Letter: Iraq sanctions
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: While I do not wish to get into a detailed debate with Mr Pilger about his article "The world's worst terrorists are based in Washington" (Review, 25 August), I must point out that there were some serious factual errors relating to the Iraq sanctions regime.
Firstly, it is important to emphasise that food and medicines have never been subject to sanctions. UN Security Council Resolution 661 exempts "supplies intended strictly for medical purposes and... foodstuffs" and Resolution 687 extends this exemption to "materials and supplies for essential civilian needs". It is quite clear that the import into Iraq of baby food, enriched powdered milk and vital hospital equipment is not in any way prevented by the sanctions regime. Indeed, given Saddam's refusal to provide for his own people, the UN set up the oil-for-food programme which ensures that such items are sent to Iraq.
Secondly, I must point out that sanctions are not the cause of the Iraqi people's plight. Sanctions, which were introduced following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, are aimed at the Iraqi regime and not at the people. When first imposed they aimed to encourage Iraq to withdraw its forces from Kuwait. All that Saddam has to do in order to have sanctions lifted is to comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
Given Saddam's profligate expenditure on numerous luxurious presidential palaces since the Gulf War, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that he has deliberately taken a cynical decision to allow the Iraqi people to starve in order to increase the pressure on the international community to give in and lift sanctions. I regret that Mr Pilger has been taken in by the Iraqi regime's propaganda.
JOHN SPELLAR
Under-Secretary of State for Defence
Ministry of Defence
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments