Sanctions: an antiquated but deadly weapon

BY RACHEL KAMINS

ILIANA BOUZALI/YH

The Yale Herald: What is wrong with the current United States policy of sanctions and air strikes against Iraq?

Sarah Izfar: Sanctions are a really blunt instrument. There are certainly ways to circumvent them, but not for the poor people, the weakest members of society. Nobody will argue that Saddam Hussein is suffering in the slightest from the sanctions, but there is documented evidence that there’s a higher infant mortality rate, education has been completely destroyed, and the basic elements of civil society have been decimated.

Nilofar Gardezi: The aim of this United Nations policy is to weaken Saddam Hussein’s regime or to somehow overthrow him. In actuality it’s only strengthening his regime while causing the suffering of an entire civilian population, 22 million people. No one’s winning in this situation and it has to stop.

SI: At best, the oil-for-food program is a band-aid solution. Its intention is to provide food and medicine for the civilians of Iraq, yet it ignores huge considerations such as the need for chlorine to purify water, and the need for a lot of construction materials to rebuild damaged buildings as well as sewer systems, the general infrastructure.

NG: Contracts have to be drawn up by the Iraqi government and submitted to the UN 661 committee and these contracts are unfailingly and  continuously delayed for years, or just denied. Ostensibly these programs are put in place for the government to obtain what it needs for its people, but they just aren’t working.

NEWSMAKERS

SI: It’s pretty illogical where the money actually goes. It’s a common misconception that the Iraqi government is getting all this money from the oil-for-food program. All of the money actually goes to a U.N. escrow account. A disproportionate amount of the money is then given by the U.N. to the areas under the no-fly zone and central Iraq is left impoverished. 13 percent goes to war reparations for Kuwait and a certain percentage goes to weapons inspectors. It’s not helping the people.

Also, the no fly zones are a violation of international law. They completely impinge on the soveriegnty of a nation and there’s no justification in any of the UN resolutions for them. They’re a unilateral construct of the U.S. and supported by the United Kingdom. And they set a dangerous precedent in international law. However, they are not the main focus of our group, because we see them as just salt on an open wound. The air strikes themselves aren’t so devastating, but none of the damages can be repaired, because so much of the necessary equipment to do so is prohibited under the UN embargo.

YH: Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a new plan today (Feb. 27, 2001) that includes easing sanctions on civilian goods while 
tightening controls on military materials in Iraq, in addition to  stopping the flow of oil money from Syria into Saddam Hussein’s hands. The Iraqi Foreign Minister has expressed contempt for this plan, maintaining that the sanctions should have been completely abandoned long ago, and opposition to it is expected from those who support the sanctions in Washington. What is your opinion of Powell’s intentions?

ROBERT TRIPPETT/NEWSMAKERS

SI: I definitely think that it’s about time that this kind of reassessment is taking place. I don’t trust Powell fully because he was the one who orchestrated the Gulf War and he’s showed particularly aggressive tendencies when it comes to Iraq.

NG: This change in rhetoric is indicative of the growing international and domestic opposition to the sanctions. Powell recently made a trip through the Arab world, meeting with Arab leaders, and he recognizes that there’s just fundamental opposition to the sanctions even by members of the Security Council. France, Russia, and China have all consistently voiced their opposition.

SI: For a long time, the majority of Congress has supported the Clinton  and Bush policies toward Iraq of complete isolation and containment.  However, there are certainly a good number of Congressmen—73, and  growing—who have voiced opposition to the sanctions. Also, many  mainstream sources of media have issued major op-ed pieces against the  sanctions or at least calling for a reassessment of the current policy.

NG: What these administration officials and policy makers have to  recognize is that there’s a significantly growing opposition in the U.S. itself. Many representatives are realizing that these sanctions are no longer tenable and that they need to listen, despite their own personal positions, to the voices of their constituents.

JOE RAEDLE/NEWSMAKERS

YH: What sort of changes need to be made in Iraq and how much should the U.S. and other nations be involved with helping it make these changes?

SI: I’m really hesitant to advocate any interventionist policy in Iraq right now given the U.S.’ bad track record there. However, it’s also pretty clear that Iraqi society is devastated. Many of the children are born with congenital malformations and are crippled physically as well as mentally. Those that are born normal don’t stay that way because of the environmental hazards, as well as the lack of modern facilities when it comes to things like education and medical resources. The government doesn’t have the capability right now to resurrect its society and to create an adequate standard of living. I think that humanitarain aid is in order, yet I’m almost positive that the U.S. isn’t the one to be allocating it.

NG: Iraqi society needs the basics, to import materials to construct its buildings, hospitals, schools, everything. It needs to be able to have food and medicine for its population. I’m not certain that there should be a coalition of other governments formed to intervene. Regardless of what we might think of its foreign policy, the Iraqi government itself has a good record of providing for people social services, housing, health care, education. Before the Gulf War, Iraq was leading its region in literacy rates, low mortality rates and other social indicators If we just lift the sanctions I feel that the government and the people would be anxious to rebuild their society. As the situation stands right now they’re being frustrated in any efforts they might want to undertake.

RICHARD ELLIS/NEWSMAKERS

YH: Should U.N .inspectors be allowed to check for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons inside Iraq?

SI: Everybody recognizes the U.N.’s authority and the government has in the past let inspectors in. Whether they’ve completely complied is questionable, but there’s also a question as to whether the teams are completely unbiased. I don’t understand why the weapons inspectors can’t exist absent the sanctions. I don’t think that the lack of weapons inspectors is a justification for maintaining the sanctions. I find it offensive when people argue that it’s justifiable to hold the citizens of Iraq hostage as a means to change their government when they had no say in their foreign policy to begin with. 

NG: The inspections should be much more of an international effort rather than a U.S.-led endeavor. 

YH: What’s your opinion of the various dissident and insurgent Iraqi 
groups both inside and outside the country and of U.S. support for 
them?

SI: I think it’s pretty impossible for an opposition group to exist in a  country where most citizens are concerned with eking out a survival.  Many intellectuals have been forced to sell their books for food or for  their children’s welfare and can’t focus on such luxuries as resistance  to the government. Also, Iraq is a dictatorship and any viable domestic  opposition was forced out long ago. The U.S. support of the Iraqi  National Congress [a London-based expatriate dissident group] is a joke.  First of all, it’s only 95 million dollars. That amount is just  insignificant when it comes to major power politics. Also, most of the people there are not accepted by Iraqi citizens and are seen as corrupt and allied with the CIA. If they ever wielded any true influence, the Hussein regime would have them eliminated. The only path toward true democracy and true reform would be to empower the middle class by removing the economic sanctions. As it is right now, the middle class has been completely destroyed. The situation is certainly not conducive to a democratic government.

NG: Ultimately, it’s just incongruous for the U.N. to debilitate an entire society and then expect that society to stand up in opposition to its leader. Its position as the external "bad guy" only further produces material for the Iraqi reigme to use in order to galavanize support for itself. 

During the Gulf War. when the U.S. was converging on Baghdad, former  President Bush went on the airwaves and called for the people to start an uprising, pledging U.S. military support. These people did take to the streets, there was a massive movement in the South, but when they did and Saddam Hussein retaliated and used his forces to put down the revolt, the U.S. jets and the helicopters only watched from overhead as the dissidents were killed in the streets. Bush made a claim that he would help them remove Hussein and yet he retracted and let the people be slaughtered. If indeed we wanted Hussein to be out of power we certainly had the opportunity.

SI: Right now the sanctions are giving Saddam an ideal anti-West platform, by victimizing him in the eyes of other Arab powers. Even traditional U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan have been sympathetic to the plight of Iraq. Realistically, the US should be attuned to the disagreement of their allies and recognizes failed policies for what they are.

YH: What is the purpose of your group, and what activities does it 
sponsor?

SI: The purpose of our group is to raise awareness on campus about the  issue of the sanctions in order to foster an opposition. There are a lot of local community groups which are focused on grassroots action, but we decided to make our group campus-oriented because we noticed a particular lack of compassion about the Iraqi sanctions. We are a very new group, we only started around December, but we have created fact sheets and put them in the table tents in dining halls. We also sponsored a talk by Anthony Arnove, who was the editor of a book called Iraq Under Siege. We’re also hoping to have a teach-in in April.

YH: What can a student group do to change this situation?

SI: We realize that we can’t really effect change unless we teach people the facts. I think that when people actually learn the facts in black and white they’ll realize that the case for sanctions is pretty weak and that it’s really time to eliminate them. Once they become aware of the current situation in Iraq, then we can build a movement which is a viable political entity which can lobby.

NG: How can we, as a small student organization on a campus that is so far removed from any sort of policy-making arenas, effect change? You have to look at it on a community level. The Yale community, the YCC, is 
on record in 1998 as condemning the sanctions. That was a remarkable achievement in itself. Then you look at it on a bigger level. Just recently the New Haven Board of Alders passed a resolution calling for an end to sanctions that was sent to the U.S. government. Any sort of movement to effect government change starts on a community level. There’s a ripple effect and we soon hear of it in Washington. A few years ago, it would be completely inconceivable that the U.S. government would even be considering a lessening of the sanctions, but now we have Colin Powell himself talking about it. As citizens of this government we have fundamental rights and we can use them to effect remarkable changes. 

Anti-Sanctions Coalition Founder Sarah Izfar MC ’03 Publicity Chair 
Nilofar Gardezi JE ’03

Back to Opinion...