The Dying Rooms of the Middle East
By John Pilger, NEW STATESMAN, 3 APRIL 2000
Try as he might, Robin Cook cannot give credence to his vast lies - how
does he explain away the deaths of 200 Iraqi children everyday?
The facts of Iraq's epic suffering are now unassailable. The latest
report by Unicef says that half a million young children have died in
eight years of economic sanctions. That represents almost 200 deaths
every day. Without in any way mitigating Saddam Hussein's tyranny,
Unicef says: "The Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivation
in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council
and the effects of war." The liability of the Security Coun-cil, said
the French ambassador to the UN, was "indisputable". Denis Halliday, the
UN's Assistant Secretary General, resigned rather than administer "an
immoral and illegal" policy. His successor as the senior UN humanitarian
official in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck, followed him in despair, along with
the head of the World Food Programme. Few doubt that sanctions would
have been lifted long ago were it not for the intransigence of the
United States and Britain.
Last week, the New Statesman published a reply by Robin Cook to my
catalogue of Foreign Office lies about Iraq. Cook's reply fails to
engage with any of the points raised. It is lying to get out of lying.
For example:
Cook: "The humanitarian programme is entirely unconditional... There
is nothing to prevent Iraq ordering more medicine."
Fact: A billion and a half dollars' worth of vital supplies to Iraq
is currently blocked by the UN Sanctions Committee, including food and
fifty million dollars' worth of medical supplies. The supply of 16
heart and lung machines has been blocked for six months. British ministers
rigidly enforce a ban on vaccines for children (Hansard, 21 December
1999). Professor Karol Sikora, the former head of the World Health
Organisation cancer programme, reported: "Requested radiotherapy
equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked
by the US and Britain."
Cook: "There is no limit on Iraqi oil sales to pay for [the
humanitarian programme]."
Fact: There is an effective limit imposed by the US, which has
blocked contracts for vital oil indus-try parts already approved by the
Security Council.
Cook: "Under [UN Resolution] 1284, most humanitarian contracts will be
handled by the UN Secretariat without reference to the Sanctions Committee."
Fact: On 27 January, the US State Department warned that, if the UN
Secretariat tried to speed up humanitarian supplies, "95 per cent of
all cases [will be placed] on hold".
Cook: The bombing of civilians by American and British aircraft is an
"Iraqi line" that "fabricates claims of death and destruction".
Fact: The UN Security Section regularly reports on the bombing of
civilians, using UN sources. In one five-month period, 41 per cent of
all strikes resulted in civilian casualties. The targets included
fishermen's wharves, villages and livestock. On 30 April last year, the
UN reported: "Allied war planes carried out several sorties over Ninewa
Governate. The jets fired four missiles at Bashiqa area... seven
civilians were killed. A shepherd and six members of his family [and]
101 livestock. UN team visited on 2 May." This was personally verified
by the chief UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq.
Cook's reply was drafted by his officials, notably Jon Davies, who
heads the Iraq desk and gives can-did "off-the-record" briefings. Compare
Cook's lauding of Resolution 1284, "a British initiative", with
Davies's private assessment to a colleague of mine that it "changes nothing
whatsoever". One truth for them, another for the public.
An especially shameful example of Foreign Office deceit and panic is a
letter currently being sent to MPs and members of the public, signed by
Peter Ham, the junior FO minister. It sets out to devalue the scale of
suffering in Iraq by implying there are "serious doubts" about the
Unicef report- when there are none. It also suggests that mal-nourished
children are merely a showcase for foreigners: a smear that further
diminishes Ham. The rest of his letter is largely falsehoods. It says
the "no-fly zones" in which the bombings take place are "entirely
lawful". In fact, they are a Washington invention, were never
ratified by the UN and have no basis in international law.
Cook wrote that: "[Pilger] denied me the opportunity to reply in his
recent television programme Paying the Price." Cook was offered a major
interview with most of the questions supplied before hand. For six
weeks, his officials squirmed with embarrassment as he refused even to
reply. They told us of his fear of "being in a film with dying babies"
and of being skewered" in a "taxing" interview. After two months of
this, they came up with a "format" whereby Cook would have an exclusive
screening of the film, then give an interview "as live", restricted to
ten minutes, all of which we would have to use. It was an offer designed
to be rejected by any self-respecting journalist. To MPs, he
misrepresented his outrageous demand as a "right of reply" required by
the broadcasting regulations - yet another falsehood. His behaviour is
no more than a reflec-tion of a cowardly policy that punishes tens of
thou-sands of small children for the misconduct of a dictator.
Last week, Cook wrote to Tam Dalyell MP: "I am entirely happy to debate
the merits of our policy on Iraq." On 6 May, both Halliday and von
Sponeck will be in London, speaking at Kensington town hall. I have
written to Cook, asking him to make good his promise and debate with
them. Watch this space.
