The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion
List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Re: can we trust Iraqi sources?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "farbuthnot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: can we trust Iraqi sources?
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:34:31 +0000
----------
>From: andrew mandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Voices uk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: can we trust Iraqi sources?
>Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2001, 7:53 pm
>
> Hi.
> i had a question regarding the figures that may have been already
answered
> but if so i missed it. How accurate would the pre 1991 mortality
rates be
> that I suppose are the basis for sanction related death estimates.
It seems
> coming out of the Iran Iraq war it would have been in the governments
> interest to see those figures deflated to add to the sense
of the "victory
> that wasn't" if those rates were deflated obviously that would
make things
> even more messy.
> Andrew
>
> At 07:38 PM 12/17/01 -0000, Voices uk wrote:
>>I've not much to add to Per's e-mail, except perhaps to stress
that these
>>remarks extend beyond the child mortality figures (which seem
to be the
>>focus of Per's e-mail). It's a matter of historical record
that the Iraqi
>>Government has often put out figures - and made statements
- that are either
>>misleading, false or inconsistent with earlier figures / statements
of their
>>own (and, as Per says, they are also clearly *not* a disinterested
party).
>>
>>Dirk actually sent me a classic example last week - an AFP
report (December
>>5th) in which the Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammad Mehdi Saleh
'accused the UN
>>sanctions committee ... of blocking six billion worth of contracts
concluded
>>within the framework of the "oil-for-food" program.' According
to this
>>report Saleh claimed that 'six billion dollars worth of contracts
were
>>*still* blocked by the UN sanctions committee' (emphasis added,
unlike the
>>report Glenn mentions there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity
here). Of
>>course, the reporter had no problem finding out - and reporting
- that there
>>were actually $4.37 billion worth of goods on hold.
>>
>>Finally, Dirk wrote that 'There have been so many "independent
reports",
>>with "independent figures".' However if we're talking about
child mortality
>>figures this isn't actually true. Indeed, in his March '99
'Morbidity and
>>Mortality' paper Richard Garfield noted that, whilst there
was good data
>>available on child nutrition, water quality and a number of
other social and
>>health indicators which influence child mortality, data was
'not available
>>from any reliable studies on mortality since 1991' (the oft-cited
1995 FAO
>>mission study 'suffered from serious flaws in methods and interpretation'
>>and its results were subsequently withdrawn by its authors).
This remained
>>the case until the August '99 UNICEFsurvey.
>>
>>If it weren't for the UNICEF report the pro-sanctions lobby
would find it
>>much easier to claim that the humanitarian crisis was a propaganda
>>fabrication, or deny its scale (for a good - if extreme - example
of this
>>see eg. Anthony Cordemann's book 'Iraq and the War of Sanctions').
I think
>>it's also fair to say that the UNICEF report played an important
role in
>>shifting public opinion over here in the UK.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Gabriel
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Dirk Adriaensens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Per
>>Klevnäs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: 16 December 2001 18:02
>>Subject: Re: can we trust Iraqi sources?
>>
>>
>>Dear Per and others,
>>
>>Prof.Waterlow, the "pope" of the nutritionists, wrote a letter
in november
>>1991 to the Lancet, appealing at the UN to monitor child mortality
and the
>>food situation on a monthly basis (J.C. Waterlow, "Malnutrition
in Iraq" in
>>The Lancet, 338,ii,23/11/1991). The answer in the Lancet of
21-28/12/1991: "
>>there is compelling evidence that economic sanctions against
Iraq have led
>>to dangerous shortage of essential commodities, including food
and medicine.
>>Immediate action, rather than statistical analyses, is what's
needed to
>>avert a public health disaster in that country". A report of
the WHO ("The
>>effect of Embargo on Iraqi Children health status") in 1993
says: " it is
>>not necessary to do another study to demonstrate that the embargo
has a
>>negative impact on the health status of the Iraqi children.
What will the
>>political decision be if there is an increase of mortality
with 200 or 400%.
>>Does it really depend on the amount of the increase? Is there
a figure past
>>which the embargo is no longer tolerated on humanitarian grounds?"
>>There have been so many "independent reports", with "independent
figures".
>>The Harvard Study Team, "The effect of the Gulf Crisis on the
Children of
>>Iraq, published in the New England Journal Of Medicine, 1991.
There was the
>>International Study Team, "Infant and Child Mortality and Nutritional
Status
>>of Iraqi children after the Gulf Conflict", Cambridge, april
1992. There was
>>the FAO report in 1993 "Nutritional Status Assessment Report"
And so on, and
>>so on. Report after "independent" report has been written.
What has been
>>done with the information in all these reports? Not much really.
We are
>>almost 2002 now, and still the child mortality is increasing,
and in 6
>>months time Iraq might be looking at the worst of things: the
"smart
>>sanctions" or even a new war. Of course it is important to
have the correct
>>facts & figures, but that is only one side of the medal. The
other side is
>>the analysis on why these sanctions are held in place. And
there the answer
>>is: oil, natural resources and the Iraqi will to reign over
their own
>>resources, independently from Western multinationals and their
New World
>>Order. There you have the reason for the creation of this humanitarian
>>disaster. I think that the focus should be on both sides of
the medal. We
>>have to express our solidarity with the Iraqi people in their
struggle
>>against this New World Order. Otherwise "we risk to drown an
emotional and
>>humanly sensitive topic in dry numbers and discussion about
statistics", as
>>Per puts it.
>>Greetings.
>>Dirk Adriaensens.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Per Klevnäs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "Dirk Adriaensens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 12:30 PM
>>Subject: Re: can we trust Iraqi sources?
>>
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> First of all, I would like to note what has previously been
said on this
>>> discussion list in relation to this topic: we risk to drown
an emotional
>>and
>>> humanly sensitive topic in dry numbers and discussion about
statistics. I
>>> hope the below discussion can nonetheless be justified.
In my view, the
>>> most powerful tool we have in engaging with those who disagree
with us on
>>> this issue is good information, and maintaining a credibility
that makes
>>it
>>> possible for others - especially those who do not agree with
out
>>initially -
>>> to believe the information we present to be correct.
>>>
>>> The most detailed critique of Government of Iraq figures
I have read is in
>>> an article by Amatzia Baram in the Middle East
>>> Journal(http://www.mideasti.org/articles/baram.html). I
disagree with
>>> Baram's overall conclusion (that sanctions is the least worst
option), but
>>> think that many of statements he makes about the figures
of the Government
>>> of Iraq are plausible: its statistics are often are often
internally
>>> inconsistent, too precise to be possible, presented without
any account of
>>> the methodology used to arrive at them, and - crucially -
tainted by a
>>> clearly identifiable political interest that would serve
to inflate them.
>>> This is not to say that they are always incorrect: in fact,
the 1999
>>Unicef
>>> mortality study arrived at a figure which was remarkably
similar to that
>>of
>>> excess under-five deaths which had previously been presented
by the Iraqi
>>> Ministry of Health.
>>>
>>> However, it is precisely because it can be corroborated with
Unicef's
>>figure
>>> that we know the Ministry of Health claim to have (at least
quantitative)
>>> substance. Without impartial verification, we would end
up in a situation
>>> where argument is from authority only, and the basis for
our claims would
>>be
>>> that for various reasons we trust the Government of Iraq
to be right.
>>This
>>> we might choose to do, but we have no good basis for asking
others to do
>>so.
>>> Instead they might, with the same argument from authority,
choose another
>>> authority: say, the US State Department or the UK FCO, which
claim that
>>the
>>> Iraqi figures are entirely unreliable and that we do not
know that
>>sanctions
>>> have caused any harm. In my view, this polarisation of the
discussion of
>>> sanctions is not helpful, as it cannot lead anywhere as long
as people
>>> choose to rely on different authorities. To us, this is
nonsense, but
>>there
>>> the discussion simply comes to and end. At its worst, such
discussion has
>>> tended to obscure the desperately important message we have:
that our
>>policy
>>> on Iraq is contributing to a humanitarian disaster.
>>>
>>> The situation would be different if there was no other information,
but as
>>> it is not, we do not actually need to rely on Iraqi government
claims.
>>> There is much other information on which to draw. One of
the most telling
>>> aspects of Amatzia Baram's (Spring 2000) article was that
although it
>>> purports to discuss under-five mortality in Iraq, it is entirely
silent on
>>> Unicef's 1999 survey, which studies precisly this. This
is disingenuous:
>>> what reason is there to omit from a detailed discussion the
only impartial
>>> and most comprehensive survey we know of? Information on
living standards
>>> in Iraq under sanctions is publicly available: from Unicef,
from the FAO
>>and
>>> WFP, from the WHO, and many independent studies, to argue
conclusively
>>that
>>> the decade of economic sanctions has been one of a humanitarian
disaster
>>in
>>> Iraq.
>>>
>>> I personally think this information is more than enough to
argue against
>>> sanctions. While including Iraqi government statements in
our argument
>>> might sharpen the rhetorical edge of our claims somewhat,
by slapping
>>> (generally) higher and more numerically precise figures on
what other,
>>> impartial sources have already told us, they do so at the
desperately high
>>> price of undermining the credibility of what we are saying.
It gives
>>> precious ammunition for the proponents of continued economic
sanctions,
>>> adding actual substance to the claim that we are merely dupes
of the
>>> Saddam's regime. And, crucially, we would not have any way
of ridding
>>> ourselves of this claim: repeating a claim that is correct
(whether in
>>> substance or in absolute) does little good if one cannot
say why it is
>>true.
>>>
>>> In this situation, relying on Iraqi claims that cannot be
independently
>>> verified does us little good. More importantly, I personally
believe that
>>> it does little good for the process of ending sanctions.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Per Klevnäs
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions
on Iraq
>>For removal from list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>CASI's website - www.casi.org.uk - includes an archive of all
postings.
>>
>>
>>--
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions
on Iraq
>>For removal from list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>CASI's website - www.casi.org.uk - includes an archive of all
postings.
>>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions
on Iraq
> For removal from list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CASI's website - www.casi.org.uk - includes an archive of all
postings.
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions
on Iraq
For removal from list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CASI's website - www.casi.org.uk - includes an archive of all
postings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prev by Date: Re: War against Iraq: yes and no !!
Next by Date: 9/11 tragedy considered Israel's "Hannukah miracle"
Prev by thread: RE: can we trust Iraqi sources?
Next by thread: Letter From Ramsey Clark to the UN Security Council.
Index(es):
Date
Thread
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
>--- Original Message ---
>From: Rakesh Bhandari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 12/27/01 1:18:12 PM
>
>michael pugliese wrote:
>
>> On the Iraq #ers, that was from The
>>Nation and the background stuff I added about David Cortright
>>was a fyi in the interests of just saying in effect this not
>>some guy like Anthony Cordesman from the Georgetown CSIS or
some
>>such.
>
>well i found this article pretty unhelpful. were given no reasons
why
>the estimates were at odds. we were not told why cortright had
>limited himself to child mortality in estimating impact of sanctions.
>we were not told what kinds of indirect deaths were excluded
from the
>estimates that he found reliable.
>
>his analysis of the oil for food program and the life indicator
>disparaties in the North and South is at odds with the cambridge
>group's. He does not try to resolve the arguments in a systematic
way.
>
>i really couldn't believe that the nation would run something
so
>shoddy analytically on such an important topic.
>
>
>>I get so tired of (others, not you!) exaggerated figures on
the
>>deaths due to sanctions. When the truth is horrible why inflate?
>
>or deflate.
>
>Rakesh
>
>
>
