AUT: Dennis Halliday: Death For Oil. US Genocide in Iraq

["Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:11:35 -0400
From: Jim Jaszewski <grok@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy <LABOR-L@xxxxxxxx>
To: LABOR-L@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Fwd: Dennis Halliday: Death For Oil. Clinton Guilty Of Crimes
        Against Humanity

From: Rick Rozoff <r_rozoff@xxxxxxxxx>
To: r_rozoff@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Dennis Halliday: Death For Oil. Clinton Guilty Of Crimes Against
Humanity
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 23:48:11 -0700 (PDT)

http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2000/490/intrvw.htm

"So you think President Bill Clinton should be tried?"
"Absolutely. He is the commander-in-chief and he
approved the bombing of Iraq, for example, in December
1998. There was no justification for this, no UN
resolution. It is a breach of international law. It is
outrageous and, of course, a crime against humanity."






Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt)
13 - 19 July 2000

Death for oil
Dennis Halliday is probably the most high-profile
critic of continuing sanctions against Iraq the world
over. He should know. As UN assistant
secretary-general heading the international
organisation's humanitarian mission in Iraq he was
first hand witness to the havoc the sanctions were
wreaking on the country and its people. In 1998 he
resigned in disgust. While in Cairo last week,
Halliday found time to talk to Amira Howeidy about the
10-year long genocidal war still being launched
against Iraq and the medieval tactics used in a
dangerous game masterminded by Washington

On 9 June, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution
1302, which extends the Oil-for-Food programme for
another 180 days. How do you evaluate this resolution
and should we expect improvement in the plight of the
Iraqi people?

Resolution 1302 is a continuation of the Oil-for-Food
programme, which was not designed to resolve the
crisis in Iraq. When it was assembled in 1996, it was
designed to stop further deterioration. But the fact
is that Oil-for-Food has sustained the humanitarian
crisis. Mortality rates of children under five years
of age still remain at 5,000 per month, plus an
additional 2,000-3,000 people per month among adults,
other children and teenagers. These people are dying
because of bad water, inadequate diets, broken down
hospital care and collapsed systems.

We have massive malnutrition in Iraq, despite the
Oil-for-Food programme. There is a huge social
collapse, families falling apart with children out of
school taking to the streets. The electric power is 35
per cent of what it was in 1990. So the Oil-for-Food
programme has totally failed to bring about the well
being of the Iraqi people. Having said that, it has,
however, provided something like 20 million tonnes of
basic food. It does make a huge difference in keeping
the Iraqi people alive -- but only barely alive.

The conditions in Iraq today under the UN economic
sanctions and the Oil-for-Food programme constitute
famine conditions. The average birth weight of a child
in Iraq today is less than five pounds. That is an
indicator of famine. The Oil-for-Food programme is
something that the UN should be ashamed of. It is a
continuation of the genocide that the economic embargo
has placed on Iraq.

I say genocide because it is an intentional programme
to destroy a culture, a people, a country -- economic
sanctions are known to do that. [Secretary of State
Madeleine] Albright herself acknowledged half a
million dead children back in 1996. Yet the member
states -- the United States and the United Kingdom in
particular -- have continued the economic embargo
despite their knowledge of the death rate of Iraqi
children. That is genocide.

Oil-for Food is better than nothing, but it is not the
solution. The solution is to rebuild the economy.
There is no other way to address the problems of the
Iraqi people but to give 100 per cent of the oil
revenues back to Iraq and allow Iraq to invest that
money in agriculture, health care and education, to
rebuild the infrastructure, water systems, sewage
systems, electric power and rebuild its capacity to
produce oil and so on. That is the only solution to
this crisis.

After ten years of disarmament and sanctions,
outrageous mortality rates and evidence of famine, why
has the UN Security Council failed to agree on lifting
the embargo? Do you believe that the continuation of
this genocide is deliberate?

I think the UN Security Council today reflects the
wishes of the US. The US, supported by the UK, has
corrupted the UN. They deliberately sustain this
policy. This is not about Kuwait, it is about
something much bigger. It is a new form of
neo-colonialism [applied by] the US to dominate the
Arab world in order to control the supply of oil and
destroy and suppress perhaps the strongest country
within the Arab world which in 1990 who dared to
challenge the West. A country which dared to stand up
and plan to create some regional leadership.

The US found that unacceptable. They were afraid of
the power that Saddam Hussein represented after the
Iraq-Iran war. Although the economy was damaged and he
was short of money, he had capacity. When they
realised this capacity, and when he foolishly invaded
Kuwait -- a grave mistake -- it was a gift to
President George Bush. They prayed for something like
that and they got it. They destroyed Iraq and they
were very happy to do that. They were very frightened
that he would withdraw from Kuwait before [General
Norman] Schwarzkopf and Bush were ready to crush the
Iraqi people.

But when they did that, they broke the international
law and the Geneva convention. They deliberately
targeted the civilian infrastructure. And this was the
US -- under the umbrella of the UN -- committing
crimes against humanity during the Gulf War.

So Iraq has been controlled and destroyed. Why, then,
are the sanctions still in force?

What is happening now is that they are frustrated.
They are punishing the Iraqi people by killing them
because they cannot find a way to punish Saddam
Hussein and deal with the government in Baghdad.

This is a substitute for dealing with the real problem
as they see it, which is the government in Baghdad.

But this sounds rather medieval.

Yes. It is like raiding the city and killing all the
women and children or killing all the men and then
taking the women. It is absolutely medieval, you're
quite right.

When they launched Operation Desert Fox against Iraq
in 1998, was it actually possible for the US and the
UK to get rid of Hussein?

I think they deliberately decided to keep the
government in Baghdad in power to sustain the
instability of Iraq on the one hand, and the threat
that Iraq posed for the Kuwaitis and the Saudis in the
Gulf on the other.

This has been done to control the financial and oil
resources of the Arab world in order to provide
opportunities to sell American weapons and the
American army. And they have done it very
successfully.

Defense Secretary William Cohen travelled all over the
Arab World selling hundreds of billions of dollars
worth of planes and guns. It is called business. They
have got a market for military hardware from the US
and Europe and they've got control over the oil
resources. I mean, we know that Iraq probably has the
world's biggest supply of oil in the world, not the
second. But this has all been suppressed. In other
words, the Americans have got what they wanted. Who
cares about 6,000-7,000 people dying every month?

I think we must address the fact that the American
policy vis-à-vis Iraq serves to diminish the entire
Arab world. It has been gobbling up Arab financial
resources that should be going to the people; to
education and to the future, into oil production and
petrochemicals. That money is going into military
arms, which will never be used -- I hope.

Do you have any insight into exactly where the money
is going?

Well, we know that the US has sold huge amounts of
weapons to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
Abu Dhabi just bought $6.3 billion worth of fighters
the other day. We know of the huge presence of NATO
and the US in Turkey. We know military support goes to
Israel.

Here, we have a huge problem. Nuclear warheads in
Israel, some of it undoubtedly pointed toward Baghdad,
raise the whole problem of double standards. Moreover,
Turkey can invade Iraq at will and does, nothing
happens. Israel can invade Lebanon, nothing happens.
There are no sanctions, no reparations, nothing is
happening. It is just a huge game that's controlled by
the US.

Do you think your resignation and those of your two
successors had any effect on the decisions of the UN?

We've made no change or improvement. The UN is still
responsible for killing 6,000 to 7,000 Iraqis per
month. And these aren't my figures, they're UN
figures, UNICEF figures.

Calls are now being made to have Western leaders who
caused this genocide sit trial in the War Criminals
Tribunal. Is this possible and do you support such
calls?

I do. I think it has become known as the Pinochet
tactic. Pinochet has done us all a favour by being
vulnerable and being caught -- even though he was
released. It was a signal to everybody from Bush,
Albright to Hussein; men and women alike who make
decisions that constitute crimes against humanity have
got to watch out. They're not free to travel, they're
not free to do these things. They will be -- and must
be -- prosecuted.

So you think President Bill Clinton should be tried?

Absolutely. He is the commander-in-chief and he
approved the bombing of Iraq, for example, in December
1998. There was no justification for this, no UN
resolution. It is a breach of international law. It is
outrageous and it is, of course, a crime against
humanity.

How has your international lobbying -- including
efforts in Egypt -- fared so far?

I have been invited by the Egyptian Committee for
Lifting the Sanctions Against Iraq to come here, meet
with them, to talk to them about my perceptions and my
experience. This is what I've been doing around the
world, speaking about sanctions and trying to get
governments to have some courage and some integrity to
stand up and take on the US. I am here to talk to
people in Egypt to encourage them to do more. Egypt is
fundamental, pivotal even, in making a difference.

But one of the problems I encounter around the world,
in Europe for example, is that they do not see the
Arab leaders standing up and defending the people of
Iraq. This is a real problem. They do not see the Arab
League standing up and passing resolutions demanding
an end to economic sanctions.

Egypt may have done more than other countries, but it
is not enough. If the Arab World does not identify
with the people of Iraq and demand from the US to put
an end to their suffering, then it is very difficult
for the rest of us.


Countries like Egypt have a special relationship with
Washington, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and they have got
to use their connections. The sanctions are
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
fellow Arabs. Some day this will become very costly.
It is going to be very difficult for Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia to rebuild a relationship with Iraq. The Iraqi
people know that they are responsible for continuing
this regime of sanctions. It is very damaging.

We need in the Arab world a vision for the next 50 or
100 years. The sooner we end the crisis in Iraq, the
sooner the Arab world can rebuild its relationships
and the Arab League can play a bigger role.

The whole of the Arab world is damaged by the economic
sanctions of the Iraqis. I cannot visualise harmony in
the Middle East without peace in Iraq.

But given the "special" relationship with Washington,
would that not be a reason why Egypt and other Arab
governments cannot push for more? At the same time,
Arab public opinion remains under a sort of media
black-out on what is actually happening in Iraq.

I'm afraid you're absolutely correct. The news about
Iraq is suppressed everywhere, even in the US. The
international media does not want to address this. The
people who own the media are the same people who
produce arms and are making a lot of money in the
Middle East from selling armament.

It is very tragic that the people of Egypt don't
understand what is happening to their Arab brothers
and sisters in Iraq. But I also believe that the
government in Egypt is deeply concerned about the
long-term impact of this crisis. They sense that many
Egyptians in the street and in many other Arab
countries are extremely unhappy about what is
happening to the people of Iraq. They see Saddam
Hussein as a man of leadership and who had the courage
to defy the West and the US. So he is becoming a hero
in the streets of the Arab world.

I think that the Egyptian government would welcome an
expression of frustration on the part of the average
Egyptian person. This way, they would have the courage
to address Washington.

These special relationships work both ways. I think
that President Hosni Mubarak has the ear of President
Clinton. I think that President Mubarak has a unique
position of power and influence over Washington and
they would listen; particularly if they felt he was
speaking on behalf of the majority of the Arab
leadership and reflecting the views of the average
Arab in the streets.

Iraq has rejected UN Security Council Resolution 1284.
Do you find this justified?

After 10 years of economic sanctions to talk about
"suspending" sanctions is too little, too late.
Secondly, the design of this programme, if everything
worked absolutely to the clock, would take 10 months
before the council can even consider suspending
sanctions. That means 10 months multiplied by say
7,000. Some 70,000 Iraqi people have been sentenced to
death by the Security Council. I find that outrageous.


This is the UN. They can make a plan that sentences
70,000 people to death. Whether they blame Saddam
Hussein or they blame themselves, it makes no
difference. Some 70,000 people are going to die under
Resolution 1284. We know it is not going to work
because the Americans have said, again and again, we
will never lift the economic sanctions as long as
Saddam Hussein is in power. Why should Iraq cooperate
with the regime in Washington when this is the
situation?

To me there are several ways to do it. First of all,
the economic sanctions must be lifted. Iraq has got to
be allowed to have revenues of oil to rebuild its
economy. However there's going to be a price. The
Iraqis have got to agree to the inspections of their
military capacity and they have got to expect that
weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated
because of the past.

They have got to understand that they have terrified
the Kuwaitis and the Saudis. They have got to live
with that for the next 10 or 20 years. Gradually, they
will accept that because if Saddam Hussein can give
the Iraqi people the gift of a new economy, health
care, education and employment, he will give them a
whole new life.

You warned of a new generation of extremist
Taliban-like Iraqis. What makes this a valid concern?

What I usually say is that the Iraqis are much too
sophisticated for a Taliban-type movement. What is
dangerous is that within the ruling Baath Party there
are young men and women who are rising up. They will
be the leaders of the future. However, they're
isolated, alienated from the Arab world and the West.
They are inward looking, a bit like the Taliban.

Secondly, they are frustrated with Saddam Hussein.
They believe that he is too moderate. He has
compromised too often. He has backed down too many
times in regard to the US and the UN.

They are so angry with the situation, and so
frustrated with the humiliation of Iraq. They are
ready to throw the UN out and certainly have Iraq
suffer. But at least this way, they can rebuild the
dignity, sovereignty and honour of Iraq, which is very
important everywhere. Honour and dignity are worth a
lot.

The Iraqis see themselves living in a refugee camp of
22 million people. And they have been fed badly with
their own money. This is a gross humiliation and
they're being punished doubly by the UN and the US.

I think that the leadership in Baghdad today is
sophisticated, worldly, has travelled overseas and
understands the West. The next leadership under these
conditions will not be like that. It will be much more
difficult to communicate with these young men and
women of the future who don't have these opportunities
to understand the world and the West.

We are creating for ourselves a much bigger problem.
This is especially true for the Arab World. You in the
Arab World have to live with Iraq and the sooner that
the damage in the past is repaired and the
relationships are restored, the better for everybody,
not just for Iraq but for the whole Arab people.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail ­ Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/





The Revolution will not be televised: News at 11...

Jim W. Jaszewski
Labour Left Opposition (I.D. Only)
Canada



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---