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]