring the pain of ordinary Iraqis. His guilt in the
              matter, however, doesn't relieve us of our own
              obligation to avoid actions that needlessly harm
              innocents.

              It's not as though the embargo is accomplishing a lot on
              the positive side.

              Iraq was assumed to have biological and chemical
              weapons even when it was crawling with UN weapons
              inspectors--and they were kicked out of the country in
              1998, making it far easier for Hussein to stockpile such
              munitions. Back then, Iraq was believed to be close to
              building nuclear arms as well and they are presumably
              closer still today. If weapons of mass destruction are the
              problem, the sanctions have been a poor solution.

              Lifting the embargo would not exactly mean inviting
              Hussein to attack his neighbors. He had chemical and
              biological weapons during the Gulf war but didn't use
              them because of the threat of overwhelming
              retaliation--a threat that he can't escape today. Military
              deterrence is the best defense against his troublemaking,
              and it doesn't require punishing the Iraqi people to
              succeed.

              The Clinton administration is reluctant to abandon a
              cherished and longstanding policy merely because it has
              shown itself to be futile.

              But when a strategy is futile as well as lethal to people
              who have done nothing wrong, it deserves to be junked.