----- Original Message ----- From: Sandeep Vaidya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: STOP NATO: ��O PASARAN! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 9:55 AM Subject: [STOPNATO] [Fwd: U.S. Congressional Attitudes toward Sanctions] STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM "Hamre, Drew" wrote: > > The frustrating, confusing swirl of sanctions policy statements* from the > U.S. House of Representatives is summarized below. Note that the more > sophisticated pro-sanctions arguments (Rep. Hall's, for example) appear to > align with the emerging UK position: smarten sanctions, but don't end them. > > For those interested, the Conyers/Campbell letter against sanctions, the > Crowley/Sweeney/Lantos reaction, and Rep. Hall's report can be found on > EPIC's site (<http://www.saveageneration.org/News/index.html> and > <http://www.saveageneration.org/congresswatch/index.html>). > > Regards, > Drew Hamre > Golden Valley, MN USA > * I should note that little of this (other than Hall's visit) has been > covered in the mainstream press. > > === > Published in the June 2000 issue of The Progressive > http://www.progressive.org/conn0600.htm > Democrats Split Over Iraq Sanctions > by Ruth Conniff > > After nearly a decade of bombing and blockade, Iraq has been reduced from a > prosperous society to a mass of poverty, suffering, and disease. More than a > million Iraqi civilians have died, according to UNICEF, in the aftermath of > the Persian Gulf War. Infrastructure and health care systems in the country > have broken down. Raw sewage flows through the waterways, and epidemics of > preventable diseases including malaria, typhoid, and cholera ravage the > young. > The humanitarian crisis and the seemingly endless stand-off between the > United States and Saddam Hussein have prompted some members of Congress to > call for a change in U.S. policy. > > In February, seventy members of the House of Representatives signed a letter > to President Clinton asking that the Administration "delink" economic > sanctions from the military sanctions against Iraq. > > "More than nine years of the most comprehensive economic embargo imposed in > modern history has failed to remove Saddam Hussein from power or even > ensured his compliance with international obligations, while the economy and > people of Iraq continue to suffer," the letter states. "Morally, it is wrong > to hold the Iraqi people responsible for the actions of a brutal and > reckless government." > > The letter, sponsored by Representative John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, > and Representative Tom Campbell, Republican of California, garnered > bipartisan support. Many members of the Progressive Caucus in the House of > Representatives signed on, including Democrats David Bonior of Michigan, > Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Peter DeFazio of > Oregon, Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and > Maxine Waters of California. In March, many of the same Representatives > signed a bill that would allow humanitarian aid to flow more freely into > Iraq. > > But not all progressive Democrats oppose the sanctions. > > As anti-sanctions pressure mounts, a pro-sanctions backlash has erupted. A > letter drafted by Representatives Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, and > John Sweeney, Republican of New York, urges the Administration not to budge > on Iraq, and asserts that "Saddam Hussein is cynically . . . withholding > available food and medicines from his own people to garner sympathy for an > end to the sanctions." The pro-sanctions letter gathered 125 supporters, > including Progressive Caucus members Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, > Lane Evans, Democrat of Illinois, as well as New York Democrats Jerrold > Nadler and Nita Lowey. > > What's going on here? > > "The U.N. oil-for-food program has given Saddam Hussein the opportunity to > provide basic needs to his people, but he has squandered huge sums of money > on arms and luxury goods," says Lowey. "I am horrified by the images of > Iraqis who do not have enough food and shelter, but this is a product of > tyrannical leadership, not U.N. sanctions. Lifting sanctions will only > bolster Saddam Hussein's coffers and enable him to buy weapons of mass > destruction--it will not help the Iraqi people." > > These are the same arguments made by the American Israel Public Affairs > Committee (AIPAC)--the second most influential lobbying group in Washington, > D.C., according to Fortune magazine. AIPAC has made the pro-sanctions > campaign a top priority, urging members of Congress to sign the > Crowley-Sweeney letter, and asserting that supporting sanctions on Iraq > means supporting Israel. > > "Iraq is number one, in terms of immediate military threats to Israel," > AIPAC spokesman Kenneth Bricker explains. "People are forgetting the purpose > of sanctions, which is to prevent Iraq from getting its hands on hard > currency. Whenever Saddam gets hard currency from oil revenues, he spends it > on weapons of mass destruction." > > Khalil E. Jahshan, vice president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination > Committee, which has been lobbying on the other side, is exasperated by the > anti-Saddam argument. "Since the beginning of the Gulf war, with the > demonization of Iraq, somehow Iraq has been reduced to Saddam Hussein, as if > twenty-two million Iraqi people did not exist," Jahshan says. "This allowed > for an insensitivity or at least a passivity from the far left to the far > right." > > But Jahshan is hopeful: "We are beginning to see a reversal of that > attitude, and some sort of intelligent debate, for the first time since > 1991." > > Among the most vocal early supporters of sanctions on the left was > Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts. In his 1992 book, > Speaking Frankly: What's Wrong with the Democrats and How to Fix It (Times > Books), Frank offered advice on how to buff the Democrats' image. He > recommended shaking off the scruffy, 1960s anti-war image and supporting a > kind of "progressive" militarism. "Those of us who disagree with the left's > rejection of America's moral right to use force in the world must speak out > more vigorously lest our candidates find themselves isolated on the left," > Frank wrote. > > Frank spoke out vigorously a year and a half ago when I encountered him on a > Stairmaster at a Washington, D.C., gym, watching live footage of the bombing > of Iraq. "This is the worst of the left!" he snapped at me when I asked him > whether bombing and starving Iraqi civilians wasn't brutal and ineffective. > "What would you do? Send in more American ground troops to be killed?" > > Frank backed the Clinton Administration's program of containing Saddam > Hussein through a campaign of sanctions and periodic bombings: "So we'll > bomb him again, every so often, and prevent him from getting weapons of mass > destruction." As for the civilian costs: "That's his fault." > > Recently, Frank's position has softened a bit. He refused to sign either of > the letters on sanctions that are circulating. "I'm for modifying but not > completely lifting the sanctions," he says. "This is one of the most vicious > regimes in the world. We shouldn't just back down. . . . But I think the > sanctions have been administered unfairly. I want to loosen them, and > maximize the chance that he can buy food and civilian equipment." > > Another Democrat who has been rethinking his position on Iraq is the dovish, > leftwing Representative from Ohio Tony Hall. Hall visited Iraq in April to > take a look at the devastating effect of sanctions. The American-Arab > Anti-Discrimination Committee and Peace Action praised Hall for his public > statements deploring the calamity in Iraq upon his return. But the groups' > press releases ignored Hall's conclusion: that sanctions should not be > lifted. > > "We expected when he came back he would be opposing the sanctions," says > Hall staffer Deborah DeYoung. "He is against sanctions in North Korea, and > he's fed up with sanctions against Cuba. In general, he doesn't think they > work, and they hurt the poor." > > Despite all that, Hall says he can't support the proposal to "delink" the > civilian and military blockades on Iraq. > > "Iraq's people are suffering terribly, and it was heartbreaking to see their > pain firsthand," Hall said when he returned to Washington from his trip. > "But, like the majority of American citizens, I remain concerned about the > military threat Iraq continues to pose to its neighbors and the world, and > convinced that until progress is made on eliminating weapons of mass > destruction, lifting sanctions would be irresponsible." > > Hall felt "manipulated" by his Iraqi hosts, and he essentially agreed with > AIPAC that Saddam Hussein is using the horrible plight of his people for his > own political ends. "I wish that I could support lifting sanctions," Hall > said. "Many religious leaders, aid workers, and other people I respect > oppose them. I am troubled, though, that some opponents of sanctions don't > focus as much attention on Iraq's government as I believe they should." > > The Iraqi government could make more of a good-faith effort, Hall believes. > "It was apparent from the moment he got there that everything, including the > people's suffering, was part of a campaign to end sanctions," DeYoung says. > "At one hospital in Baghdad, looking at admittedly terrible suffering, the > Iraqi guides made the point that the children there have to sleep two to a > bed, that there are not enough beds for them. And while they were talking, a > member of the staff slipped away down the hall, and saw rooms and rooms of > empty beds." > > Stunts like that aside, Hall has no doubt that UNICEF's dire estimates of > infant mortality, malnutrition, and disease are accurate. > > The heart of the problem, according to Hall, is not the sanctions, but the > stalemate between the United States government and Iraq. He condemned > racism, a trigger-happy U.S. policy, and belligerence on both sides. > > Instead of lifting or "delinking" economic and military sanctions, Hall > proposes streamlining relief efforts. He points out that the United Nations > stops huge shipments of food and medicine from going to Iraq because as > little as 10 percent of the items in a shipment might be used for building > weapons. The bureaucratic culture of the oil-for-food program encourages > such bottlenecks by rewarding the discovery of possible "dual uses" and > holding up shipments of items such as chlorine--which is essential for water > purification--because it could be used to make chlorine gas. > > "If you find a kidney machine gizmo also works as a nuclear trigger, you're > the toast of the town," says DeYoung. "If you just approve the pencil > shipment, you get no credit." > > Manipulation by the Iraqi government also doesn't account for the uneven > distribution of oil-for-food relief, according to former U.N. humanitarian > coordinator Hans von Sponeck. Von Sponeck recently became the second U.N. > official to resign from the program, protesting the sanctions on Iraq. The > oil-for-food program currently totals only $177 per person, per year, > according to Von Sponeck, and food relief alone simply cannot make up for a > devastated infrastructure. > > "Lifting sanctions is the only realistic way to end the human catastrophe in > Iraq, rebuild the economy, get people back to work, and reestablish health > care, education, electric power, clean water, sanitation, agriculture, oil > production levels, and fix other sectors," says Denis Halliday, the first > U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Iraq who resigned in protest in 1998. > > Because of the U.N. officials' protests, and the efforts of peace activists, > the devastation suffered by the people of Iraq is getting more attention now > than it has received in a decade. Even if efforts to lift the sanctions are > not successful, some sort of reform of the U.N.'s relief effort seems > likely. > > "Grassroots activism to lift the economic sanctions on Iraq is definitely on > the rise," says Fran Teplitz of Peace Action. > > "Given the dismal situation in Iraq, there is no room for optimism," says > Jahshan. "But at least there is some movement, and an emerging public > opinion that is dissatisfied with the failed long-term policy." > > Copyright 2000 by The Progressive, Madison, WI. > ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com
