War on Want's full statement on Iraq

Ending poverty and introducing social justice are both vital to peace and stability and reinforced by peace and stability. In the Middle East, as elsewhere, achieving peace and security can only go hand in hand with ending poverty. We have seen this in the impoverishment of whole regions and particularly in recent years through the effects of conflict on the Palestinian people.

Throughout its 50-year history, War on Want has consistently criticised totalitarian regimes, which have denied social, political and economic rights to their citizens. We are clear that the ruling Ba’athist regime brutally suppresses such rights. However, this is not the end of the story. Iraq is home to marginalised and impoverished groups of people that have been innocent victims of war alongside Western-led sanctions and previous bombing campaigns.

Poverty in Iraq is on the increase. Life expectancy is falling, infant mortality is rising and malnutrition is unacceptably high (1). Since the Gulf War Iraq's economy has teetered on the brink. A UN Report from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs published in January 2003 stated that 55% of Iraqis lived in poverty in the late 1990s. Unemployment is at least 50% and inflation hovers at around 100% (2). Sanctions and bombing have hit hard.

It is too easy to say that all the suffering of the Iraqi people should be laid directly at the door of Saddam Hussein. The action of external forces has been one of the principal drivers of this suffering and any escalation of bombing or other military action against Iraq would exacerbate an already very serious situation. More children will die and more long-term damage will be done to the economy and to regional stability. War on Want does not accept that such an outcome can be described as humanitarian.

War causes poverty

The initial impetus for the creation of War on Want in the early 1950s was the belief of our founders that the Korean war was a costly and damaging diversion away from the most important international priority: the war on world poverty.

The facts about the Gulf War would have led our founders to the same view. The world may have changed in many ways over the past 50 years, but one thing has not changed: war not only causes poverty but also diverts essential resources away from the war on poverty.

Between January 17 and February 28, 1991, 110,000 aerial sorties were launched against Iraq, averaging one every 30 seconds, dropping 88,500 tons of explosives, the equivalent of seven Hiroshima bombs. This was by far the most intensive bombardment in history. It killed tens of thousands of people, injuring many more.

In the event of a second war in Iraq, the UNHCR claims that the potential number of refugees and asylum seekers resulting from conflict could reach 1.45 million. Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia will not permit refugees to cross the border. Up to 900,000 refugees are predicted to flee to Iran where they will be allowed to cross, but contained in camps on the border. (3)

The lessons of the of first Gulf War offer a prescient reminder:

• The bombing devastated water systems, as well as urban sewage and sanitation systems nationwide.
• Food production, processing, storage, distribution, and marketing facilities were widely destroyed. Animal herds were decimated.
• Fertilizer and insecticide plants and storage structures were destroyed.
• Communications systems, telephone, radio and television were shattered.
• Petroleum production, refining, storage and distribution from well to service station were severely impaired across the nation.
• Some 25,000,000 ounces of depleted uranium remain, dropped by US aircraft and missiles. These have caused enormous increases in illnesses from tuberculosis to leukaemia and other cancers, tumours and malformations in foetuses.

Sanctions cause poverty

Each year under sanctions, the death rate has risen in Iraq. The numbers of deaths have been reported internationally regularly and updated each month since 1991. The World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Food Program, UNICEF and others have found and confirmed the deaths time and again.

Approximate annual deaths of children in Iraq under the age of five from respiratory infection, diarrhoea and gastro-enteritis and malnutrition are:

• 1989: 7,000
• 1991: 27,000
• 1994: 53,000
• 1997: 59,000
• 1998: 71,000
• 1999: 80,000

The annual number of deaths of children under age five grew more than tenfold. Total deaths of children under age five from these selected causes alone during 1990 to 2001 were at least 585,000.(4)

While children under the age of five are the most vulnerable age group, except for the elderly, every age group has suffered radical increases in the numbers of deaths. Members of the population with serious chronic illnesses requiring regular medication, or therapy, suffer the highest percentages of death of any sectors, approaching 100% for some illnesses where survival rates were as high as 95% before sanctions.

The Food And Agriculture Organisation Of The United Nations Survey results from 2000 indicate that more than 10 percent of the children under five show signs of wasting (their weight is too low for their height), a symptom of acute malnutrition. (5)

Iraq today: war + sanctions = even greater poverty

The health of Iraqi people is now worse than in 1990. In 2000 Iraq was 126th out of 174 in UN’s Human Development Index. In 1990, it was 50th out of 130. On these measures, Iraq in the year 2000 was at broadly comparable levels to India, Laos, Yemen and Haiti.(6)

In the event of second war in Iraq, half a million Iraqis would need medical treatment of which half would be children.

Basic health infrastructure cannot support the population in event of crisis. A shortage of basic drugs and vaccines could lead to an outbreak of measles with deadly consequences. Clinics and hospitals would run out of drugs between 3 and 4 weeks after conflict begins. (7)

The Iraqi regime is abhorrent but weak

In the absence of any international consensus, War on Want is deeply concerned that the US and the UK will prosecute military action through bilateral action. We urge the United Nations to find a peaceful and lasting solution to the regional instability in the Middle East. We believe that wholesale attacks on Iraq may well further destabilise the entire region with lasting effects on other disputes, particularly the ongoing conflict in Palestine.

One central root of instability in the region is the Israel/Palestine conflict, and in particular the continuing illegal occupation of the West Bank by Israel. War on Want believes that a US-led military campaign against Iraq coupled with continued financial and military support for Israel’s flouting of UN resolutions will make the whole region even more unstable. It will also strengthen the hand of those organisations that use terror against civilian populations in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 it did appear that was a potential recognition that the international community needed an urgent solution of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Not only has a solution to this conflict been relegated even further down the international agenda, but the potential addition of a new conflict is likely to exacerbate the Israel/Palestine conflict.

War on Want fully understands that the Iraqi regime is a thoroughly undemocratic and brutal one. It is also has stated expansionist aims and historically has shown its odious ambitions.

But a measure of pragmatism is surely needed when dealing with such an administration. An attack now could further destabilise and retrench Iraq. There is by no means a consensus in the region about such action, and the Arab league and the African Union have opposed US action. Indeed most Iraqi opposition groups do not agree with a US-led military strike, and most continue to oppose sanctions. (8)

There are many other governments around the world that could also fit the aggressor profile and who may potentially pose a threat to other countries. Many states are also currently illegally occupying other countries and using force to assert territorial claims with relative impunity.

Iraq has suffered huge military and economic damage in recent years. Most experts agree that it could not, in the foreseeable future, mount attacks of any substance on neighbours or indeed the US or UK. Scott Ritter, former Chief UN weapons inspector for Iraq, says that the US is grossly overestimating the threat:

“Since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories”. (9)

Democratic, secular forces in Iraq that could foster human development and unite the country under a non-aggressive stance would mean a better life for most Iraqis. It seems unlikely, however, that such forces would come to power through US-led military action. The Iraqi opposition is fractured and divided, indicating that to maintain Iraq as a single state with its current borders may result not in liberation for all Iraqis, but in the continued oppression of some ethnic groups.

There is no reason to believe that the transition to democracy in Iraq can be swift, peaceful, humanitarian or truly liberating if organized primarily by the US under military occupation. Furthermore, those in opposition that the US seems to favour include a former general who is under investigation in Denmark for war crimes. (10)

Instability and poverty in the Middle East

We fully understand from our work in Palestine, Western Sahara and other areas in conflict that stability and justice are central to defeating poverty. The instability in the Middle East stems partly from years of inappropriate Western intervention. Oil interests and arms dealers have played a major role in this. Regional military expenditures, at an average of 7%-8% of GDP, are significantly more than any other region of the developing world. (11) Despite 30 years of large oil revenues, the Middle East has fallen behind in human development terms - with one in five Arabs living on less than $2 a day. (12)

It has been well documented that Western military firms, with the support of Western governments have been crucial backers of the Iraqi military. This policy was pursued when Iran was considered to be the greatest threat to western interests. This was part of a deliberate but ill thought-out policy on behalf of the West that has ultimately led to an unstable environment. (13)

A more holistic and integrated approach is needed to the problems in the Middle East and a developmental, human rights-based approach, rather than corporate or strategic interests should drive Western foreign policies in the region. This is what War on Want would describe as a true “ethical foreign policy”.

The war we want

War on Want supports lasting and, wherever possible, peaceful solutions to conflict. We believe that social, economic and human justice is central peace and stability. Peoples throughout the Middle East and North Africa, from the Kurds to the Palestinians to the Saharawi, are denied their human rights in terms of self-determination and human development.

The world spends far more resources on arms than on development. In 2001, the US alone spent in excess of $300 billion a year on arms. This year it will spend nearly $400 billion. Meanwhile the total spent in the entire world on fighting poverty last year was less than $60 billion. This represents an unacceptable imbalance in global priorities.

A war with Iraq will cost $9 billion per month – the same as it would cost to provide primary education for every child in the world. After 10 weeks, the war will have cost $20 billion – which is what it would cost to halve the number of people living in poverty globally.

If future conflicts are to be avoided then we need to turn these stark figures on their heads. Achieving justice and ending poverty must be the central concerns of the rich world if we are serious about peace and stability. This is why War on Want believes that another massive military campaign against Iraq will not bring durable peace, human development and stability to the Middle East. (14)

Sources

1. Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General’s Report 1999
2. UNDP Country Office Report, 2000
3. UNHCR Report, January 2003
4. IA Centre, Washington, 2002
5. Joint FAO/WFP mission to Iraq, 2000
6. UNDP Human Development Reports 1990 and 2002
7. UNHCR Report, January 2003
8. BBC News Online, 20 August, 2002
9. Guardian Special Report on Iraq, 2002
10. According to the Observer General Nizar al-Khazri has been accused of being a central figure in massacres of the Kurds in 1998.
11. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, ‘Military and social expenditure as a share of GDP’, 1996-2000 & Campaign Against Arms Trade, ‘The Arms Trade, Debt & Development’, May 1999
12. UNDP, Arab Human Development Report, 2002
13. Kenneth R. Timmerman, ‘The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq’, 1992
14. CBO Report: ‘Estimated Costs of a Potential Conflict With Iraq’ September 2002