Bush’s War of Terror, Sanctions
Part Five
By Deanna Spingola
 

Join Email List to receive notification of new Spingola articles

There are five permanent members on the United Nations Security Council along with other member states who are elected for a specific period of time. This council is charged with maintaining peace and security between nations. The permanent members attained that status because they were considered victorious at the conclusion of World War II: the People’s Republic of China as of 1971 (formerly the Republic of China), France, Russian Federation as of 1991 (formerly the Soviet Union), United Kingdom and the United States of America. Council decisions are known as resolutions and according to the United Nations Charter must be carried out.

According to the United Nations Charter, these five permanent members are the only nations permitted to have nuclear weapons under the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But not all of the nations who have nuclear weapons signed the said treaty. And enforcement is apparently arbitrary.

It was certainly no secret that Saddam threatened to invade Kuwait for some months prior to the actual invasion on 2 August 1990. That very day the U.N. Security Council issued Resolution 660 condemning the invasion and demanded that “Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all it forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990.” [i]

On 6 August 1990 the United Nations Security Council issued the following resolution 661: (part only) [ii]

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1.     “Determines that Iraq so far has failed to comply with paragraph 2 of resolution 660 (2 August 1990) and has usurped the authority of the legitimate Government of Kuwait;

2.     Decides, as a consequence, to take the following measures to  secure compliance of Iraq with paragraph 2 of the resolution 660 (1990) and to restore the authority of the legitimate government of Kuwait;

3.     Decides that all states (191 member countries) shall prevent:

     (a)   The import into their territories of all commodities and products originating in Iraq or Kuwait exported there    from after the date of the present resolution;

(b)   Any activities by their nationals or in their territories which would promote or are calculated to promote the export …”
 

Economic sanctions became a part of the U.N. Charter in 1945 as a method of control. They have been used fourteen times - twelve times since 1990. [iii]

The major allegation against Saddam was the attempted overthrow of another country’s leader which is clearly inappropriate according to the U.N. Charter as well as international respectability among nations. We exhibited this same mindset when Khomeini insisted that we oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in the early 80’s. We rejected his suggestion as completely inappropriate behavior, despite covert CIA tactics frequently used to eliminate government leaders incompatible with United States objectives. For this infraction,
Iraq was placed under United Nations sanctions within four days of the invasion. Ironically, when Iraq invaded Iran the United States voted against the U.N. Security Council’s resolution opposing this invasion. However, Saddam’s Kuwaiti invasion rapidly changed his lengthy standing from good friend and complicit ally to a Hitler style tyrant. This change was probably motivated by oil greed, increased political aspirations and giant egos.

Sanctions against Iraq, the worst in modern history, were originally imposed to halt their aggression against Kuwait. They were imposed prior to U.S. entry into the conflict. They should have and would have ended with Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait if not for the combined influence of the United States and Britain. Sanctions would ultimately constitute a legitimized but immoral weapon of unmitigated slaughter against the 22 million citizens of Iraq - every man, woman and child. Sanctions did not end after Iraq abided by the U.N. resolutions and left Kuwait.

It was the administration’s expectation that the Iraqis would rise up and oust Saddam but they were consumed with just maintaining their rapidly declining existence. The purpose of the sanctions changed from the Iraqi invasion to regime change – ousting Saddam - and they would remain until he was gone – no matter how many lives it cost. [iv] And since the war was over there had to be another justification: weapons of mass destruction. Our own weapon of mass destruction was the embargo. An estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died because of sanctions – almost three times the number killed by our bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Our grand air entry, authorized by congress after all of the high priced public relations party propaganda, began 12 January 1991. The cease fire supposedly occurred on 22 February 1991 although some troops did not abide by this. Technically, from the time of the Iraqi invasion to the cease fire, the war lasted six months and twenty days. From all appearances, it was a relatively short war. However, we used other opportunities to bomb Iraq in the interim between 1991 and 2003.

The war against Iraq did not really end when our troops started leaving the gulf on 10 March 1991. It has never really ended from that day to the present time - only the tactics and weapons have changed. The Iraqis fight daily merely to feed themselves and their children and to survive the rigors of disease without medication. They’re helpless as they witness their precious children expire for want of common medicines or food. Where they once enjoyed modern conveniences and reliable health care, many have sold much of what they owned just to exist day to day.

There were many follow-up U.N. resolutions. One resolution 686 dated 2 March 1991 mentions the letter of 27 February 1991 from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq which was addressed to the President of the U.N. Security Council and the Secretary General pledging Iraq’s full compliance with previous resolutions. The next resolution 687 dated 3 April 1991 called for “the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers.” This resolution also mentions letters from the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq dated 3 March and 5 March 1991. Iraq had signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on 1 July 1968 which made the destruction of any such weapons obligatory. [v]

As far as disarmament, Scott Ritter, ex-Marine and former United Nations weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998 testified on 6 February 2003 regarding Colin Powell’s “irrefutable and undeniable” allegations that Iraq was concealing weapons of mass destruction made before the U.N. Security Council in October 2002. Ritter dismissed the allegations and said that they were based on circumstantial evidence. Ritter said that Powell lied and “misled people.” Powell’s questionable testimony used to be on the CIA web site but has been removed. (Kyodo World News Service; 2/6/2003)

Resolution 688 dated 5 April 1991

1.     “Condemns the oppression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

2.     Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to removing the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression, and in the same context expresses the hope that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

3.     Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by all international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and make available all necessary facilities for their operations.” [vi]

Judging from the official documents, Iraq appeared to abide by the U.N. resolutions. Resolution 688 condemned the oppression of the Iraqi civilian population – shouldn’t that include the heinous crime of depriving them of the basics of survival? George H. W. Bush preferred to attribute the serious post war health problems of the Iraqis on Saddam rather than the fact that we had purposely destroyed their entire infrastructure and their water supply which is egregious and completely against the Geneva Convention. This is indicated in a document dated 15 November 1991. [vii]

America appears to be the lackeys for the United Nations. We are the enforcers and we deserve the global heat for our growing heartlessness that is quickly catching up to our hedonism. We waged the war against Iraq in behalf of the United Nations. Our elected politician, George H. W. Bush, sold his soul to the United Nations and got his presidential ego fed. While it appears that the United States is the entity driving the sanctions against Iraq, it was with the complete blessings of the United Nations. Otherwise, we would have been reprimanded appropriately for the very same human abuses that we accuse Saddam of. If the United Nations is supposed to maintain the security of all nations, they certainly fell down on the job when it comes to Iraq. This establishes a precedent as well as a preview for wide scale national abuses – no U.N. compliance – no food. If the globalists succeed in their complete takeover then it will be because of our complacency and the complicity of our elected officials.

A report entitled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities” dated 22 January 1991 said that unless water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid would occur. In May of 1991 cholera and measles were evident in the refugee camps due to inadequate water and poor sanitation. [viii] In the months just after the termination of the war, malnutrition was evident. Diseases always affect the most vulnerable – the young and the elderly. These conditions have not improved.

There have been many justifications offered for the civilian devastation, including the efforts to damage “civilian morale”, especially by the Air Force which claims that Iraqi civilians share some of the blame for Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. “The definition of innocents gets to be a little bit unclear,” states a senior Air Force officer, noting that many Iraqis supported the invasion of Kuwait. “They do live there, and ultimately the people have some control over what goes on in their country.” [ix] The same could be said for the citizens of this country. Are we then guilty for all the infants and children who perished as a result of the sanctions?

How do the Iraqis view us? Do we suppose that they were glad to see us return as “liberators” in 2003? Did they roll out the welcome mat? Do they want us there? [x] I think not. Our economic sanctions have been a continued horrific onslaught against Iraq as well as our own integrity, respect and every shred of human decency.

According to a poll, ninety-eight percent of the Iraqis view us as occupiers. The other two percent are probably the government puppets we have installed who now have a better life as a result of their complicit comradeship with the United States against their own people. Bin Laden contended that one of the three reasons for 9-11 was the death of innocent children due to our sanctions. [xi] The people of other nations have distinct reasons for anger against our foreign policies. [xii]

Lesley Stahl asked the previous U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright about the half million Iraqi children that died. … “That is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright answered: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it. [xiii] How did these words affect the Arab world? THE PRICE IS WORTH IT?” And we wonder at their anger!!! Apparently Albright and Powell, who was not concerned with civilian numbers, have much in common. [xiv] This indifference is appalling!

His military budget under attack and falling in the polls, George H. W. Bush used the Desert Storm victory, claimed to be the “clean war”, in his second bid for the presidency. Something as spectacular as a war victory, even if there wasn’t one, would boost his ratings. It would also enrich his military complex friends, keep congress from cutting military spending and convince the public that the world was still a terrifying place from which they needed protection. [xv] Like father, like son, George W. Bush used the 2003 Iraqi war in his second bid – pretty much vilifying anyone who dared question the war effort as being unpatriotic. This is not a liberal or a conservative issue. It is not a partisan issue.

Our government should be held accountable if they are killing or starving the citizens of another country in our behalf. Are we accountable also? Do our citizens even realize what is going on with our censored media? And please, don’t send me email accusing me of being un-American or being a part of the “Blame America First Crowd” or suggest that I move to France. Our government’s behavior in our behalf is un-American!!!

Though relatively few of our troops died as a direct result of Gulf War combat, tens of thousands are afflicted with a variety of disabling and life threatening psychological and physical symptoms known as Gulf War Syndrome (GWS). The actual causes may include the multiple injections of vaccines, the pesticides used to spray tents, exposure to nerve gas, and the widespread inhalation of depleted uranium dust. It appears that any human being is expendable to further the cause of globalism.

Apparently, son George felt compelled to complete the job his father started – taking out Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t that George H. W. Bush, who lost his 2nd bid for president, didn’t give it his all - tons of depleted uranium tipped munitions and precision guided missiles had been used on a nation one-third smaller than the state of Texas over a forty-three day period. The despicable result of this self serving genocidal war supposedly to liberate Kuwait and save Saudi Arabia from a pretended Iraqi assault, destroyed and continued to negatively affect the country of Iraq and its people. The magnanimous George W. Bush finally called for an end to economic sanctions on 16 Apr 2003. [xvi]  

Fully three fourths of the world's oil reserves are now under U.S. control (Caspian reserves via a trans-Afghanistan pipeline, and two-hundred-fifty billion barrels via Iraqi occupation). The country that controls the oil controls the world. Is this what Albright meant when she said it was worth it?

Go to Part 6 

Bibliography:
Cool War: Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction by Joy Gordon
The Secret Behind the Sanctions by Thomas Nagy
Geneva Convention
Wikipedia
United States Foreign Policy, Ezra Taft Benson
2005 Censored, Peter Phillips & Project Censored
The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski


[i] United Nations Resolutions 1990
[ii] Ibid
[iii] Cool War: Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction by Joy Gordon, Harper’s Magazine, November 2002
[iv] End Iraq Sanctions, Says Bush
[v] United Nations Resolutions 1991
[vi] Ibid
[vii] Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities
[viii] Iraq Water Treatment
[ix] Iraqi Sanctions and American Intentions
[x] Sunnis Demonstrate in Baghdad
[xi] Iraqi Sanctions and American Intentions
[xii] Causes and Consequences, see page 14.
[xiii] Ibid
[xiv] See Bush’s War of Terror, Genocide, Part 4 by Deanna Spingola
[xv] Iraq 1990-1991
[xvi] End Iraq Sanctions, Says Bush

Comments: deannaATspingola.com
To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on this site are written with AT in place of the usual symbol. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address.

Back To Political Points

 © Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved

Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.