From THE GUARDIAN, January 8th, 2001
By DENIS HALLIDAY
The issue of Iraq in 2001 is too critical for the future of its
people, Europe's relations with the Middle East and the standing
of international law for us to remain silent about Peter Hain's
article (I fought apartheid, I'll fight Saddam, January 6).
We write from privileged experience since we were charged by
the UN secretary general to oversee the oil-for-food programme
soon after its inception, from 1997 until last year. We both
resigned in protest against what we perceive as a failed Iraq
policy, with all its tragic human consequences, and the violation
of international law.
Arguing for an end to economic sanctions is not at all about
'propping up a dictator'. Have sanctions targeted the proper
parties? No. Have sanctions imposed in 1990 retained their
legality? The UN Charter, the International Covenants on Human
Rights and a host of other treaties allow only one answer: they
have not.
Peter Hain is indeed 'ducking the debate'. We all know,
professionally and personally, how difficult it is to admit failure.
What a powerful and honourable signal Hain would send, if such
awareness of failure would translate into courage for change.
Hain has been hiding behind a smoke-screen for a long time
with his defence of an indefensible policy conducted with little
respect for facts. 'Iraq was a threat to humanity and this threat is
real now," he maintains. This is a house of cards held aloft by
those who want to maintain the status quo. Disinformation is
morally and legally also indefensible. Hain's reference to UN
resolution 688 as the legitimisation for the 'no-fly-zones" in Iraq
is an example. This resolution makes no reference to a right to
take over Iraqi airspace, resulting in the tragic killing of civilians
as detailed in the 1999 UN security reports.
Hain repeatedly stresses that those who oppose sanctions offer
no alternative. This is false. Both of us, for example, have said
time and again that the UN security council should delink
economic sanctions from the disarmament debate while
imposing arms controls on Iraq and those countries which wish
to sell arms to Baghdad, keeping in mind resolution 687,
paragraph 14, which calls for the establishment in the Middle
East of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction; we have
argued that the hidden agenda of hardline geo-strategic
interests be dropped and a dialogue be started; we have also
argued that the unrealistic demand for quantitative disarmament
be replaced by negotiations on weapon systems containment.
We, too, fight against 'appeasement of oppression'. Ours,
however, is a fight against the violation of international law by the
UN security council and the sacrifice of innocent civilians as
pawns.
Denis Halliday UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq 1997-98
HC von Sponeck UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq
1998-2000
'You simply have to notify the UN' to export food and medicines,
writes Peter Hain. The tortuous bureaucracy of the UN is beyond
the scope of a letter. Exporting anything takes many months, on
the UN's own admission.
If a patient needs medicine it is needed immediately. I was
threatened with prosecution by the Department of Trade and
Industry for taking a small package of chemotherapy to Iraq for a
surgeon with cancer - who had worked here for many years
saving the lives of British children.
A London-based Iraqi sent insulin in a Jiffy bag to his diabetic
brother in Baghdad. It was returned by the Post Office with a
request for an export licence. Before the licence was granted, his
brother had died. Felicity Arbuthnot London
Peter Hain's concern for the Kurds in Iraq would be touching if he
extended it also to the Turkish Kurds. His support of UN
resolutions imposed on Iraq would be more credible if he
adopted the same attitude to those against Israel. His
opposition to Iraqi weapons would be more justified if he
condemned Israel's nuclear capability.
Condemning Saddam Hussein is one thing but getting at him
through the innocent children of Iraq is another. June and Tony
Freke, Newbury
Peter Hain claims that the bombing of northern Iraq by British
and US aircraft was 'in support of security council resolution 688,
which called on Iraq to end its repression of Kurds and the Shia".
Nowhere in the resolution is there even a hint about using force
against Iraq. But it makes the point that 'all member states" are
committed to 'the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of Iraq and of all states in the area'. So this is UN
permission to bomb Iraq, is it? Brian Cloughley Thornhill,
Dumfriesshire
Peter Hain has some nerve comparing the sanctions on Iraq to
the sanctions imposed on apartheid South Africa. Whereas in
South Africa it was the oppressed people who themselves called
for sanctions to be imposed, there has been no such call from
the Iraqi people.
Whereas sanctions actually hurt white South Africa, they stand
no chance of ousting Saddam. Indeed, sanctions have brought
appalling hardship upon the people of Iraq and have served only
to strengthen Saddam's grip on power.