Sanctions against Iraq not justified, unfairly punish innocent citizens

By Rod Naber

In his letter, "Sanctions keep world running" (Viewpoint, March
7), Adam Pearlman attempts to justify the suffering of the Iraqi
people by "rationalizing" that regional conflict in the Middle East
would harm them anyway. This is the most insensitive assessment of
the Iraqi tragedy that I have heard. Has the media depiction in
movies and in the news really reduced the Arab people to violent
monsters?

Pearlman cannot justify the deaths of more than a million Iraqis
due to malnourishment and lack of medical supplies just because he
believes that the people would be suffering in a regional war
instead. The United Nations, or should I say the United States and
Great Britain (France, China and Russia have all backed the easing
of the sanctions), have no right to play with the fate of the Iraqi
public. Certain suffering is in no way comparable to possible
suffering, which Pearlman attempts to prove as certain. The saddest
part about this is that the suffering that is taking place could be
avoided if the people could only get basic medication and
nutrition.

It is easy for the U.S. government to ease its conscience by
blaming the Iraqi political regime for hoarding the medical
supplies and food that come from the oil-for-food program
implemented to help the Iraqi people. But this is not a solid
argument. In February, two frustrated senior U.N. officials
resigned from their posts due to the atrocities in Iraq. Both U.N.
Humanitarian Coordinator Hans von Sponeck and U.N. World Food
Program chief Jutta Burghardt have resigned, saying, among other
things, that the regime in Iraq is in no way abusing the
oil-for-food program.

Pearlman also believes that the United States is justified in
using the hypocritical "smoke screen of human rights protection"
because all embargoes "come from a political agenda" and we should
do everything we can to disallow a hegemony in the Middle East to
protect ourselves from a worldwide energy crisis. Under no
circumstances can Pearlman even begin to justify the genocide of
innocent Iraqi people by citing our concerns over a possible energy
crisis.

At least Pearlman admits to the possibility of a smoke screen by
the government. This "smoke screen," as Pearlman calls it, is also
known as a lie. Beyond the well-being of the innocent Iraqi people,
the citizens of this country must be concerned with the use of lies
by our government. Pearlman should see that the use of "smoke
screening," not only in Iraq but also in many other situations,
will lead to distrust in the political system and the ultimate
demise of representative government. This is an issue that the
citizens of this country can never accept.

Pearlman may be correct in observing that the Middle East has
had more than its share of regional conflicts, but this is no basis
for asserting that the Iraqi people would suffer with or without
the sanctions.

According to a 1996 report by the World Health Organization,
prior to the Persian Gulf War, 93 percent of Iraqis had health
care, 90 percent had safe drinking water, the average life
expectancy was 66 years old, and the infant mortality rate was 52
for every 1,000 births. Iraq was one of the richest, most
resourceful, most technologically advanced countries in the Middle
East and had a well-developed infrastructure.

Today, Iraq has been decimated by 10 years of sanctions and
continued air strikes, leaving the water undrinkable, the infant
mortality rate sky-rocketing, the infrastructure destroyed and the
sick untreatable.