The Dying Rooms of the Middle East.
 
 NEW STATESMAN · 3 APRIL 2000
 
 John Pilger
 Try as he might, Robin Cook cannot give credence to his vast lies - how
 does he explain away the deaths of 200 Iraqi children everyday?
 
 The facts of Iraq's epic suffering are now unassailable. The latest
 report by Unicef says that half a million young children have died in
 eight years of economic sanctions. That represents almost 200 deaths
 every day. Without in any way mitigating Saddam Hussein's tyranny,
 Unicef says: "The Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivation
 in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council
 and the effects of war." The liability of the Security Coun-cil, said
 the French ambassador to the UN, was "indisputable". Denis Halliday, the
 UN's Assistant Secretary General, resigned rather than administer "an
 immoral and illegal" policy. His successor as the senior UN humanitarian
 official in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck, followed him in despair, along with
 the head of the World Food Programme. Few doubt that sanctions would
 have been lifted long ago were it not for the intransigence of the
 United States and Britain.
 Last week, the New Statesman published a reply by Robin Cook to my
 catalogue of Foreign Office lies about Iraq.
 Cook's reply fails to engage with any of the points raised. It is lying
 to get out of lying. For example:
 
 Cook: "The humanitarian programme is entirely unconditional... There is
 nothing to prevent Iraq ordering more medicine."
 Fact: A billion and a half dollars' worth of vital supplies to Iraq is
 currently blocked by the UN Sanctions Committee, including food and
 fifty million dollars' worth of medical supplies. The supply of 16 heart
 and lung machines has been blocked for six months. British ministers
 rigidly enforce a ban on vaccines for children (Hansard, 21 December
 1999). Professor Karol Sikora, the former head of the World Health
 Organisation cancer programme, reported: "Requested radiotherapy
 equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by
 the US and Britain."
 
 Cook: "There is no limit on Iraqi oil sales to pay for [the humanitarian
 programme]."
 Fact: There is an effective limit imposed by the US, which has blocked
 contracts for vital oil indus-try parts already approved by the Security
 Council.
 
 Cook: "Under [UN Resolution] 1284, most humanitarian contracts will be
 handled by the UN Secretariat without reference to the Sanctions
 Committee."
 Fact: On 27 January, the US State Department warned that, if the UN
 Secretariat tried to speed up humanitarian supplies, "95 per cent of all
 cases [will be placed] on hold".
 
 Cook: The bombing of civilians by American and British aircraft is an
 "Iraqi line" that "fabricates claims of death and destruction".
 Fact: The UN Security Section regularly reports on the bombing of
 civilians, using UN sources. In one five-month period, 41 per cent of
 all strikes resulted in civilian casualties. The targets included
 fishermen's wharves, villages and livestock. On 30 April last year, the
 UN reported: "Allied war planes carried out several sorties over Ninewa
 Governate. The jets fired four missiles at Bashiqa area... seven
 civilians were killed. A shepherd and six members of his family [and]
 101 livestock. UN team visited on 2 May." This was personally verified
 by the chief UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq.
 Cook's reply was drafted by his officials, notably Jon Davies, who heads
 the Iraq desk and gives can-did "off-the-record" briefings. Compare
 Cook's lauding of Resolution 1284, "a British initiative", with Davies's
 private assessment to a colleague of mine that it "changes nothing
 whatsoever". One truth for them, another for the public.
 
 An especially shameful example of Foreign Office deceit and panic is a
 letter currently being sent to MPs and members of the public, signed by
 Peter Ham, the junior FO minister. It sets out to devalue the scale of
 suffering in Iraq by implying there are "serious doubts" about the
 Unicef report- when there are none. It also suggests that mal-nourished
 children are merely a showcase for foreigners: a smear that further
 diminishes Ham. The rest of his letter is largely falsehoods. It says
 the "no-fly zones" in which the bombings take place are "entirely
 lawful". In fact, they are a Washington invention, were never ratified
 by the UN and have no basis in international law.
 
 Cook wrote that: "[Pilger] denied me the opportunity to reply in his
 recent television programme Paying the Price." Cook was offered a major
 interview with most of the questions supplied before hand. For six
 weeks, his officials squirmed with embarrassment as he refused even to
 reply. They told us of his fear of "being in a film with dying babies"
 and of being skewered" in a "taxing" interview. After two months of
 this, they came up with a "format" whereby Cook would have an exclusive
 screening of the film, then give an interview "as live", restricted to
 ten minutes, all of which we would have to use. It was an offer designed
 to be rejected by any self-respecting journalist. To MPs, he
 misrepresented his outrageous demand as a "right of reply" required by
the broadcasting regulations - yet another falsehood. His behaviour is
 no more than a reflec-tion of a cowardly policy that punishes tens of
 thou-sands of small children for the misconduct of a dictator.
 
 Last week, Cook wrote to Tam Dalyell MP: "I am entirely happy to debate
 the merits of our policy on Iraq." On 6 May, both Halliday and von
 Sponeck will be in London, speaking at Kensington town hall. I have
 written to Cook, asking him to make good his promise and debate with
 them. Watch this space.