Ten myths about the sanctions against Iraq

By Elias Davidsson, 15 July 1994

Myth 1. Economic sanctions are more humane than military attacks

Economic sanctions against industrialized and industrializing contries, which include a ban on foreign trade, can be more lethal than limited military attacks. According to reports published in the New England Medical Journal and the Lancet (the main British medical journal), the UN sanctions on Iraq have claimed far more deaths than the deadly Gulf War in 1991. The reason is that by blocking foreign trade to a country which depends on foreign trade for its survival, the very life of civilians is threatened. Before the sanctions began Iraq imported up to 70 percent of its food. The lack of foodstuffs, medical supplies and spare parts in Iraq, due to the sanctions and the stringent constraints even on humanitarian imports imposed by the United Nations, have caused untold sufferings for the general population. One of the consequences of the sanctions is that child mortality in Iraq tripled, causing the estimated death of 2,000 of more children each week, in addition to previous mortality.

Myth 2. The Security Council resolution to impose economic sanctions on Iraq is in accordance with the UN Charter and is thus legally binding.

Article 41 of the Charter indeed permits the use of economic sanctions: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon Members of the United Nations to apply measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

But the implementation of this article is conditional upon the fulfillment of Article 39, which states:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The Security Council has not made the above determination, nor has it resorted to Article 40, which enables the Council to take provisional measures - in order to prevent the aggravation of the situation (...) before making the recommandations [referred to in Article 39] or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39...

Moreover, the implementation of Article 41 is not mandatory upon the Council, even in the case a positive determination had been made in accordance with Article 39. Even if a decision was made to impose sanctions, the Council has discretionary powers to determine the extent of the sanctions imposed in accordance with Article 41. In determining the extent of sanctions, the Council is expected to evaluate the imminency and gravity of the threat to world peace as well as the nature and extent of the breach allegedly committed by the offending state. After the Iraqi army was defeated and the sovereignty of Kuwait restored, there was no case to be made of a threat to world peace, which would justify any action under Article 41.

Those breaches of human rights violations reported from Iraq and the attitude of the Iraqi regime towards the development and stockage of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are not specific to that country and have been reported in numerous other countries which are neither subject to Security Council measures nor to any form of sanctions. China has been occupying Tibet (an act in violation to the Charter) and Israel is occupying Palestinian and other Arab territories in violation of Security Council resolutions, without incurring any sanctions. Israel moreover has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and resists international inspection of its nuclear facilities, without any international censure. Numerous governments are reported as committing grave and massive human rights violations, including systematic torture, extra-judicial killings, repression of minorities, without any international action been taken against them. The governments having a permanent seat in the Security Council have all commited violations against the Charter, including aggression against other states> sovereignty and extra-judicial killings, without any sanctions imposed on them. Decisions by such a partisan body cannot be considered as having the force of international law, that of a court or that of a moral authority.

Finally the implementation of Article 41 does not overrule other obligations incurred in the Charter, particularily Article 1 which specifies the Purposes of the United Nations and Article 2 which specifies under which Principles the Organization and its Membes shall act. These Purposes and Principles include:

a. To bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

b. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.

c. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

d. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Thus, the decision by the Security Council to impose sanctions on Iraq is legally flawed, as it violates both the letter and spirit of the Charter. Moreover the Council has not explored all avenues to solve the outstanding problems between the United Nations Organization and the Government of Iraq by peaceful means and without undue hardship to the Iraqi population. Such glaring omission indicates the intent of the Council to seek confrontation rather than a solution to problems, which in turn undermines the authority of Council decisions.

Myth 3. The sanctions against Iraq are aimed at the Iraqi regime, not at its people

The nature and extent of the sanctions on Iraq, its known consequences, including the dramatic increase in child mortality, hunger and epidemics, are facts which one can assume are known to the Security Council. The Security Council is certainly aware that the population at large in Iraq are the main victims of the sanctions, not the elite of the country, against which the sanctions are claimed to be aimed. As the Security Council repeatedly decided to maintain these sanctions, one must conclude that the consequenes derived from the sanctions are not incidental but intentional. Nonwithstanding verbal claims by Council members that they have no issue with the Iraqi people, the evidence of massive impoverishment, undernourishment, diseases and death ensuing from the sanctions, which remains unchallenged, belies such claims.

Myth 4. The aim of the sanctions is to undermine Saddam>s Hussein>s regime

International law provides mandatory tools to bring to justice individuals allegedly responsible for the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Among such individuals figure Iraq>s President, Saddam Hussein, for acts committed in connection with the repression of the Kurdish minority, the Shi>ites in the South of Iraq and regarding war crimes committed during the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The states which support the sanctions against the Iraqi population have not called for any legal action against the person of Saddam Hussein or any of his aides for alleged war crimes and crimes against peace, as international law though requires. Such act of omission belies the above claim that the sanctions are aimed at the person of Saddam Hussein. Evidence published in mainstream Israeli and U.S. press moreover indicates that the United States and Israel are not unhappy with the continuing rule by Saddam Hussein. Security Council members, including permanent members Britain, France, Russia and China, have clearly indicated by statements, official visits and the signature of agreements with the Iraqi government, their willing to resume trade with the bloody Saddam regime, once sanctions are lifted.

The true aim of the sanctions thus appears not to punish a loathsome individual and his police state but to destroy any attempt by the Iraqi nation to become an economic (and military) power in the Middle East, which might challenge Western control of the region and its resources. For such an aim to succeed, it is necessary to impoverish the Iraqi people and block its economic, social and technological development and prevent true democracy. This is why the Western alliance inflicted such extensive damage to the Iraqi infrastructure, including power stations, water purification installations and the productive capacity of the country, in the Gulf War, a devastation which had no direct military advantage and was thus unrelated to the aim of liberating Kuwait. This is why the trade sanctions against Iraq also include educational materials, such as school supplies, textbooks and scientific journals.

Myth 5. Sanctions have defeated South African apartheid

The black majority in South Africa has struggled for decennies against apartheid. Its recognized representative, the African National Congress and the ANC>s recognized leader, Nelson Mandela, have appealed to the world community to support their struggle against the white minority rule with selective economic sanctions. They considered that such sanctions would positively contribute to their own struggle. When making these demands, the victims of apartheid, constituting the majority of the population in South Africa, took upon themselves to share the burden of the sanctions. These sanctions in themselves would not have broken apartheid. Only as a complement to the struggle of the South African masses themselves, the sanctions proved effective. The sanctions against South African apartheid did not violate the principle of self-determination. In fact they helped the South African people to gain this right. Thus it is not correct to attribute to the sanctions the defeat of apartheid, but to the courageous struggle of the majority of South Africans. It should be remembered, that those states who are in the forefront of punishing the Iraqi people, have been the last ones to support the ANC call for sanctions.

The cases of Iraq, Serbia and Libya do not present similarities to South Africa for the simple reason that the people of these countries have not requested sanctions against their countries. Although we do not know the exact extent of opposition to the regime in the above countries, we know that even opposition groups do not approve of the sanctions, or have voiced reservations regarding the way the sanctions have been implemented and affected ordinary people. Sanctions which are aimed indiscriminately against the populations of these countries have no justification whatsoever because they represent the denial of the right of a people to self-determinaion. Such denial is, according to the definition proposed by the International Law Commission (a UN GA body), an international crime. The international community cannot make decisions which ultimately have to be taken by the people inhabiting these countries, namely whether to change the regime and if so, by which means. If the people of Iraq would rise up against the regime and would request international assistance - whether in the forms of arms or trade sanctions - such assistance might be regarded compatible with international law, if it would be shown that such an assistance empowers the people to fulfill their right to self-determination.

6. The Iraqi people want to get rid of Saddam Hussein

The Iraqi people as a whole have not requested from the international community any assistance to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. One of the reasons is that the Iraqi regime, although very repressive, has brought significant benefits to the general population, such as free primary health care, a relatively good educational system, electrification of most of the country and some affluence. The regime is secular although religion is tolerated. The position of women is better than in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which are Western allies. Iraqi teachers and specialists can be found in less advanced Arabic countries, such as Yemen, as Iraq was regarded - before its devastation by allied bombing attacks - as one of the most developed Arab countries, where many Arabs spent their university years. The technical development of Iraq can be gauged to some extent by the fact that Iraq had nuclear ambitions. Iraq therefore represented a potential military power in the Middle East and for many Arabs a symbol redeeming Arab honor and pride. This explains why it has been and is so important for the United States and Britain, who control the oil of the Middle East, to bring the Iraqi nation to its knees, block its development and destroy its potential. An authoritarian regime, compliant to Western demands, such as Saudi Arabia, is much preferable to the City and Wall Street financiers than a truly democratic Arab regime. This is one of the reasons for the lack of democracy in the oil-producing countries of the Middle-East.

There are groups of Iraqis who courageously struggle against the regime from within and take thereby great personal risks. These are probably the only people who have the moral right to request from the world community any assistance, including the imposition of trade sanctions. Any international action to bring about democracy to Iraq and compliance with human rights conventions must be coordinated with and endorsed by true representatives of the Iraqi people themselves, and especially by people who bear the brunt of the struggle for changes.

One of the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi population is that people, who might under different conditions, have the motivation, time and resources to build an effective opposition to Saddam>s dictatorship, do little more now than attempt to physically survive. This situation has in fact strengthened the ability of the regime to control the population through selective rationing and licensing. Groups and regions who support the regime are alloted higher food rations than areas where opposition can be discerned. Iraqi opposition figures, living in Europe, have at numerous times warned against these counter-productive effects of the sanctions.