| TAKE
ACTION AGAINST THE OCCUPATION
These
postcards can be ordered from the Voices office - 0845 458 2564
or download by clicking on the image.
When
asked, on CBS’s 60 Minutes in 1996, whether the death of 500,000
Iraqi children was a price worth paying for the continued
imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq, the US Secretary
of State, Madeleine Albright, said “we think the price is
worth it”.
Despite warnings from numerous organisations that war would
create a humanitarian crisis, Iraq has been invaded and the
occupying forces are demonstrating what everyone suspected
- that they are not interested in the welfare of the Iraqi
people.
How many civilian casualties in Iraq today are a price
worth paying to the US and UK governments? |
Voices
briefing - 10 Demands (7 May
2003) - pdf file
Voices briefing - Profit
and Loss (1 May 2003) - the humanitarian
crisis in Iraq
Voices briefing - The
War Is Not Over (11 April 2003) - the
humanitarian crisis in Iraq
More news and information
on the humanitarian situation in Iraq
Events and protests
10 Demands
7 May 2003
Please write to the Jack Straw, (Foreign Secretary,
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2AH),
Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State for Defence, Ministry of Defence,
Old War Office Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB) and Tony
Blair (10 Downing Street, London, SW1) to demand that:
• that
the US and UK end their illegal occupation of Iraq.
On his brief trip to Iraq in late April US Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld ‘assured Iraqis that “Iraq belongs to them”
and promised them that US troops would not stay “one day
longer” than was needed to establish a democratic government.’
(Guardian, 30 April). However the New York Times (April 20) cited
anonymous ‘senior Bush administration officials’ as
saying the US ‘is planning a long-term military relationship
with the emerging government of Iraq’ that ‘will grant
the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence
into the heart of the unsettled region.’ What ordinary Iraqis
think about this has not - as far as we know - been ascertained.
‘All across Baghdad,’ Robert Fisk reports ‘you
hear the same thing, from Shia Muslim clerics to Sunni businessmen,
that the Americans have come only for oil, and that soon –
very soon – a guerrilla resistance must start.’ (Independent,
17 April).
•
that Iraqis must be allowed to determine their own political future
free from foreign interference.
The US and Britain must not be permitted to grant immunity to
leading Ba’athists, or to restore the leadership or the
institutions of the Ba’athist regime. The Pentagon want
to install their favoured Iraqi exile groups, led by Ahmed Chalabi
– a convicted embezzler who, apart from a brief period organising
resistance in the Kurdish north in the 1990s, has not lived in
Iraq since 1956 and has no support inside the country. The CIA
and State Department on the other hand ‘favour encouraging
an indigenous leadership, even if it means dealing with former
figures in Saddam’s military or ruling Ba’ath party’
(Times, 10 April). According to the Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg
(21 April) ‘less than two weeks after the collapse of the
regime, thousands of members of the Arab Ba’ath Socialist
Party, the all too willing instrument of Saddam, [we]re resuming
their roles as the men and women who run Iraq.’
On 5 May the US civil administrator in Iraq, Jay Garner, stated
that the ‘nucleus’ of an interim Iraqi government
was emerging and he named five figures likely to become part of
a committee ‘that would govern Iraq under US tutelage for
a number of months until a new political system and government
can be organised’ (Washington Post, 6 May): Ahmed Chalabi
(Iraqi National Congress); the leaders of the two main Kurdish
parties, the PUK and KDP; Ayad Alawi (Iraqi National Accord);
and Abdul Aziz Hakim (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution
in Iraq). Both the INC and the INA – which is largely made
up of Ba‘thists and former military officers - ‘have
long been backed and financed by the United States’ the
Post noted.
On 23 April, Colin Powell met Iraqi women activists who registered
their concern that women are being excluded from the political
process. At the meeting organised by the US in Ur on 15 April,
only 4 out of 80 delegates were women, despite a long history
of political participation in Iraq. UN Resolution 1325 (October
2000) urges member states to ‘ensure increased representation
of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and
international institutions and mechanisms for the prevention,
management and resolution of conflict.’
•
that the US/ UK fulfil their obligations under international humanitarian
law and use all the resources at their disposal to end the current
humanitarian crisis.
As occupying powers the US and UK have obligations under international
humanitarian law to:
• ‘ensur[e] the food and medical supplies of the population’;
• restore public order and safety;
• and ‘facilitate by all means at [their] disposal’
humanitarian relief by impartial aid agencies (See Amnesty International’s
briefing Iraq: Responsibilities of the occupying powers, available
at http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140892003).
So far they have failed to fulfil these obligations:
• FOOD: Although the US has so far spent at least $20 bn
on their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq (FT, 17 April)
– and ‘in the end should not exceed the $62.5 bn Congress
approved for extra military spending’ in April - the UN
World Food Programme (WFP) has been unable raise the $1.3 bn it
needs for its emergency operation to re-establish food distribution
inside Iraq and ‘avert a humanitarian catastrophe.’
Prior to the war 60% of Iraq’s population were dependent
upon a Government food ration, distributed via a network of 44,000
agents. Reactivating and supplying this network will be one of
the largest logistics operations in the WFP’s 40 year history.
The WFP had estimated that the poorest Iraqis might start running
out of food in early May. As at 25th April – almost a month
after the WFP launched its appeal - there was still a $778 mn
funding shortfall. The UK had contributed a mere $53 mn.
• MEDICICAL SUPPLIES: According to Medicines Sans Frontieres
(2 May) the US/UK have ‘failed to meet [their] responsibility
under international law to ensure that the health and well-being
of the Iraqi people is being provided for.’ ‘Despite
three weeks of occupation and many months of planning …
Baghdad, a city the size of Houston and Chicago combined, still
does not have functioning hospitals … [I]n the hospitals
that MSF has visited in Baghdad, Amarah, Basrah, Karbala, Nasariya
and elsewhere, life-threatening illnesses such as tuberculosis
… are going untreated due to lack of medicines.’ Treatments
for illnesses such as cancer have run out in many places (BBC
News Online, 29 April) and maternity and childbirth complications,
reported to be sharply increasing, (Refugees International, 30
April) are not being adequately treated.
• PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY: While much planning and resources
were devoted to securing Iraq’s oilfields and the Ministry
of Oil, Iraq’s hospitals and water-treatment plants were
left to the looters. On the 19 April the Independent reported
that all but three of Baghdad’s hospitals were ‘closed
because of looting and arson.’ Oxfam’s engineers found
that water-treatment plants in the south – and even a chlorine
factory in Zubayr – had been badly looted (Guardian, 19
April). According to Save the Children (2 May) ‘Iraq’s
hospitals, water plants and sewage systems … already under
severe strain and under-resourced before the war began …
have been crippled by the conflict and looting. Hospitals are
overwhelmed, diarrhoea is endemic and the death toll is mounting.’
• HUMANITARIAN RELIEF: During April the US military prevented
Save the Children (SCF) from landing desperately needed medical
supplies in areas declared safe by the UN. According to SCF this
lack of cooperation was ‘a breach of the Geneva convention’
which ‘cost children their lives’ (Guardian, 18 April).
•
an immediate end to the economic sanctions on Iraq.
Over the past twelve years these sanctions – which remain
in place - have created massive poverty in Iraq, devastating the
lives of millions of ordinary Iraqis. The existing UN humanitarian
programme (‘oil-for-food’) has not resolved –
and cannot resolve - this humanitarian crisis. Sanctions must
end immediately in order for Iraqis to have a chance of rebuilding
their lives.
• an immediate ban on the use of cluster bombs,
Depleted Uranium (DU) and weapons such as the 21,000 pound Massive
Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB).
According to Oxfam ‘cluster bombs … can by their very
nature only be indiscriminate’ and their use is therefore
illegal. The same is true of weapons such as the MOAB –
the biggest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal. On the 25 April
the Pentagon claimed that ‘only one of the nearly 1,500
cluster bombs used by coalition forces in Iraq resulted in civilian
casualties.’ However data compiled by the Iraq Body Count
project (www.iraqbodycount.org) from widely published press and
media reports ‘shows that at least 200 civilian deaths have
already been reliably reported as being due to cluster bombs,
with up to a further 172 less firmly linked deaths that also involved
other munitions.’ Furthermore these munitions continue to
kill civilians, eg. on April 15 Newsday reported that two children
had been killed, and one seriously injured, when a cluster munition
they were playing with exploded.
Unexploded and unsecured ordnance of all types are endangering
Iraqi lives. Human Rights Watch reported on 5 May that ‘Civilians
are being wounded by abandoned ordnance in Basra, Iraq, because
British forces have failed to secure weapons caches.’ In
April, the Mines Advisory Group reported that one hospital in
Kirkuk dealt with fifty-two people killed, and 63 injured, by
landmines and unexploded ordnance in just one week.
DU is chemically toxic and weakly radioactive. It was used in
the 1991 Gulf War as well as in the recent invasion and may be
implicated in the very large rise in cancers in southern Iraq
since the ’91 war. The Royal Society recently (24 April)
called upon the US and British governments ‘to reveal where
and how much depleted uranium was used’ in the recent invasion
‘so that an effective clean-up and monitoring programme
of both soldiers and civilians can begin.’ The Pentagon
claims that no such clean-up is necessary.
• that the US/UK pay compensation to people in Iraq
who have lost family members, houses, businesses or who have been
injured, by the US/UK invasion and occupation.
•
that the reconstruction of Iraq takes place free from foreign
interference and allows the full use of Iraq’s resources
by its own people.
Prior to the war BP, Shell, and ExxonMobil indicated that they
might exploit the fall of Saddam Hussein to fight for their old
‘possessions’ in Iraq by arguing that the compensation/
nationalisation deal they agreed to in 1973 was signed under duress.
On May 4 the US announced the appointment of Philip Caroroll –
a former Chief Executive Officer of Shell Oil with ‘ties
to an Irvine firm vying for reconstruction projects’ in
Iraq – to chair ‘an advisory board … to oversee
Iraq’s oil industry until a new government is formed.’
(LATimes.com, 4 May).
The US Government has already awarded a contract to rebuild Iraq’s
electrical, water and sewage systems - worth more than $680 mn
- to the San Francisco - based Bechtel Group. According to the
Guardian this ‘could end up giving Bechtel an overwhelmingly
important role in virtually every area of Iraqi society’
(18 April). Bechtel’s senior vice-president Jack Sheehan,
is also a member of the Defence Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory
group whose members are approved by US Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. Bechtel board member and former secretary of state George
Schultz is also chair of the pro-war Committee for the Liberation
of Iraq.
Meanwhile a former senior executive of Cargill - the biggest grain
exporter in the world – has been put in charge of agricultural
reconstruction in Iraq, a move which Oxfam has described as ‘like
putting Saddam Hussein in the chair of a human rights commission’
(Guardian, 28 April). According to Oxfam, Dan Amstutz –
who served as a trade negotiator under the Reagan administration
– ‘is uniquely well-placed to advance the commercial
interests of American grain companies and bust open the Iraqi
market – but singularly ill-equipped to lead a reconstruction
effort in a developing country.’
On 13 April, the Observer revealed that US military contractor
Dyncorp had won a multi-million-dollar contract to police post-Saddam
Iraq. ‘DynCorp, which has donated more than £100,000
to the Republican Party’, has been accused of involvement
in human rights violations, and ‘a British employment tribunal
recently forced DynCorp to pay £110,000 in compensation
to a UN police officer it unfairly sacked in Bosnia for whistleblowing
on DynCorp colleagues involved in an illegal sex ring.’
The Associated Press reported on 6 May that it has only recently
come to light that the ‘emergency contract the Bush administration
gave to Halliburton Co.’ (formely run by Vice-President
Dick Cheney) ‘to extinguish Iraqi oil fires also gave the
firm a more lucrative role in getting the country's oil system
up and running’. Senior Democrat Henry Waxman said that
‘only now, over five weeks after the contract was first
disclosed, are members of Congress and the public learning that
Halliburton may be asked to pump and distribute Iraqi oil under
the contract.’
The privatisation of Iraq allows the U.S. to conduct foreign policy
by proxy through corporations which are effectively unmonitored
and only answerable to the profit drive.
•
that ordinary Iraqis are not forced to pay Saddam Hussein’s
debts and ‘reparations’ for the 1991 Gulf War.
Saddam Hussein owes over $300bn in debts and reparation claims.
These must be cancelled if Iraq is to begin to reverse the devastating
effects of war and sanctions. Under current rules, the UN diverts
a quarter of all Iraq’s oil revenues to pay ‘reparations’
for the invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War. More information
including an on-line petition, on www.jubileeiraq.org.
•
that now informers would be safe from reprisal, the British Government
publish all of the intelligence it held on Iraq prior to the war.
US and British officials claimed that they were giving us 'facts
and conclusions based on solid intelligence' (Colin Powell, 5
February 2003) but so far no evidence has been presented that
Iraq either possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the
attack or, if it did, that it posed a grave and imminent threat
to any other country. The Government must refute - if it can -
the claims of one British intelligence official that it presented
'a few strands of highly circumstantial evidence ... as a cast
iron case' (Independent on Sunday, 17 April).
•
that no further countries are attacked in the so-called ‘war
on terrorism.’
Now is the time to get commitments - from your MP and from the
Government - rejecting the creation of further conflicts with
countries such as Syria, Iran and North Korea.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has already ‘implied
[that] some of President Saddam’s suspected weapons of mass
destruction might have been moved [to Syria]’ (Independent,
10 April). In January journalist Seymour Hersh quoted an anonymous
‘American intelligence official who has attended recent
White House meetings’ as stating that “Bush and Cheney
want [North Korean leader Kim Jong Il’s] head on a platter.”
Britain must not permit the use of US bases in Britain for any
future military attack.
ACT NOW - SAVE LIVES
19 April 2003
Write to Jack Straw about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
The people
of Iraq - and especially Iraq's children - are in grave danger
because of the
damage and disruption caused by the war.
In Baghdad
'all civic services have essentially ceased to exist' (UNICEF,
17 April).
Waterborne diseases have increased sharply, food reserves will
run out by early May
and aid agencies describe the situation in southern Iraq as "desperate"
(Guardian, 18
April).
As occupying
powers the US and Britain have obligations under international
humanitarian law to: 'ensur[e] the food and medical supplies of
the population'; restore
public order and safety; and 'facilitate by all means at [their]
disposal' humanitarian relief by impartial aid agencies.
So far they
have failed - and are failing - to fulfil these obligations:
- Although
the US/UK have so far spent at least $20 bn on their illegal invasion
and
occupation of Iraq (FT, 17 April) the UN World Food Programme
has been unable raise
$1.3 bn for an emergency operation to re-establish food distribution
inside Iraq and 'avert a humanitarian catastrophe.' As at 17 April
there was still a $1 bn shortfall.
- While much
planning and resources were devoted to securing Iraq's oilfields
and the
Ministry of Oil, Iraq's hospitals and water-treatment plants were
left to the looters. All but three of Baghdad's hospitals 'are
closed because of looting and arson' (Independent, 19 April) and
security concerns in the south mean that Oxfam's water engineers
'have been unable even to reach Basra' (Guardian, 19 April).
- The US military
has prevented Save the Children (SCF) from landing desperately
needed medical supplies even in areas declared safe by the UN.
According to SCF this lack of cooperation 'is a breach of the
Geneva convention' and 'is costing children their lives' (Guardian,
18 April).
PLEASE WRITE
to the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw MP, The Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, Whitehall, London to demand that the US/
UK fulfil their
obligations under international humanitarian law and use all the
resources at their
disposal to end the current humanitarian crisis.
|
