Iraqi Sanctions Are A Dead End

Imagine if a U.S. cruise missile were to land on a kindergarten and
kill 165
children. Imagine now that it was launched knowing it would hit that
kindergarten, and further, that one of these missiles was launched at a
different kindergarten every day for a month. That's 5,000 children.

To kill that many children as a matter of state policy would be
unspeakable.
The American commander in chief would be condemned as a barbarian. And
yet,
that is what the economic embargo of Iraq has done: According to the
United
Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the embargo
has
caused 5,000 extra deaths per month among children under 5. This has
gone on
for nearly 10 years, killing more than half a million children. These
deaths
were caused not by bombs but by germs, mainly preventable water-borne
diseases such as typhoid and dysentery. They were caused because the
United
States and its allies wrecked Iraq's water-purification plants in 1991
and
because the U.S. led embargo on Iraqi oil has prevented Iraq from
rebuilding
them.

Water systems were not likely to matter much in a 100-hour war, or even
a
six-month war. They were targeted for long-term leverage. The
justification
was to put pressure on Saddam Hussein. Whatever deaths resulted from
the
policy could be blamed on Saddam. If the policy worked quickly, one
could
argue it was a success. But when the policy goes on and on, causing
deaths
of children with no end in sight, it becomes unconscionable.

Americans like to say the economic embargo is the policy of the United
Nations. But the UN's General Assembly, if given a chance, would repeal
it.
So would the Security Council, where the embargo is sustained only by
the
United States and Britain. If President Clinton decided otherwise, the
embargo would end tomorrow.

Americans also keep this policy going by disingenuously misidentifying
the
target. Government officials speak of the squeeze on Iraq in terms of a
campaign against one man. Officials do not say that we bomb the people
of
Iraq; we are "hitting back at Saddam Hussein." They do not say we
embargo
the people of Iraq; we are "putting the squeeze on Saddam Hussein." And
yet,
the price is not paid by Saddam Hussein, personally, but by children
who die
and their families.

What has been gained? The goal was to prevent Iraq from developing
weapons
of mass destruction. American officials also hoped it might lead to the
downfall of Saddam. Today, it is not clear that such weapons exist or
that
Saddam retains any ability to manufacture them. Within Iraq, it's
likely the
sanctions have strengthened, not weakened, Saddam's grip on power.

Despite all that, the United States continues to enforce an economic
embargo
that kills 5,000 children per month. After 10 years, it's time for
Americans
to take notice and name the policy for what it is: a tragic failure.