This article, based on a speech made in Spain to an international
              conference in November 1999 on the United Nations regime of economic
              sanctions on the people of Iraq, briefly addresses the concern that those
              sanctions constitute genocide - a crime against humanity. It will also
              touch on the incompatibility of such sanctions with the provisions of the
              United Nations Charter and similar instruments of international law
              calling out for the establishment of some means of oversight and control
              in regard to the work of the Security Council.

              During a visit to Paris in January of this year, to speak publicly about the
              terrible impact of United Nations economic sanctions on the people of Iraq, I
              used the term genocide for the first time. This was done at a briefing for the
              press corps to describe the catastrophic situation that from direct personal
              experience of 13 months in Baghdad, I had come to consider nothing less than
              genocidal. The term was picked up by some journalists and used for headlines
              in the Paris newspapers and then similarly by one or two international wire
              services. Thereafter, during that visit, I was made to feel by some that I had
              crossed an invisible line of impropriety! I was criticized by a few for using the
              term in regard to the impact of economic sanctions themselves. It seemed also
              that it was deemed particularly inappropriate in respect of the Arab and
              Islamic people of Iraq. Since then I have observed that the term genocide
              offends many in our western media and establishment circles when it is used to
              describe the killing of others for which we are responsible, such as in Iraq.
              Perhaps for most, the term genocide is too emotive and too intimate to our
              democratic obligation to accept responsibility for even the most disagreeable
              actions undertaken by our respective governments. For others, it was no more
              than overdue recognition of the crimes against innocent humanity ongoing
              throughout Iraq, including the three million Kurds of the three northern
              provinces.

              Former US Attorney-General Ramsey Clark, the British author Geoff Simons
              and a number of British Members of Parliament critical of British Government
              economic sanctions and military policy, have employed the term of genocide
              to convey their perception of the Iraq situation. Since the spring of this year,
              the term has been used frequently by the establishment in the UK and the
              USA together with mass media to describe the plight of Albanians in Kosovo
              and the killing of the people of East Timor. Clearly for these deadly situations,
              despite our historical involvement, the establishment spokespersons using the
              term genocide did not feel in anyway responsible. It seems that only others
              commit genocide, we western democracies do not! How ironic coming from
              those nations that inter alia managed the transatlantic slave trade, the massacre
              of American Indians and the slaughter of the aboriginal peoples of Australia?

              Last fall semester, in a class I am teaching at Swarthmore College in
              Pennsylvania, we discussed the appropriateness of using of the term genocide
              to describe the human crisis in Iraq. We reviewed with some care the
              definition as set out by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
              the Crime of Genocide of 1948. We noted the clear reference to the
              expression "intent" as being essential in any determination of genocide. In
              considering UN Security Council Resolution 687, we did not find "intent"
              spelled out in the text of 1991. Nevertheless, we noted the justification
              provided some years ago by the then Ambassador to the UN and now
              Secretary of State for the sustained killing of some five hundred thousand Iraqi
              children.

              Given the stark reality of death in Iraq under economic sanctions, the choice
              for the class in respect of the consequences of UN Resolution 687 was one
              between de jure, or de facto genocide, or as one student suggested, a choice
              between first degree murder or manslaughter. The class looked between the
              lines of the Resolution, but the majority of students gave the original drafters
              the benefit of the doubt, and likewise to those member states that support the
              imposition of the uniquely comprehensive and devastating economic sanctions
              that Resolution 687 represents. Sanctions that are particularly devastating
              coming as they do on top of the illegal civilian-targeted bombing and missile
              attacks by the USA and UK allies of the Gulf War. However, some including
              myself consider that by the deliberate continuation of the UN economic
              sanctions regime on Iraq, in full knowledge of their deadly impact as frequently
              reported by the Secretary-General and others, the member states of the
              Security Council are indeed guilty of intentionally sustaining a regime of
              genocide. It is this view that was supported overwhelmingly by international
              lawyers at the conference in Spain organized by the Spanish Campaign for the
              Lifting of Sanctions on Iraq.

              The information provided by the various organizations of the United Nations
              system - FAO, WFP, UNICEF, and WHO - who have carried out surveys
              using international experts on infant and child mortality rates in Iraq under
              economic sanctions - underlines that we have de facto genocide. They have
              provided data showing the very significant increase in mortality rates over the
              years since Resolution 687 was imposed. We have also been given data by
              WHO showing significant increases in the deaths of adults, particularly
              amongst the aged in need of sophisticated drugs no long available in Iraq. We
              have figures showing extraordinary increases in the incidence of various
              cancers, including leukemia in children, since the use of depleted uranium by
              the UK and USA during the Gulf War. We know the sad human cost today in
              Iraq of the deliberate destruction by Gulf War allies of the means for treatment
              and distribution of clean water, adequate electric power generation and
              effective urban sanitation systems. This damage was reported initially by the
              mission of then Under Secretary-General and now President of Finland,
              Martti Ahtisaari in 1991, and many times since by UNICEF and WHO.

              The informally termed Oil-for-Food programme, which as you know is fully
              funded by Iraq through limited oil sales under UN auspices, was designed to
              prevent further deterioration, not more than that. The Security
              Council-approved but heavily constrained importation of limited and basic
              foodstuffs, medicines and drugs into the country, has done little more than
              maintain high mortality rates and massive malnutrition as the recent UNICEF
              report has advised. Apart from considerable nutritional shortfalls, including
              lack of adequate animal proteins, minerals and vitamins within that
              programme, we have not seen the Security Council allow oil revenues to
              substantially repair the damage caused by the bombing of civilian infrastructure
              in breech of the Geneva conventions of 1991, 1996 and as recently as
              December 1998. By this denial and by controlling the ceiling on Iraqi oil
              revenues, the Security Council has determined with deliberation to block
              adequate repair of water, power and sewage systems so critical in the battle
              to save the lives of countless infants and children. In other words, the Council
              has sustained a source for water-borne diseases leading to thousands of
              deaths monthly, particularly of infants and children. Likewise, adequate hard
              currency has not been available for re-equipping of hospitals and other health
              care facilities; and agricultural food production capacity remains starved of
              essential imported requirements. In short, the Security Council has denied Iraq
              its right to adequately import and at the same time its right to repair, and
              rebuild that civilian infrastructure so critical for human well-being, indeed for
              life itself.

              The Security Council has in effect illegally twice-over violated international
              law. Firstly, and contrary to the provisions of the Geneva conventions, the
              targeting of men, women and children - noncombatants and civilians via missile
              attacks and bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure in 1991 and
              thereafter. And secondly, in an even more deadly, quiet and sustained manner
              of warfare, killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, and adults, by
              the ongoing regime of comprehensive economic sanctions. An embargo
              backed up by the massive military presence of the USA throughout the
              Middle East. A military presence not only intimidating to the women and
              children of Iraq, but equally intimidating to many millions of peoples and their
              governments throughout the Region. Whether one wishes to term economic
              sanctions on Iraq a form of warfare or not, crimes against humanity or not, the
              imposition of genocide or not, the sustained imposition of these sanctions
              constitute the punishment of millions, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands
              of innocent human beings. Whatever the terminology, whatever the semantics
              used, the results are indisputably contrary to the spirit and the word of
              numerous international legal instruments.

              With, or without original intent, the impact of economic sanctions constitutes
              genocide. Whether it is de jure or de facto genocide, the semantics are
              irrelevant to those people of Iraq who have seen their children die, their
              parents die and their own health and the health of most, deteriorate into a state
              of physical malnutrition, a condition of near national depression and an
              environment of social collapse.

              The question posed in the title of this statement: Does the genocidal impact of
              economic sanctions on Iraq represent first degree murder as in intent, or
              manslaughter as in negligence resulting nevertheless in death has been
              answered.

              However, there remains another tragic consequence of the genocide in Iraq,
              and that is, the irreparable damage it has done to the integrity and credibility of
              the United Nations itself. By sustaining economic sanctions on Iraq in full
              knowledge of the deadly consequences, the member states of the Security
              Council have undermined the very legal basis of the Organization itself - the
              Charter. That is not to deny that the device of economic sanctions is provided
              for in Chapter 7 of the Charter - it is. One could query the intentions in the
              minds of the victors of World War II when these provisions were drafted in
              1945, at a time when the infant UN was proportionally more heavily made up
              of large and powerful than small and weaker member states. Then, as it is
              today, the concept of economic sanctions, bilateral but also multilateral, is
              more attractive and viable to the powerful, the "bully boy" states, than to the
              smaller potential victims.

              Regardless of 1945 goals, the prolonged and uniquely comprehensive nature
              of the economic sanctions on Iraq, and economic sanctions regimes imposed
              elsewhere in the world, have undermined the very purposes and principles
              (Articles 1 and 2) of the United Nations Charter - the preamble of which calls
              inter alia for the well being of all humanity. Likewise, prolonged economic
              sanctions neglect the rights spelled out in Articles 25 and 26 of the Universal
              Declaration of Human Rights. In reality, there are numerous international
              conventions neglected by the deliberate continuation of economic sanctions
              regardless of human cost, not least of which is the Convention on the Rights of
              the Child. These rights are intentionally denied every time an Iraqi child is
              without nutritious and plentiful food, a place in which to live decently,
              adequate medical attention and a good education. A sanctions generation of
              deprivation has been created by the Security Council. The denial by the
              Security Council of the rights of an Iraqi child to have opportunities for the
              future, to life itself destroys what the United Nations is mandated to enhance
              and sustain throughout the world.

              The conventional western response to the human crisis in Iraq is that it is solely
              the fault of their once convenient and former ally of the Iran-Iraq water era,
              President Saddam Hussain. This is simplistic, dishonest and irresponsible.
              Further, the history of the Ba’ath party (assisted into power by the CIA)
              shows that social welfare; including education and health care are top
              priorities. The party certainly diminished political and civil rights, but basic
              human rights were enhanced between 1958 and 1990. Regardless of the
              illegal invasion of Kuwait, there is no possible justification for the murder of
              Iraqi children and adults, innocent of that invasion, by the USA, UK and other
              powers simply because they cannot punish the leadership of Iraq. That is
              morally and legally unacceptable on all counts.

              Combating this incompatibility between the Charter and instruments
              international law with the impact of Security Council decisions such as
              Resolution 687 would appear to call for several actions. One might be an
              initiative by the larger, fully representative and more democratic General
              Assembly to seek the advice of the International Court of Justice and by so
              doing, begin to meaningfully assert its oversight function in respect of the work
              of the powerful yet small and undemocratic Security Council. Another might
              be the establishment of an NGO to watch the impact of Security Council
              resolutions worldwide and to monitor their incompatibility with the Charter,
              Universal Declaration of Human rights and other international legal
              instruments. Another, might be radical reform of the Council so that it is no
              longer "North" manipulated, but representative of the states and their peoples
              though out the world on whom its decisions impact.

              In conclusion, the genocidal impact of the regime of economic sanctions on the
              people of Iraq, violate the legal instruments that are fundamental to the
              credible continuation of the United Nations. The Organization urgently needs
              the protection of an oversight device or devices in regard to the output of the
              dangerously out-of-control Security Council. The same Council that is
              desperately in need of reform to introduce permanent North/South balance
              and representation. The same Council that must begin to act in conformity with
              the essential provisions of the UN Charter itself. In the meantime, men and
              women of conscience, with moral posture and integrity must continue to
              demand the termination of crimes against humanity committed by the member
              states of the present Security Council in respect of the people of Iraq.