IRAQ SANCTIONS MONITOR Number 183
Monday, January 8, 2000
The daily Monitor is produced by the Mariam Appeal.
Tel: 00 44 (0) 207 403 5200.
Website: www.mariamappeal.com.
_______________________________________________
The truth about depleted uranium
>From The Independent January 8th, 2001
Robert Fisk
JUST FOURTEEN months ago, on a bleak, frosty afternoon, I
stopped my car beside an old Ottoman bridge in southern
Kosovo. It was here, scarcely half a year earlier, that Nato jets
had bombed a convoy of Albanian refugees, ripping scores of
them to pieces in the surrounding fields. Their jets, I knew, had
been firing depleted uranium rounds. And now, on the very spot
east of Djakovica where a bomb had torn apart an entire refugee
family in a tractor, five Italian Kfor soldiers had built a little
checkpoint. Indeed, their armoured vehicle was actually standing
on part of the crater in the road.
I tried to warn them that I thought the crater might be
contaminated.
I told them about depleted uranium and the cancers that had
blossomed among the children of Iraq who had - or whose
parents had - been close to DU explosions. One of the young
soldiers laughed at me. He'd heard the stories, he said. But
Nato had assured its troops that there was no danger from
depleted uranium. I begged to differ. "Don't worry about us," the
soldier replied.
They should have known better. Only a few weeks earlier, a team
of UN scientists - sent to Kosovo under the set of UN resolutions
that brought Kfor into the province - had demanded to know from
Nato the location of DU bombings in Kosovo. Nato refused to tell
them. Nor was I surprised. From the very start of the alliance
bombing campaign against Serbia, Nato had lied about
depleted uranium. Just as the American and British
governments still lie about its effects in southern Iraq during the
1991 Gulf War. US and British tanks had fired hundreds of
rounds - thousands in the case of the Americans - at Iraqi
vehicles, using shells whose depleted uranium punches
through heavy armour and then releases an irradiated aerosol
spray.
In the aftermath of that war, I revisited the old battlefields around
the Iraqi city of Basra. Each time, I came across terrifying new
cancers among those who lived there. Babies were being born
with no arms or no noses or no eyes. Children were bleeding
internally or suddenly developing grotesque tumours. UN
sanctions, needless to say, were delaying medicines from
reaching these poor wretches. Then I found Iraqi soldiers who
seemed to be dying of the same "Gulf War syndrome" that was
already being identified among thousands of US and British
troops.
At the time, The Independent was alone in publicising this
sinister new weapon and its apparent effects. Government
ministers laughed the reports off. One replied to Independent
readers who drew the Ministry of Defence's attention to my
articles that, despite my investigations, he had seen no
"epidemiological data" proving them true. And of course there
was none.
Because the World Health Organisation, invited by Iraq to start
research into the cancers, was dissuaded from doing so even
though it had sent an initial team to Baghdad to start work. And
because a group of Royal Society scientists told by the British
authorities to investigate the effects of DU declined to visit Iraq.
Documents that proved the contrary were dismissed as
"anecdotal". A US military report detailing the health risks of DU
and urging suppression of this information was dutifully ignored.
When two years ago I wrote about a British government report
detailing the extraordinary lengths to which the authorities went
at DU shell test-firing ranges in the UK - the shells are fired into
a tunnel in Cumbria and the resulting dust sealed into concrete
containers which are buried - I know for a fact that the first
reaction from one civil servant was to ask whether I might be
prosecuted for revealing this.
One ex-serviceman, sick since the Gulf War, actually had his
house raided by the British police in an attempt to track down
"secret" documents.
More honourable policemen might have searched for papers
that proved DU's dangers - and which might form the basis of
manslaughter charges against senior officers. But of course the
police were trying to find the source of the leak, not the source of
dying men's cancers.
During the Kosovo war, I travelled from Belgrade to Brussels to
ask about Nato's use of depleted uranium. Luftwaffe General
Jerz informed me that it was "harmless" and was found in trees,
earth and mountains. It was a lie.
Only uranium - not the depleted variety that comes from nuclear
waste - is found in the earth. James Shea, Nato's spokesman,
quoted a Rand Corporation report that supposedly proved DU
was not harmful, knowing full well - since Mr Shea is a careful
reader and not a stupid man - that the Rand report deals with
dust in uranium mines, not the irradiated spray from DU
weapons.
And so it went on. Back in Kosovo, I was told privately by British
officers that the Americans had used so much DU in the war
against Serbia that they had no idea how many locations were
contaminated. When I tracked down the survivors of the Albanian
refugee convoy, one of them was suffering kidney pains. Despite
a promise by Shea that the attack would be fully investigated, not
a single Nato officer had bothered to talk to a survivor. Nor have
they since. A year ago, I noted in The Independent that foreign
secretary Robin Cook had admitted in the House of Commons
that Nato was refusing to give DU locations to the UN. "Why?" I
asked in the paper. "Why cannot we be told where these rounds
were fired?"
During the war, defence correspondents - the BBC's Mark Laity
prominent among them - bought the Nato line that DU was
harmless. Laity was still peddling the same nonsense at an
Edinburgh Festival journalists' conference some months later.
Laity - who is now, of course, an official spokesman for Nato -
was last week reduced to saying that "the overwhelming
consensus of medical information" is that health risks from DU
are "very low".
But the growing consensus of medical information is quite the
opposite. Which is why a British report to the UK embassy in
Kuwait referred to the "sensitivity" of DU because of its health
risks.
And still the Americans and the British try to fool us. The
Americans are now brazenly announcing that their troops in
Kosovo have suffered no resultant leukemias - failing to mention
that most of their soldiers are cooped up in a massive base (Fort
Bondsteel) near the Macedonian border where no DU rounds
were fired by Nato. Needless to say, there was also no mention
of the tens of thousands of US troops - women as well as men -
who believe they were contaminated by DU in the Gulf.
So it goes on. British veterans are dying of unexplained cancers
from the Gulf. So are US veterans. Nato troops from Bosnia and
now Kosovo - especially Italians - are dying from unexplained
cancers. So are the children in the Basra hospitals, along with
their parents and uncles and aunts. Cancers have now been
found among Iraqi refugees in Iran who were caught in Allied fire
on the roads north of Kuwait. Bosnian authorities investigating
an increase in cancers can get no information from Nato. This is
not a scandal.
It is an outrage.
Had we but known. On those very same Iraqi roads, I too
prowled through the contaminated wreckage of Iraqi armour in
1991. And - I recall with growing unease - back in Kosovo in
1999, only a day after the original attack, I collected pieces of the
air-fired rounds that hit the Albanian refugee convoy. Their
computer codes proved Nato had bombed the convoy - not the
Serbs, as Nato tried to claim. I also remember that I carried
those bits of munition back to Belgrade - in my pocket. There are
times, I must admit, when I would like to believe Nato's lies.
_______________________________________________
Turks push 100 miles into Iraq
>From The Daily Telegraph January 8th, 2001
AT LEAST 500 Turkish troops have pushed 100 miles into
Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq in their deepest incursion in the
15-year conflict, Iraqi Kurdish officials said yesterday. The move
was being seen as preparation for a major offensive against
2,500 rebels of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
dug in along the Iran-Iraq border. According to reports in Turkey,
as many as 10,000 Turkish troops have poured into the Kurdish
controlled enclave since Dec 20 in response to pleas for help
from one of the main Iraqi Kurdish factions in the area.
The PKK and the rival Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) have
been at war since September, with up to 200 PUK fighters
reportedly killed in recent weeks. The Turkish general staff
issued a statement yesterday denying the incursion. But the
Prime Minister, Bulent Ecevit, said: "Turkey is of course
providing technical support. This is necessary for our own
security."
Western diplomatic sources said they were aware of a Turkish
troop build-up in the region, which has brought strong protests
from Baghdad. "We are deeply concerned that it will further
destabilise what is already a highly unstable region and could
even provide Saddam with an excuse to intervene," a European
diplomat based in Ankara said.
_________________________________________________
Admit you have failed, Mr Hain
>From THE GUARDIAN, January 8th, 2001
By DENIS HALLIDAY
The issue of Iraq in 2001 is too critical for the future of its
people, Europe's relations with the Middle East and the standing
of international law for us to remain silent about Peter Hain's
article (I fought apartheid, I'll fight Saddam, January 6).
We write from privileged experience since we were charged by
the UN secretary general to oversee the oil-for-food programme
soon after its inception, from 1997 until last year. We both
resigned in protest against what we perceive as a failed Iraq
policy, with all its tragic human consequences, and the violation
of international law.
Arguing for an end to economic sanctions is not at all about
'propping up a dictator'. Have sanctions targeted the proper
parties? No. Have sanctions imposed in 1990 retained their
legality? The UN Charter, the International Covenants on Human
Rights and a host of other treaties allow only one answer: they
have not.
Peter Hain is indeed 'ducking the debate'. We all know,
professionally and personally, how difficult it is to admit failure.
What a powerful and honourable signal Hain would send, if such
awareness of failure would translate into courage for change.
Hain has been hiding behind a smoke-screen for a long time
with his defence of an indefensible policy conducted with little
respect for facts. 'Iraq was a threat to humanity and this threat is
real now," he maintains. This is a house of cards held aloft by
those who want to maintain the status quo. Disinformation is
morally and legally also indefensible. Hain's reference to UN
resolution 688 as the legitimisation for the 'no-fly-zones" in Iraq
is an example. This resolution makes no reference to a right to
take over Iraqi airspace, resulting in the tragic killing of civilians
as detailed in the 1999 UN security reports.
Hain repeatedly stresses that those who oppose sanctions offer
no alternative. This is false. Both of us, for example, have said
time and again that the UN security council should delink
economic sanctions from the disarmament debate while
imposing arms controls on Iraq and those countries which wish
to sell arms to Baghdad, keeping in mind resolution 687,
paragraph 14, which calls for the establishment in the Middle
East of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction; we have
argued that the hidden agenda of hardline geo-strategic
interests be dropped and a dialogue be started; we have also
argued that the unrealistic demand for quantitative disarmament
be replaced by negotiations on weapon systems containment.
We, too, fight against 'appeasement of oppression'. Ours,
however, is a fight against the violation of international law by the
UN security council and the sacrifice of innocent civilians as
pawns.
Denis Halliday UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq 1997-98
HC von Sponeck UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq
1998-2000
'You simply have to notify the UN' to export food and medicines,
writes Peter Hain. The tortuous bureaucracy of the UN is beyond
the scope of a letter. Exporting anything takes many months, on
the UN's own admission.
If a patient needs medicine it is needed immediately. I was
threatened with prosecution by the Department of Trade and
Industry for taking a small package of chemotherapy to Iraq for a
surgeon with cancer - who had worked here for many years
saving the lives of British children.
A London-based Iraqi sent insulin in a Jiffy bag to his diabetic
brother in Baghdad. It was returned by the Post Office with a
request for an export licence. Before the licence was granted, his
brother had died. Felicity Arbuthnot London
Peter Hain's concern for the Kurds in Iraq would be touching if he
extended it also to the Turkish Kurds. His support of UN
resolutions imposed on Iraq would be more credible if he
adopted the same attitude to those against Israel. His
opposition to Iraqi weapons would be more justified if he
condemned Israel's nuclear capability.
Condemning Saddam Hussein is one thing but getting at him
through the innocent children of Iraq is another. June and Tony
Freke, Newbury
Peter Hain claims that the bombing of northern Iraq by British
and US aircraft was 'in support of security council resolution 688,
which called on Iraq to end its repression of Kurds and the Shia".
Nowhere in the resolution is there even a hint about using force
against Iraq. But it makes the point that 'all member states" are
committed to 'the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of Iraq and of all states in the area'. So this is UN
permission to bomb Iraq, is it? Brian Cloughley Thornhill,
Dumfriesshire
Peter Hain has some nerve comparing the sanctions on Iraq to
the sanctions imposed on apartheid South Africa. Whereas in
South Africa it was the oppressed people who themselves called
for sanctions to be imposed, there has been no such call from
the Iraqi people.
Whereas sanctions actually hurt white South Africa, they stand
no chance of ousting Saddam. Indeed, sanctions have brought
appalling hardship upon the people of Iraq and have served only
to strengthen Saddam's grip on power.
_________________________________________________
Britain seeks u-turn over Iraq bombing
>From THE GUARDIAN, January 8th, 2001
By EWEN MACASKILL AND RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR
The British government, in a policy u-turn, is to propose to the
incoming US administration that the bombing of targets over
southern Iraq should be stopped.
British and US planes have enforced no-fly zones along Iraq's
northern and southern borders since 1992. In the past two years
alone, they have dropped more than 100 bombs, mainly against
Iraqi air defences.
The bombing, in what is sometimes called the 'forgotten war',
has led to an unknown number of civilian casualties. Hans von
Sponek, the former UN humanitarian coordinator, writing in the
Guardian last week, said that 144 civilians had died in the no-fly
zones because of the bombing.
The two no-fly zones were imposed by the US and Britain after
the Gulf war in what was described as a humanitarian effort to
protect the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq and Kurds in the north.
However, they are not backed by any UN security council
resolution and do not include flights by Iraqi helicopters. Iraq is
now flying civilian aircraft over the zones.
The official British line is that there are no plans to change the
approach to Iraq and that British foreign policy is determined
independently of the US. In the Guardian last week, Peter Hain,
the Foreign Office minister, strongly defended the no-fly zone
policy.
But in reality, the whole of US-British policy towards Iraq is under
review as a result of the impending arrival of a new US
administration. Among the top foreign policy issues the new
president, George W Bush, will have to contend with is how to
deal with the renewed confidence of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam
Hussein.
Mr Bush is expected to take a tough line, given that his father
was president at the time of the Gulf war and that his secretary of
state, Colin Powell, commanded the Allied forces. Gen Powell
has spoken of the need to 're-energise' US policy towards Iraq.
But only Britain and the US remain enthusiastic about
maintaining sanctions and France, among others, has criticised
the continued bombing of southern Iraq.
In an attempt to deflect criticism, the British government has
been looking behind-the-scenes at the introduction of so-called
'smart' sanctions and an end to the southern no-fly zone.
The no-fly zone was meant to counter Saddam Hussein's
assault on the southern Shi'ites by denying him air space. But
the Iraqi campaign of repression has effectively ended because
the anti-Saddam opposition in the towns and among the Marsh
Arabs has been quelled.
The Ministry of Defence, which has spent more than pounds
800m policing the zones, is increasingly uneasy about the
possibility of an RAF pilot going down, and the bombing has led
to public concern, especially after evidence that victims have
included civilians.
The British government is proposing to retain the no-fly zone in
the north because it argues the threat remains to the Iraqi Kurds.
Although ready to consider fresh policies, Britain does not intend
to let up on Saddam, seeing him as a serious threat to world
stability.
Downing Street has been increasingly toying with the idea of
switching from a blanket ban that has exceptions to sanctions
that specify a narrow band of prohibited goods, mainly weapons.
UN reports have shown that the sanctions have resulted in a
high civilian death toll, especially among children.
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs
spokesman, said yesterday a rethink of British and UN policy
towards Iraq was 'absolutely necessary'.
'Ten years of inertia is no substitute for effective policy,' he
said.
Also under consideration will be sanctions that target the regime
more effectively by trying to limit the ability to travel and
hitting overseas bank accounts, though such measures have
proved difficult to achieve in the past.
_________________________________________________
Iraq: Talks with UN might be postponed until February, Tariq Aziz
says
Text of report by Iraqi satellite TV on 6 January
Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has said that the
comprehensive dialogue scheduled to be held between Iraq and
the United Nations might be postponed until February, noting
that the time of launching this dialogue will be decided by the two
sides later. Queried by the Iraqi Satellite Channel correspondent,
Aziz added that the UN secretary-general's engagements and
travel outside New York have thus far precluded the start of
this dialogue.
[Aziz - recording] Iraq agreed in principle to hold a dialogue
with the UN secretary-general. The timing question will be
decided by the two sides. The secretary general himself is busy
this month with travels outside New York. Therefore, this
dialogue might be postponed until the next month.
[Unidentified correspondent] Will the dialogue be held
unconditionally?
[Aziz] Yes. It will be based on the same principles we agreed
upon.
_________________________________________________
Iraqi art expo from January 11
>From BUSINESS RECORDER, January 7th, 2001
KARACHI : The embassy of Iraq in Islamabad in collaboration
with the Pak National Council of Arts is arranging a three-day first
exhibition of modern Iraqi art in Islamabad at the National Arts
Gallery from January 11 to 13, 2001.
According to a handout issued by the Pakistan Export Promotion
Bureau here on Saturday, the exhibition will put on display more
than 60 paintings presenting rich and advanced styles of Iraqi
styles as well as more than 100 photographs showing various
aspects of life in Iraq.
After moving to Lahore from January 15 to 16 at the Lahore
museum, the exhibition will finally be held in Karachi at the Expo
Centre from January 17 to 20. A lecture will also be held at the
same place on January 18, 2001 at 11:00 am.
_________________________________________________
Mortars Explode in Iranian Capital
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) _Five mortars shells exploded in northern
Tehran on Sunday, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
There were no reported casualties from the blasts, which took
place near a military base belonging to Iran's elite Islamic
Republic Guards Corps.
It was not clear whether the base was the target of the attack.
Similar mortar attacks in the past have been claimed by the rebel
Mujahedeen Khalq.
The Iraqi-based group seeks the overthrow of Iran's Islamic
government and frequently attacks targets deep inside Iran and
along the border with Iraq.
________________________________________________
Iraq demands withdrawal of U.N. officer
January 7th, 2001
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) _ Iraq has accused a U.N. officer who helps
monitor the border with Kuwait of smuggling and demanded his
withdrawal.
In a letter to the United Nations carried by the official Iraqi
News Agency on Sunday, Foreign Minister Mohammed Saeed
al-Sahhaf said the officer, a Kenyan, was caught last month
trying to cross into Iraq with ``with illegal items hidden in a'' U.N.
car. The letter did not describe the items.
``The officer was summoned to the Iraqi liaison office ....
Items were unloaded from the car and he confessed to
attempting to smuggle the items into Iraq,'' according to
al-Sahhaf's letter.
Al-Sahhaf said the incident involving the Kenyan ``and the many
other similar incidents have proven that U.N. employees are
misusing their status to do things they know very well violate
Iraqi laws.''
_________________________________________________
Saddam addresses Iraqi people live on television
BAGHDAD, Jan 6 (AFP) - Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
addressed the Iraqi nation live on state-run television on
Saturday putting to rest opposition reports he had suffered a
severe stroke.
The Iraqi strongman, in power for 30 years, looked well in a dark
brown suit and tie, as he began a speech to mark the 80th
anniversary of the formation of the country's armed forces.
"We are celebrating the army that fought the war against Iran
and the 'Mother of all battles,'" he said referring to the 1980-88
conflict and the Gulf War of 1991.
The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq alleged
Saddam had suffered the stroke last Sunday after attending a
huge military parade.
_________________________________________________
Iraq does not rule out new military confrontation with USA.
CAIRO, January 5 (Itar-Tass) - Iraqi Defence Minister Sultan
Hashim Ahmed does not rule out the possibility of a new military
confrontation with the United States. Interviewed by the
newspaper Ath-Thawra, he said that the confrontation could
break out any time. Hashim Ahmed stressed that the
battle-hardened Iraqi army was capable of dealing with the U.S.
military technology.
The minister also noted that Iraq was ready for a confrontation
with Israel in case of a new Middle East war.
The minister's statement came shortly after the demonstration of
Iraq's military power during the December 31 parade in
Baghdad, which was watched by President Saddam Hussein.
Taking part in the marchpast were dozens of thousands of
soldiers, representing all the arms of the service. Shown during
the parade also were ground-to-ground missiles with a radius of
less than 150 kilometres.
_______________________________________________
Norway chosen to head UN Iraqi sanctions committee
JAN 5, 2001, M2 Communications - Norway was yesterday (4
January) named as the head of the UN committee monitoring
sanctions against Iraq.
Norway will not however chair the UN compensation
commission which assesses Iraq's damage during the 1991
Gulf War, Norwegian Ambassador Peter Kolby said.
Usually the same country chairs both committees.
Kolby said that not chairing the compensation committee was
'no problem' as it meant a lot of work and Norway was only a
small country.
________________________________________________
Turkey appoints first ambassador to Iraq since Gulf War
ANKARA, Jan 5 (AFP) - Turkey has appointed an ambassador to
Iraq for the first time since the Gulf War and the envoy is
expected to take office next week, a Turkish diplomat said
Friday.
The new ambassador, Mehmet Akat, an expert on Turkey-Iraqi
relations who previously served in the Turkish embassy in
London, will go to Baghdad at the end of next week, the diplomat
said on condition of anonymity.
He will replace the charge d'affaires of the embassy in Baghdad,
Selim Karaosmanoglu, who has been at his post for the past
several years.
__________________________________________________
Syria reportedly lifts restrictions on travel to Iraq
Text of report by London-based newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat on
5 January
Damascus: Syria has taken a new step on the road to detente in
its relations with Iraq which, for some 18 years, were broken
and have remained at a standstill in the wake of the eight-year
long Iraq-Iran war.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat has learnt from the relevant Syrian sources
that Syria has decided to lift restrictions on Syrian citizens'
travel to Iraq, whereby - before the new decision was made -
The Syrian sources said Syrian citizens can travel to Iraq at
any time on business, provided that there is nothing to prevent
this on the Iraqi side. The sources said that Syrian citizens
can obtain a one-year multiple exit visa from the immigration
department enabling them to travel from Syria to all the
countries of the world.
__________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
