UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

USIS Washington File

04 May 2000

Byliner: National Security Advisor Berger on the Root of Iraq's Problems

(Op Ed from the Financial Times 5/04/00) (1050)
(This column by Samuel Berger, Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs, is in the public domain. No republication
restrictions.)
Saddam Is The Root Of All Iraq's Problems
By Samuel Berger
Assistant to the U.S. President
for National Security Affairs
Last year in Baghdad, in the middle of the worst drought in 50 years,
word went out to Iraqi farmers to reduce rice planting to save water,
and not to plant summer crops without government permission. At the
same time, water was found to fill the man-made lakes around Saddam
Hussein's palaces and to fill the reservoirs in his hometown of
Tikrit. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government continued its campaign to
blame hunger on United Nations sanctions.
By obstructing UN relief, refusing to order nutritional supplements,
even selling food and medicine to build palaces, Mr. Saddam has
aggravated his people's suffering and used the spectacle to seek the
removal of sanctions. Yet ending sanctions on Iraq would not end the
suffering of its people.
In 1991, George Bush, then U.S. president, proposed the oil-for-food
programme, which allows Iraq to export oil, deposit the revenues in a
UN escrow account, and draw from the account only for purchases of
food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies. This is a unique
sanctions regime: it prohibits the Iraqi leader from spending the
revenues on what he cares about most -- rebuilding his military -- and
limits him to spending it on what he cares about least -- food and
medicine and humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
Mr. Saddam rejected the oil-for-food programme for five brutal years.
But now, three years after he acquiesced, Iraqi oil exports and food
imports are reaching pre-war levels. With oil prices rising, revenues
are surging and Iraq has record resources for the purchase of food and
medicine.
To illustrate, in 1989, Iraq earned $15bn from oil exports and spent
$13bn on its military (in 1999 dollars). This year, Iraq is projected
to earn $16bn from oil-for-food exports and can spend none of those
revenues on its military. Clearly, there are more funds available for
food and medicine now than before the Gulf war.
So why are the Iraqi people suffering? 
Primarily, it is because the Iraqi government imports food and
medicine only grudgingly, and never orders as much as it can. We are
now roughly halfway through phase seven of the oil-for-food programme.
During this six-month period, Iraqi oil revenues are expected to reach
$8bn, and yet the Iraqi government has so far placed orders for only
$1.8bn of food, medicine and humanitarian supplies.
The Iraqi government has never met the minimum calorie and protein
targets set by the UN secretary-general. It has ordered only a
fraction of the nutritional supplies needed for pregnant and nursing
mothers. And the secretary-general recently reported that Iraq
repeatedly has refused to operate supplementary feeding programmes the
UN has been advocating for years.
According to the UN, one-quarter of all the medicine that has arrived
in Iraq since the start of the oil-for-food programme sits
undistributed in Iraqi warehouses. Ships enforcing the UN embargo
continue to intercept Iraqi vessels smuggling food out of Iraq to earn
money for the Iraqi regime.
Since the end of the Gulf war, the Iraqi leader has used his smuggling
gains to build 48 palaces, complete with gold plated taps and man-made
lakes and waterfalls. Last year, on Mr. Saddam's birthday, he
presented himself with Saddamiat al Tharthar, a lakeside resort with
stadiums, an amusement park, hospitals and new homes, at a cost of
hundreds of millions of dollars.
So what would happen if we lifted sanctions? There would be no
improvement in Iraq's ability to export oil; it can export now all it
wants. There would be no improvement in Iraq's ability to import food
and medicine; it can import now all it needs. The difference would be
that oil revenues would no longer go to an international food
programme; they would go to Iraq's ruler. They would no longer be
restricted to humanitarian supplies, they could be spent on rebuilding
the military. Oil for food could quickly become oil for tanks. Iraqi
people might well have less to eat. Iraq's neighbours would certainly
have more to fear.
It is hard to imagine a sensible approach to reducing suffering that
gives the Iraqi leader more money and fewer restrictions on the use of
that money. That is why the U.S. has worked with others in the UN to
ease Iraqi suffering without strengthening its leader.
When the UN reported that the oil-for-food programme needed
improvement, we supported the resolution that led to changes. When the
UN requested additional spare parts for oil production, we allowed for
spare parts. When it said export ceilings were too low, we supported
lifting them entirely. When UN members expressed concern about the
contract review process, we investigated, released contracts worth
more than $300m, and are now working to streamline the process
further.
We are doing our best to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people. Mr.
Saddam is doing his best to prolong it. Friends of the Iraqi people
need to question Mr. Saddam directly, bluntly and repeatedly.
Why won't you let UN agencies and non-governmental organisations
operate throughout Iraq to help evaluate and alleviate hardship?
Why have you never ordered sufficient foodstuffs to meet the calorie
and protein targets recommended by the UN?
Why have you refused to ensure the timely and equitable distribution
of all humanitarian goods, in particular medical supplies?
Why won't you give up your pursuit of weapons of mass destruction for
the good of your people?
Instead of insisting the UN should end sanctions on Iraq -- friends of
the Iraqi people should insist that Mr. Saddam end his restrictions on
UN monitors, NGOs, supplementary feeding programmes, and all other
international efforts to benefit those who have been punished by his
policies.
Friends of the Iraqi people should recognise that there is no inherent
conflict between feeding the innocent and freeing the Gulf region from
fear. The best way to do both is to encourage change within Iraq -- so
the country has a government that will meet the needs of its people
and its obligations to the world. That would do more than lift
sanctions, it would lift up the lives of the Iraqi people.
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list