Human rights activist fights on Iraq's behalf

In August 1990, the United Nations Security Council imposed economic sanctions on Iraq prior to the start of the Persian Gulf War. Though that conflict has long since come to a close, the United States and United Kingdom continue daily military bombardment as well as sanctions on Iraq despite growing opposition from other permanent Council members and the international community.

KATIE ALDRICH/YH Dr. Rania Masri, a well-known human right's activist, has worked to improve conditions in Iraq.

Within the United States, in recent years, the anti-sanctions movement has become increasingly vocal. A well-known human rights activist and the 1999 recipient of the International Human Rights Award of North Carolina, Dr. Rania Masri is a prominent leader of these efforts. For the past five years, she has coordinated the Iraq Action Coalition, a network of individuals and organizations concerned with providing information about the effects of sanctions and war on Iraq. Dr. Masri has been widely interviewed by CNN, Fox National News Channel and NPR's "Talk of the Nation." She is also a board member of Peace Action and the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC). 

An impassioned opponent of sanctions, Dr. Masri has dedicated herself to raising awareness about the plight of the people of Iraq, speaking to the Herald about the present circumstances within the country and the necessity of changing them.

Yale Herald: How would you describe the conditions in Iraq following the Gulf War and under current UN sanctions?

Rania Masri: Civilian structures such as hospitals, schools, marketplaces and especially wastewater treatment facilities were directly targeted in the military war and, as a result of the imposed sanctions, the Iraqi population was not able to import spare parts to rebuild their infrastructure. Also, according to UN documents, the ten-year long state of sanctions has caused the deaths of 500,000 children under the age of five, primarily because of malnutrition and lack of medicine. There is the dramatic decline of education, the destruction of healthcare, as well as numerous other aspects of Iraqi society, all of which, according to UN studies, are because of the destruction of the economy and of the civilian infrastructure in Iraq.

YH: To better understand the dramatic changes and changes in Iraq within the last decade, what was the situation prior to the hostilities and sanctions?

RM: The cities in Iraq-Baghdad, Basra and even Musin in the north-were easily comparable to American cities in terms of the level of healthcare, education and other social services. In fact, in some aspects, they even exceeded the levels here in the US because healthcare and education were free for everyone. But then take Connecticut for example and destroy the wastewater treatment facilities, bomb hospitals and schools, and then prohibit the import of anything to rebuild. Imagine how we, as Americans, would be able to handle sewage running in our homes, not having clean drinking water, having our children go sick with the hospitals not even having medicine, then we have an idea of how the Iraqi people are suffering. This is happening to a middle class community that never had to deal with these problems.

YH: Officials in the United States and United Kingdom maintain that Iraq possesses the capability of creating weapons of mass destruction and, thus, poses a viable threat in the region. Do you think such a characterization and justification is accurate?

RM: Six years of weapons inspections has, according to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter and even according to Richard Butler, head of the inspection team in Iraq for several years, disarmed Iraq on a qualitative level. Iraq has no more long-range ballistic missiles, chemical weaponry, biological weaponry and definitely no more nuclear capability. If this policy is really in place in order make sure Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction that has been achieved. Furthermore, we ourselves were the primary suppliers of weapons to Iraq and are still the primary suppliers of weapons to the Middle East. If we are sincere in not wanting weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, let's not sell it to anyone.

YH: In 1996, the oil-for-food deal was established to enable Iraq to sell its oil in order to acquire any essential medicine and food. Recently, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook stated that Saddam Hussein has the ability to buy necessary items for his people yet knowingly delays such measures. In your opinion, where does the blame lie for the failure of the oil-for-food deal?

RM: It's extremely ironic that Robin Cook would say that. Under the oil-for-food deal, the Iraqi government sells oil and all that money is then held in a United Nations escrow account. Thirty-five percent of it is taken off the top and given to the UN and to "reparations" and the remaining, then, is officially allocated to the Iraqi people. But what happens in order to get that remaining 65 percent is the Iraqi government has to submit a contract for anything. It takes a minimum of six months for the United Nations 661 committee to approve any contract and every person on that committee has the right to arbitrarily veto any contract, even if it had previously been approved. Contracts for ambulances, chlorine, medical equipment, educational workbooks have been vetoed or put on hold for years. Yes, there are problems with the oil-for-food deal, that is clear, but the problems are, according to UN officials Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck who were in charge of the oil-for-food deal, due to the UN Security Council itself. What needs to happen is the lifting of the sanctions in order for the suffering of the civilian population to cease.

YH: If the sanctions are lifted or eased, what guarantee is there for compliance with the weapons inspection?

RM: The Iraqi regime has stated quite clearly that they will welcome back and cooperate completely with the weapons inspections teams once the sanctions are lifted. But there is no motivation for the Iraqi government to comply with anything from the United Nations because, despite seven years of significant compliance with the weapons inspection team, there was no easing of the sanctions let alone lifting of the sanctions. There was only additional military bombardment. The Iraqi government has, according to the weapons inspections teams, complied up to 90 percent. Nobody can guarantee what the Iraqi leadership, or any leadership for that matter, even our own government will do tomorrow. But what we do know, for a fact, that 250 people in Iraq die every single day because of these sanctions. We have to ask ourselves, are we going to simply treat the lives of 22 million people in Iraq as expendable, as being less worthy than other human life, or are we going to treat them the way we ourselves want to be treated?

YH: How has the anti-sanctions efforts within the US changed public opinion and awareness of the situation in Iraq?

RM: In the United States, we have 73 congressional representatives in opposition to the sanctions, comprised of both Democrats and Republicans. The mainstream discourse has also shifted and several mainstream newspapers have come out in opposition to the sanctions, most notably the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and Seattle Times. Recently, Thomas Freedman, one of the most famous reporters on foreign policy in the United States had an article out in the NY Times in which he questioned the US policy, which is a step forward. I would say that the shift in discourse is primarily a consequence of the growing strength of the anti-sanctions movement.

YH: Do you anticipate any change in policy toward Iraq with the new Bush administration?

RM: Dick Cheney has stated that he is opposed to sanctions but has not stated that he is against sanctions on Iraq. Colin Powell has been making traditionally aggressive statements against Iraq. The worst scenario is that the Bush administration would act more aggressively, in the sense of having additional military campaigns against Iraq, which are illegal and not accepted by any UN Security Council resolution. They are a unilateral decision by the United States that is in violation of international law. At best, the sanctions against the Iraqi people will continue and we will have the continuing death of Iraqi civilians and destruction of a nation.

Back to News...