Economic
Warfare and the Bombing of Iraq:
U.S
War Crimes and International Aggression
By
J.
Whitfield Larrabee
In these increasingly
militaristic times, when unwavering support for military action
is a litmus test for patriotism, it is unfashionable to describe
the recent bombing of Iraq as an act of international aggression.
Likewise, the prevailing mood, reinforced by corporate mass
media, is hostile to suggestions that the United States has
committed war crimes by killing far more than one million Iraqi
civilians through its insistence on continued economic sanctions.
These subjects, the major media have by and large decreed, are
outside of the range of "responsible journalism."
Although the crimes of the United States are many times worse and
far more threatening to the future of humanity than those of
Saddam Hussein, the militarists in the United States 
government
and major media have succeeded in limiting the debate to the
misdeeds of Saddam Hussein. We Americans should not be worrying
about exaggerated threats posed by a tin pot dictator from a weak
and defeated nation. Rather, we should be concerned with the
diversion of billions of dollars away from social security,
education, health care and the environment to the building of
weapons and other preparations for war. We need to peer through
the fog of nationalism and militarism to see the real dangers
posed by the United States’ massive conventional and nuclear
arsenal, its weapons trafficking and its goals as the dominant
global empire. We should compare the extensive media coverage of
events like the World Trade Center bombing with the minimal
coverage afforded the killing of a large percentage of
Iraq’s civilian population through economic sanctions. We
must ask why the death of 700 thousand children in Iraq receives
minimal coverage in the media and negligible concern within the
U.S. political system, while the death of a handful of American
civilians dominates the mass media and receives intense political
attention? Before we can answer these questions, we need to
consider the meaning of the United States’ genocidal war for
the people of Iraq.
How the
Cradle of Civilization was Destroyed
For 43 days in 1991,
the United States and its allies dropped about 90,000 tons of
bombs on Iraq with an explosive force equal to several times that
of the nuclear weapons that incinerated the people of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Thousands of cruise missiles, cluster bombs,
fuel-air weapons, precision guided missiles, and more traditional
bombs were caused thousands of times more damage than that which
shocked America after the Oklahoma City bombing. Thousands of
nuclear weapons, known as "depleted uranium
penetrators," were used to pierce through Iraq’s
military equipment, in the process scattering nuclear waste
across the landscape. The resulting destruction was "near
apocalyptic," according to the Report of UN Under
Secretary-General Martti Ahtisaari in March 1991. The reported
stated that Iraq had been "relegated to a pre-industrial
age" where "most means of modern life support have been
destroyed or rendered tenuous." His report concluded,
"the Iraqi people may soon face a further imminent
catastrophe, which could include epidemic and famine, if massive
life-supporting needs are not rapidly met." Massive life
supporting needs were not met, but rather, the victors imposed a
draconian economic blockade that has remained in place for eight
years. The dire effects predicted by Mr. Ahtissari have come true
for the people of Iraq, while the sanctions have also severely
limiting Iraq’s ability to rebuild its military.
Before the 1991 bombing
campaign, Iraq was a relatively prosperous country with a large
middle class and a well-educated populace. Its medical system was
the envy of the Middle East. Today, a kindly doctor, looking upon
the malnourished and emaciated children in his care, succinctly
described the health conditions in Iraq: "the children come
to the hospital only to die—there is no medicine." Last
May, citizen activist Sonya Ostrom, whom I have worked with and
respect, returned from a trip to Iraq. She recounted her
experience as follows: "nothing could ever have prepared me
for what I saw in Baghdad. It wasn’t just the number of
children in the hospital, but what they looked like. We were told
they were dying from diseases that we no longer suffer from, like
whooping cough, measles and amebic dysentery because of lack of
clean water. Child after child I saw was skin and bones, and lay
there staring up—the saddest I have ever seen. Clearly they
were not properly medicated and were severely
undernourished."
These isolated
observations of famine and disease are confirmed on a massive
scale by in depth studies done by humanitarian agencies of the
United Nations. As of January 1, 1999, over one million two
hundred and seventy thousand people in Iraq will have died from
malnutrition and disease brought on by eight years of economic
warfare according to estimates of UNICEF and the United Nations
Food and Agricultural Organization. Within two years the total
projected deaths will be in the vicinity of one and a half
million. By comparison, Pol Pot’s "genocidal"
campaign in Cambodia is often credited with killing about one
million people. In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO)
indicated that "since the onset of sanctions, the majority
of the country’s population has been on a semi-starvation
diet." In 1997, the WHO stated, "Iraq’s health
system is close to collapse because medicines and other
life-saving supplies scheduled for importation have not
arrived." With nearly a million children vulnerable to
disease and chronically malnourished in Iraq, an entire
generation is being developmentally disabled and irreparably
damaged.
U.S. led bombing
campaigns in 1991, 1993, 1996 and 1998 in combination with eight
years of economic warfare have caused destruction that rises to a
level unprecedented in Iraq’s long history. Iraq is located
in Mesopotamia; a region often called the "Fertile
Crescent" or the cradle of civilization. Five thousand years
ago, its rich agricultural land allowed for the birth of a
monumental civilization whose people were known as the Sumerians.
This was one of the first great civilizations. Today, the United
States government leads a great society, whose civilization and
democracy are beacons of hope for the world. That the government
of such a nation should use its military boot to crush the heirs
to the cradle of civilization is indeed ironic.
Manipulation
of Public Opinion
Notwithstanding the
enormous number of civilian deaths caused by the United States in
Iraq, the American public widely accepts official claims that
"economic sanctions" and massive bombings are necessary
evils. Why do Americans accept killing on a scale that is
comparable to the worst crimes against humanity in the 20th
century? It begins with the kind of information that we receive
on a day to day basis. Even those of us who try to be well
informed – by watching the news, reading the newspaper,
listening to the radio, and picking up Time or Newsweek now and
again, probably will not have received the type of information
that would allow us to disagree with official versions of events.
The major television networks have allowed government officials
to make whatever claims they want, with almost no conflicting
viewpoints, hard questions or close scrutiny of false claims.
Rather than reporting facts, network news programs have routinely
advocated for a pro-war position, running nationalistic news
segments with titles like "Has Saddam Learned His
Lesson" and "The Showdown with Saddam." Even the
"liberal" organs of public opinion, such as the New
York Times and the Boston Globe, have quickly fallen in line
behind the President and the military in applauding the recent
bombing.
It is crucial to
recognize that the economic warfare against Iraq, while carried
out under the banner of the UN, is in fact a US policy. Although
the economic sanctions were initially imposed by the UN, to force
Iraq out of Kuwait, they have remained in place because of the
United States military and economic might as well as its veto
power on the UN Security Council. France, Russia and China are
opposed to war with Iraq, as well as most other members of the
UN. However, because the US is a one of the five
"permanent" members of the Security Council, economic
sanctions cannot be legally ended under the UN Charter over the
United States veto. Thus today, the UN merely acts as a proxy for
US-British policy in Iraq.
Scrutiny of the United
States’ violations of international law in Iraq, the
grotesque starving and killing of civilians, and of claims that
Iraq poses a serious risk to its neighbors and the United States,
have been almost entirely excluded from major television,
newspaper and radio news sources. Although a great deal of public
attention was focused on the six week bombing campaign in the
1991 Gulf War, media coverage of the both military and civilian
carnage caused by the bombing campaign was severely restricted.
While military and Bush administration officials insisted that
civilian casualties were kept to a minimum by "surgical
strikes," exclusive videotape obtained by awarding winning
producers Jon Alpert and Maryanne Deleoin in early February 1991
portrayed a massacre of civilians. Yet the American public never
viewed much of the gruesome results from the bombing campaign
because CBS and NBC, reportedly to due to intense pressure to put
out a pro-war message, refused to broadcast the footage.
Ownership of NBC and CBS by two huge military contractors (GE and
Westinghouse) may have played a role in their decision to
suppress this key information. While NBC and CBS’s
suppression of the war footage is disturbing, it was but one of
many instances of de-facto censorship by the military and media
that has caused the public to have a skewed and unduly favorable
outlook on the conduct and results of the 1991 Gulf War. This
severe suppression of information moved famous news anchor Walter
Cronkite to charge that the Pentagon’s censorship was
"the real horror of the Persian Gulf War."
Playing
on the Public’s Fear and Prejudice
While a number of
different reasons have been given for America’s war against
Iraq, classic fear tactics, especially exaggerations of the
threat posed by Saddam Hussein, have been the primary means by
which public support has been manipulated.
Although this approach
has little basis in fact, politicians have been able to offset
this disadvantage by playing into widespread anti-Arab prejudice.
A simple comparison of
the war machines in Iraq with those in the United States
illustrates how the actual threat posed by Iraq has been grossly
inflated. The official U.S. military budget is currently $280
billion and amounts to over one third of world military spending.
In contrast, the United States has about one twenty fifth of the
world’s population. Major allies England, France, Germany
and Japan have combined military spending in excess of $140
billion. Iraq’s military budget, on the other hand, is $3
billion, according to the most recent estimates by the Center for
Defense Information.
Because these types of
comparisons suggest that the United States is oppressing a weak
and defenseless opponent, the Clinton and Bush administrations
have emphasized claims that Iraq poses a terrible threat because
of its possession of "weapons of mass destruction." The
timing of these claims clearly indicate that Iraq’s
political independence, not its threat to its neighbors, is the
driving force behind the ongoing U.S. war. When Saddam Hussein
was an ally of the United States, the both the Reagan and Bush
Administration had no great concern about his use of chemical
weapons. Beginning in 1984, Iran complained more than a dozen
times to the UN Security Council that Iraq was using chemical
weapons during its unprovoked attack on Iran. After chemical
weapon attacks had been confirmed the United States demonstrated
its approval by providing weapons to Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s
service to the United States as a "useful
counterbalance" to Iran caused the White House to approve of
poison gas attacks on the Iranians, and to overlook the alleged
attack on thousands of Kurdish villagers.
The United States’
provision of biological weapons to Iraq further undercuts its new
found claims that weapons of mass destruction are the reason for
the recent bombing and continuing economic warfare. As was
documented by the United States television program "60
Minutes," and by Britain’s Channel Four television
news, "14 shipments of biological materials – including
19 batches of anthrax bacteria and 15 batches of botulinum, the
organism that causes botulism – were exported from the U.S.
to Iraq between 1985 and 1989." Iraq now claims to have
eliminated its chemical, bacteriological and nuclear weapons.
Eight years of UN weapons inspections have not found any evidence
that Iraq’s nuclear chemical and bacteriological weapons
programs continued beyond 1991. Moreover, the International
Atomic Energy Agency has found that Iraq does not have a viable
nuclear weapons program.
The public is
understandably confused about this issue because government
officials and major news outlets have repeatedly and falsely
assumed that Iraq’s retention of chemical and
bacteriological weapons is an established fact. A recent Boston
Globe editorial stated "There can be no illusions about
Saddam’s determination to retain his stocks of anthrax,
botulinum toxins, VX nerve gas, and Iraq’s nuclear weapons
capability." Both President Clinton and Defense Secretary
Cohen, along with many other high-ranking officials, have made
similar claims. Yet, in its article "The Hunt for Germs and
Poisons," the New York Times outlines the evidence, and
clearly contradicts these claims. The Times articled shows that
there is ground for suspicion, but no solid evidence, that Iraq
has retained weapons of mass destruction. Even if Iraq has such
weapons, government officials and a pliant media have grossly
exaggerated the threat that Iraq poses to the United States and
its neighbors. Retired Marine General Bernard Trainer made this
point last February: "[there is no] proof that he now
intends to use biological or chemical weapons against his
neighbors. Conceivably he views them defensively, or at worst, as
a means of intimidating his enemies. Even Saddam knows that using
such horrific weapons against his neighbors will nullify any
sympathy for his regime and result in both worldwide condemnation
and swift military retaliation." By swift military
retaliation, General Trainer is referring to recent U.S. threats
of a nuclear first strike if Iraq ever uses chemical or
bacteriological weapons.
The United States’
possession of thousands of nuclear weapons, in violation of its
obligation of complete nuclear disarmament under Article IV of
the Nuclear Weapons Non Proliferation Treaty, undercuts its
credibility in demanding that other nations eliminate their
weapons of mass destruction. Likewise, the United States’
refusal to destroy its stocks of smallpox virus, a disease that
has been eliminated, provides reason to doubt its commitment to
eliminating bacteriological weapons. Because an effective vaccine
has been discovered which does not require live virus, the only
purpose for retaining the smallpox virus is as a weapon. Although
the U.S. has pledged to eliminate Chemical Weapons under the
Chemical Weapons Convention, vast stocks of chemical weapons
remain in its arsenal, awaiting destruction, and it has retained
the right to block inspections of enforcement teams for
"national security" purposes. Yet, when Iraq refused to
allow inspection teams to enter unannounced into the presidential
palaces and Baath Party headquarters, the United States used such
a refusal as a basis for the recent bombing. U.S. pledges to
overthrow Iraq’s government, CIA sponsorship of subversion
in northern Iraq, and the "politicized" nature of
weapons inspections might justify an objective observer in
believing that Iraq had legitimate "national security"
concerns about granting access to its vital political
organizations. The hypocrisy implicit in the United States’
actions, as well as its acceptance of Israel’s nuclear and
bacteriological weapons, is widely understood in Iraq, and
throughout the Arab world.
The Real
Goals of the United States
If the economic
sanctions and bombings are not motivated by the desire to disarm
Iraq, what is the real reason that the United States is waging
war, and what are its long term goals? This question is best
answered by looking at U.S. military interventions and economic
warfare throughout the world for the past 40 years. Countries
such as Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iraq, Iran and Chile, that have
attempted to pursue an independent course, unfriendly to
multinational corporations, have been made objects of military
interventions and economic warfare. When "friendly"
right wing dictatorships ruled these countries, and a receptive
climate for corporations allied with the industrialized countries
was established, U.S. military support was supplied to control
popular movements. On the other hand, when groups advocating
independent nationalism attained power in these countries,
whether they were socialist, Islamic fundamentalists, or
Nazi-style state socialists as in Iraq, U.S. military and
intelligence agencies unleashed terror campaigns. These campaigns
involved armed assaults, support for violent opposition
movements, "destabilization" efforts by the CIA,
embargoes, blockades and other types of economic warfare.
U.S. opposition to
Saddam Hussein is consistent with U.S. actions throughout the
world for the past 40 years. Hussein’s lack of allegiance to
the United States, and the huge oil and other multi-national
corporations that dominate our government, has made Iraq the
target for U.S. warfare. The independent nationalism that Hussein
advocates, including the nationalized oil industry and the
state-socialist policies of the Baath Party, are detested by U.S.
corporate leaders, and their representatives in the government.
The United States was willing to overlook these offenses in the
1980’s when it was arming Iraq in its war against the U.S.
"enemy" Iran. But, after that war had ended and Saddam
no longer served this purpose, and he had proved threatening to
U.S. dominance by invading Kuwait, the fate of Iraq’s people
was sealed.
The economic benefits
of disabling the oil production capacity of Iraq may well be
important reasons for repeated bombing campaigns and the
continuing economic warfare promoted by the United States. Large
and influential oil corporations and allies in the oil producing
countries of the Middle East are benefiting from the war. If Iraq
is allowed to return to an already flooded international oil
market, prices will drop further, seriously undercutting the
precarious positions of the Saudi dictators and other
oil-producing allies. Substantial Iraqi oil production would also
enlarge the losses of major oil corporations, who cannot recoup
their investments from costly exploration and drilling operations
across the globe if the bottom continues to fall out of the
international oil market.
Official claims that
the U.S. government is motivated by a concern for human rights
and democracy in the region are difficult to take seriously. The
United States has been a longstanding and continuing supporter
for sympathetic dictatorships across the globe. The list of past
and present dictatorships supported by the United States reads
like a Who’s Who list of 20th century war criminals and
human rights abusers. These dictators have included: King Fahd of
Saudi Arabia, General Pinochet of Chile, the Shah of Iran, Samoza
of Nicaragua, General Batista of Cuba, and Ferdinand Marcos of
the Phillipines, Ngo Diem of Vietnam and General Suharto in
Indonesia. While we should not deny the commitment of many
individuals in the government to fostering human rights, the
primary motivation of recent administrations has clearly been to
maintain and expand global power. Thus, it is not surprising that
the official U.S. policy in Iraq is not to foster democracy, but
to replace Saddam with a sympathetic and "stable"
dictator.
Like the expressed
concern for human rights and democracy, the "Oil for
Food" program is a fig leaf to cover up naked U.S.
aggression. UN Undersecretary-General Dennis Halliday, who was
the chief coordinator of the "Oil for Food" program,
resigned in protest in September 1998. On his resignation, he
described sanctions as "a totally bankrupt concept." He
drew attention to the "the 4,000 to 5,000 children dying
unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions because
of the breakdown of water and sanitation, inadequate diet and the
bad internal health situation." What lesson does he urge?
"Sanctions are a failure and the price you extract for
sanctions is unacceptably high." In a meeting with citizen
activists in Cambridge, Massachusetts this October, Halliday
indicated that the amount of funds available under the "Oil
for Food" program were so minimal that he could have almost
no effect on the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. In 1997, UNICEF
reported, "there is no sign of any improvement since
Security Council Resolution 986/1111 ["Oil for Food"]
came into force."
International
Law and War Crimes
Although there are
substantial grounds for concluding that the United States has
violated international law by unilaterally bombing Iraq and by
killing civilians through economic sanctions, little has been
written or broadcast on this subject in the major media. The
Charter of the United Nations prohibits unilateral force by
members of the United Nations unless they are under attack and
are acting in self- defense. In all other instances, prior
approval of the Security Council is required. On March 2, 1998,
the United States sought prior approval from the Security Council
but was denied because of opposition from France, China and
Russia. The only language addressing what would happen to Iraq in
the event of non-compliance with prior Security Council
resolutions was in paragraph 4, which stated "any violation
would have the severest consequences." The United States,
alone among the 15 members of the Security Council, insisted that
the resolution gave a "green light to our policy of
diplomacy and force." Contrary to these contentions by U.S.
Ambassador Bill Richardson, Article 46 of the UN Charter clearly
requires the Security Council to positively approve the use of
force. This view of the most sacred document embodying
international law was endorsed by UN Secretary General
Kofi-Annan, who indicated that the French, Russian and Chinese
governments had objected to the idea of "automaticity,"
and therefor the U.S. would have to consult with this countries
before going forward with military action. John Malcom Forbes,
managing coordinator of the Cambridge based Coalition for a
Strong United Nations, decried the Clinton administration for
"misrepresenting the security council resolution to again
assert the United States’ right to dominate international
security decisions in disregard for the Charter of the United
Nations."
Although its disregard
for the UN Charter in unilaterally bombing Iraq constitutes a
serious violation of international law, the United States conduct
of economic warfare against Iraq amounts to such a serious breach
of international law that it can be characterized as a war crime.
War crimes are "grave violations" of the Geneva
Conventions, which set forth the international law in the conduct
of war. Because the United States was chiefly responsible for
organizing support for the Security Council Resolutions
implementing economic sanctions, and has repeatedly blocked
efforts to terminate them; it bears primary responsibility for
their consequences. Convention IV, Protection of Civilian Persons
and Populations in Time of War is on of the Basic Rules of the
Geneva Conventions applicable to the conduct of the United
States. This convention explicitly in forbids "starving of
civilian populations." Additional Protocol II, which
elaborates on Convention IV, forbids withholding of "objects
indispensable to the survival of the civilian population."
In 1995, UNICEF reported, "Sanctions are inhibiting the
importation of spare parts, chemicals, reagents, and the means of
transportation required to provide water and sanitation services
to the civilian population of Iraq…What has become
increasingly clear is that no significant movement towards food
security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place.
All vital contributors to food availability - agricultural
production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and
income generation, are dependent on Iraq's ability to purchase
and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian
population." In April of 1997 an UNICEF report indicated
that 10,000 children under the age of 5 are dying of disease and
malnutrition every three months as a result of the U.S.
instigated economic warfare.
The bombings in
December of 1998 caused further damage to Iraq’s oil
production facilities, and to key facilities for the provision of
food and medical relief to the civilian population. According to
the Trevor Rowe, of the UN World Food Program, U.S. and British
air strikes destroyed a warehouse in the city of Tikrit that
contained 2,600 tons of rice intended for humanitarian relief.
According to UNICEF, the bombing damaged two hospitals and some
primary schools in Baghdad. Hans Von Sponeck, the UN humanitarian
coordinator, stated "our program has been severely
curtailed.
Popular
Movements for Peace,
Democracy and Human Rights
Although not widely
publicized, serious efforts are underway across the United States
and throughout the world to educate the public and organize in
support of peace with Iraq. Well established national
organizations like Peace Action (formerly SANE/FREEZE) and the
American Friends Service Committee, along with a new organization
called Voices in the Wilderness, are organizing a growing
grassroots network "for the Iraqi people." These
groups, along with hundreds of others across the United States,
are trying to halt U.S. aggression and war crimes while
simultaneously working for universal protection of human rights.
While they recognize that Iraq is held in the grip of a malignant
dictator, they deny that bombing and economic warfare will bring
about peace and democracy. Steven Brion-Meisels, a leader of
Peace Action, recently told me "we are looking for a third
way." He is looking for a way that resists militarism, but
does not accept the Iraqi dictatorship.
Because the roots of
this movement are deep, its power should not be underestimated.
The movement "for the Iraqi people" grew out of the
recent effort to ban landmines. It built a huge uprising against
the 1991 bombing of Iraq. In the 1980’s, the same types of
concerned citizens joined with the Central American solidarity
movements, and anti-nuclear movements. These movements in turn
grew out of the women’s movement, the civil rights movement,
the environmental movement, and the groups allied against the
Vietnam War.
In February 1998, these
groups helped unleash a firestorm of opposition when the
government tried to rally public support for the bombings. In a
single day on February 11, over 50 demonstrations took place in
cities and on college campuses across the country. On February
18, 1998, the administration attempted to hold a carefully
managed "Town Meeting" at Ohio State University to
build support for bombing Iraq. The event turned into a fiasco
when members of the public, from veterans to peace activists,
humiliated Secretary of State Albright and Secretary of Defense
Cohen with a series of highly critical questions that were
broadcast live on national television. As a result of widespread
and growing public opposition, the Clinton was forced to
temporarily back down from his plan to bomb Iraq.
Although Clinton
eventually went forward with the bombing when public attention to
the problem had waned, his response to the protests in February
demonstrated his fear of widespread pubic opposition. Reflecting
the government’s awareness of declining support for
sanctions both domestically and internationally, on December 10,
1998, former UN Inspector Scott Ritter warned, "Unless we go
to war for UNSCOM right now, Iraq is going to win." National
Security Advisor Sandy Berger expressed similar views on December
8, "the longer this standoff continues, the harder it will
be to maintain the international support we have built for our
policies." Although the President indicated in his speech
justifying the bombing on December 16 that the United States was
committed to indefinitely continuing economic warfare, and
government officials are already suggesting the need for another
bombing campaign, a large well organized peace movement could
change this. The organizers of this popular movement have a
powerful arguments for the American people: "If the
government is willing to kill over a million innocent civilians
in Iraq to protect the interests of a few corporations, how safe
are your rights here in the United States? If social security is
under-funded, increasing numbers of Americans are without health
insurance, our educational system is becoming second rate, and
there are increasing threats to the environment, how can we
afford to spend billions of dollars on war in distant
lands?"
NOTES:
1. Weis, Thomas, et. al., editors,
Political Gain and Civilian Pain: Humanitarian Impacts of
Economic Sanctions, (0xford: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997): p. 93
2. United Nations, Report to the
Secretary General on Humanitarian Needs in Kuwait and Iraq in the
Immediate Post-Crisis Environment by a Mission to the Area led by
Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, Under-Secretary General for Administration
and Management, March 20, 1991 (New York, United Nations, (1991),
5,13.
3.Allan Connolly, M.D., The Impact of
Sanctions: A Medical Examination, Challenge to Genocide: Let Iraq
Live, International Action Center, N.Y. 1998.
4. Sonya Ostrom, There Was No Military
Facility, Challenge to Genocide: Let Iraq Live, Op. Cit.
5. Situation Analysis of Children and
Women In Iraq, UNICEF, p.42, April 30, 1998, Evaluation of Food
and Nutrition Situation in Iraq, United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization, December, 1995.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., Death of a Dictator, April 16,
1998, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (Transcript).
8. Nearly one million children
malnourished in Iraq, says UNICEF, Press Release, Wednesday,
November 26, 1997.
9. The Boston Globe, A Just Attack,
December 17, 1998, p. A30; The New York Times, War and
Impeachment, December 17, 1998 (www.nytimes.com).
10. Dennis Bernstein and Sasha Futran,
Sights Unseen, San Francisco Bay Guardian, May 20, 1991.
11. Carl Jenson and Project Censored, 20
Years of Censored News, (Seven Stories Press, New York 1997) p.
264.
12. http://www.cdi.org
13. United Nations, Security Council
Resolution 612, et. al., May 9, 1988, et. al.
14. U.S., Britain Helped Iraq Develop
Chemical and Biological Weapons" Reuters, February 12, 1998;
15. 60 Minutes, February 22, 1998.
16. The Boston Globe, Ending
Saddam’s Game, November 24, 1998, A18
17. Broad and Miller, The Hunt For Germs
and Poisons, New York Times, Dec, 30, 1998, sec. 4, p. 1
18. Ibid.
19. Bernard Trainor, The Boston Globe,
Gulf War II? First, Some Questions, Feburary 10, 1998, p. A15.
20. The Boston Globe, Editorial, Beyond
Saddam, February 21, 1998, A10
21. BBC News Online, UN Official Blasts
Iraq Sanctions, September 30, 1998.
22. Ibid
23. Nearly one million children
malnourished in Iraq, says UNICEF, Press Release, Wednesday,
November 26, 1997.
24. Reuters, Text of Security Council
Resolution on Iraq, Monday, March 22, 1998; 8:33 p.m. EST
25. The Seattle Times, Disunity Shows in
UN vote on Iraq, March 3, 1998 (citing LA Times and AP)
26. CNN interactive, Annan: U.S. must
consult UN before attacking Iraq, March 8, 1998, www.cnn.com,
citing ABC’s "This Week."
27. International Committee of the Red
Cross, Editor, Basic Rules of the Geneva Conventions and Their
Additional Protocols, pp. 10, 36, 37 and 54, Geneva, 1983
29. UNICEF, The Status of Children and
Women in Iraq, A Situation Report, September 1995
30. UNICEF, Situation Analysis of
Children and Women in Iraq, April 1998, p. 42
31. Leon Barkho, Associated Press, 2,600
Tons of Rice Destroyed, December 21, 1998
32. Colum Lynch, The Boston Globe, Iraq
blocks UN search of offices, December 10, 1998.
The
Peace and Democracy Report
is a project of
J. Whitfield Larrabee
& Associates
A People's Law Firm
| 14 Searle Avenue, |
Brookline, MA 02445 |
Tel: (617)
566-3670
|
Fax: (617)
232-0458
|
larrabee@gis.net
Return to Home Page of J. Whitfield Larrabee
& Associates
©
J. Whitfield Larrabee, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, All Rights
Reserved
Last revised: March 11, 1999.