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

[Sean Fenley <satellitecrash@xxxxxxxxx>]

The one problem i have with this article is that the
author finds the cause of the U.S./U.N. embargo on
Iraq to be associated with the what he believes to be
the U.S.'s incapability of influencing the current
government or (he doesn't say this but it's implied)
ousting the current leader, who is of course Saddam
Hussein. However, I think that if U.S. intelligence
wanted to remove Saddam they have the means to do so.
Having some one like Saddam around justifies an
extensive U.S. military presence in the Middle East,
which is of course integral to the type of fast paced
sprawling society that we live in.

i just don't think it is a certainty that U.S. cannot
influence and alter the current government in Iraq as
it has done through interventions, and financing of
oppositional movements many times before.
-Sean


--- "Harry M. Cleaver <hmcleave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ---------- 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
>
=== message truncated ===


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


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