Myth 1. Economic sanctions are more humane than military attacks.

Economic sanctions against industrialized countries, which include a ban
on foreign trade, can be more lethal than limited military attacks.
According to reports published in the New England Medical Journal and
the Lancet (the British medical journal), the U. N. sanctions on Iraq
have claimed far more deaths than the deadly Gulf War in 1991. The
reason is that by blocking foreign trade to a country that depends on
foreign trade for its survival, the very life of civilians is
threatened. Before the sanctions began, Iraq imported up to 70 percent
of its food. The lack of food and medical supplies and spare parts in
Iraq, due to the sanctions and the stringent constraints even on
humanitarian imports imposed by the United Nations, have caused untold
sufferings for the general population. One of the consequences of the
sanctions is that child mortality in Iraq tripled, causing the estimated
death of 2,000 or more children each week, in addition to previous
mortality.

Myth 2. The Security Council resolution to impose economic sanctions on
Iraq is in accordance with the U. N. Charter and is thus legally
binding.

Article 41 of the Charter indeed permits the use of economic sanctions:
"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of
armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it
may call upon Members of the United Nations to apply measures. These may
include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of
rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of
communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."

But the implementation of this article is conditional upon the
fulfillment of Article 39, which states:

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the
peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and
security."

The Security Council has not made the above determination, nor has it
resorted to Article 40, which enables the Council to take provisional
measures - "in order to prevent the aggravation of the situation (...)
before making the recommendations [referred to in Article 39] or
deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39..."
Moreover, the implementation of Article 41 is not mandatory upon the
Council, even in the case a positive determination had been made in
accordance with Article 39. Even if a decision was made to impose
sanctions, the Council has discretionary powers to determine the extent
of the sanctions imposed in accordance with Article 41. In determining
the extent of sanctions, the Council is expected to evaluate the gravity
of the threat to world peace as well as the nature and extent of the
breach allegedly committed by the offending state. After the Iraqi army
was defeated and the sovereignty of Kuwait restored, there was no case
to be made of a threat to world peace, which would justify any action
under Article 41.

Those breaches of human rights violations reported from Iraq and the
attitude of the Iraqi regime towards the development and stockade of
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are not specific to that
country and have been reported in numerous other countries that are
neither subject to Security Council measures nor to any form of
sanctions. China has been occupying Tibet (an act in violation to the
Charter) and Israel is occupying Palestinian and other Arab territories
in violation of Security Council resolutions, without incurring any
sanctions. Israel moreover has refused to sign the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, has developed chemical and biological weapons
of mass destruction, and resists international inspection of its nuclear
facilities, without the international censure that's mounted at Iraq.
Additionally, American taxpayers fund an annual aid in excess of $3.5
billion to Israel.

Numerous governments worldwide are reported for committing grave and
massive human rights violations, including systematic torture,
extra-judicial killings, repression of minorities without incurring
international wrath. The governments having a permanent seat in the
Security Council have all committed violations against the Charter,
including aggression against other states' sovereignty and
extra-judicial killings, without any sanctions imposed on them.
Decisions by such a partisan body cannot be considered as having the
force of international law, that of a court or that of a moral
authority.

Finally the implementation of Article 41 does not overrule other
obligations incurred in the Charter, particularly Article 1, which
specifies the Purposes of the United Nations, and Article 2, which
specifies the Principles under which the Organization and its Members
shall act. These Purposes and Principles include:

a. "To bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the
principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the
peace."

b. "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take
other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."

c. "To achieve international co-operation in solving international
problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex,
language, or religion."

d. "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any State, or in any manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations."

Thus, the decision by the Security Council to impose sanctions on Iraq
is legally flawed, as it violates both the letter and spirit of the
Charter. Moreover the Council has not explored all avenues to solve the
outstanding problems between the United Nations Organization and the
Government of Iraq by peaceful means and without undue hardship to the
Iraqi population. Such glaring omission indicates the intent of the
Council to seek confrontation rather than a solution to problems, which
in turn undermines the authority of Council decisions.

Myth 3. The sanctions against Iraq are aimed at the Iraqi regime, not at
its people.

One can assume the nature and extent of the sanctions on Iraq, its known
consequences, including the dramatic increase in child mortality, hunger
and epidemics, are facts that are known to the Security Council. The
Security Council is certainly aware that the population at large in Iraq
is the main victim of the sanctions, not the elite of the country,
against which the sanctions are supposedly aimed. As the Security
Council repeatedly decided to maintain these sanctions, one must
conclude that the consequences derived from the sanctions are not
incidental but intentional. Notwithstanding verbal claims by Council
members, that they have no issue with the Iraqi people, the evidence of
massive impoverishment, malnutrition, disease and death ensuing from the
sanctions, belies such claims.

Myth 4. The aim of the sanctions is to undermine Saddam's Hussein's
regime.

International law provides mandatory tools to bring to justice
individuals allegedly responsible for the commission of grave breaches
of the Geneva Conventions. Among such individuals figure Iraq's
President, Saddam Hussein, for acts committed in connection with the
repression of the Kurdish minority, the Shi'ites in the South of Iraq
and regarding war crimes committed during the invasion and occupation of
Kuwait. The states supporting the sanctions against the Iraqi population
have not called for any legal action against the person of Saddam
Hussein or any of his aides for alleged war crimes and crimes against
peace, as international law though requires. Such act of omission belies
the above claim that the sanctions are aimed at the person of Saddam
Hussein. Evidence published in mainstream Israeli and U.S. press
moreover indicates that the United States and Israel are not unhappy
with the continuing rule by Saddam Hussein. Security Council members,
including permanent members Britain, France, Russia and China, have
clearly indicated by statements, official visits and the signature of
agreements with the Iraqi government, they are willing to resume trade
with the Hussein administration, once sanctions are lifted.

The true aim of the sanctions thus appears not to punish a loathsome
individual and his police state but to destroy any attempt by the Iraqi
nation to become an economic (and military) power in the Middle East,
which might challenge Western control of the region and its resources.
For such an aim to succeed, it is necessary to impoverish the Iraqi
people and block its economic, social and technological development and
prevent true democracy. This explains why the Western alliance inflicted
such extensive damage to the Iraqi infrastructure, including power
stations, water purification installations and the productive capacity
of the country, in the Gulf War, a devastation that had no direct
military advantage and was thus unrelated to the aim of liberating
Kuwait. For the same reasons the trade sanctions against Iraq also
include educational materials, such as school supplies, textbooks and
scientific journals.

Myth 5. Sanctions have defeated South African apartheid.

The black majority in South Africa has struggled for decades against
apartheid. Its recognized representative, the African National Congress
and the ANC's recognized leader, Nelson Mandela, have appealed to the
world community to support their struggle against the white minority
rule with selective economic sanctions. They considered that such
sanctions would positively contribute to their own struggle. When making
these demands, the victims of apartheid, constituting the majority of
the population in South Africa, took upon themselves to share the burden
of the sanctions. These sanctions in themselves would not have broken
apartheid. Only as a complement to the struggle of the South African
masses themselves, the sanctions proved effective. The sanctions against
South African apartheid did not violate the principle of
self-determination. In fact they helped the South African people to gain
this right. Thus it is not correct to attribute to the sanctions the
defeat of apartheid, but to the courageous struggle of the majority of
South Africans. It should be noted that those countries at the forefront
of punishing the Iraqis, have been the last ones to support the ANC's
call for sanctions.

The cases of Iraq, Serbia and Libya do not present similarities to South
Africa for the simple reason that the people of these countries have not
requested sanctions against their countries. Although we do not know the
exact extent of opposition to the regime in the above countries, we know
that even opposition groups do not approve of the sanctions, or have
voiced reservations regarding the way the sanctions have been
implemented and affected ordinary people. Sanctions that are aimed
indiscriminately against the populations of these countries have no
justification whatsoever because they represent the denial of the right
of a people to self-determination. Such denial is, according to the
definition proposed by the International Law Commission (a U. N. GA
body), an international crime. The international community cannot make
decisions that ultimately have to be taken by the people inhabiting
these countries, namely whether to change the regime and if so, by what
means. If the people of Iraq were to rise up against the Hussein regime
and request international assistance -- whether in the forms of arms or
trade sanctions -- such assistance might be regarded compatible with
international law, if it could be shown that such an assistance empowers
the people to fulfill their right to self-determination.

Myth 6. The Iraqi people want to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi people as a whole have not requested from the international
community any assistance to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. One
of the reasons is that the Iraqi regime, although very repressive, has
brought significant benefits to the general population, such as free
primary health care, a relatively good educational system,
electrification of most of the country and some affluence. The regime is
secular although religion is tolerated. Women are allowed greater
freedom than in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which are
Western allies. Iraqi teachers and specialists can be found in less
advanced Arabic countries, such as Yemen, as Iraq was regarded -- before
its devastation by allied bombing attacks -- as one of the most
developed Arab countries, where many Arabs spent their university years.
The technical development of Iraq can be gauged to some extent by the
fact that Iraq had nuclear ambitions. Iraq therefore represented a
potential military power in the Middle East and for many Arabs a symbol
redeeming Arab honor and pride. This explains why it has been--and still
is--so important for the United States and Britain, who control the oil
supply of the Middle East, to bring the Iraqi nation to its knees, block
its development and destroy its potential. An authoritarian regime,
compliant to Western demands, such as Saudi Arabia, is much preferable
to the Wall Street financiers than a truly democratic Arab regime. This
is one of the reasons for the lack of democracy in the oil-producing
countries of the Middle-East.

There are groups of Iraqis who courageously struggle against the regime
from within and take thereby great personal risks. These are probably
the only people who have the moral right to request from the world
community any assistance, including the imposition of trade sanctions.
Any international action to bring about democracy to Iraq and compliance
with human rights conventions must be coordinated with and endorsed by
true representatives of the Iraqi people themselves, and especially by
people who bear the brunt of the struggle for changes.

One of the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi population is that
people, who might under different conditions, have the motivation, time
and resources to build an effective opposition to Hussein's
dictatorship, do little more now than attempt to physically survive.
This situation has in fact strengthened the ability of the regime to
control the population through selective rationing and licensing. Groups
and regions that support the regime are allotted higher food rations
than areas where opposition can be discerned. Iraqi opposition figures,
living in Europe, have at numerous times warned against these
counter-productive effects of the U. N. sanctions.

Myth 7. The sanctions are legitimate for ending the repression of Kurds
and Shi'ites.

Requests for assistance from oppressed Iraqi minorities, such as the
Kurds in the North and the Shi'ites in the South, have been made. Such
assistance, including the provision of arms for self-defense,
international protection and humanitarian assistance, can under certain
circumstances be legitimized under existing international law and
principles of justice, especially if the oppressed minorities would
claim the right for self-determination and press for an independent,
sovereign state. In such cases, Iraqi government interference with these
minorities' rights would constitute an act of aggression as defined in
the U. N. Charter and this in turn would permit the invocation of
applicable Charter articles permitting U. N. action. As long however as
such oppressed minorities are not ready to secede from Iraq, their
demand for foreign military intervention or sanctions cannot be met
without undermining the very foundations of the U. N. Charter. In such
cases the Security Council would be at pains to invoke Chapter VII of
the Charter in coming to their defense. This situation contrasts
particularly with that of that of Bosnia, which has an international
legal standing, is recognized as a sovereign state and can invoke
international law and the U. N. Charter for its defense.

Regardless of the legal complexities regarding the nature, extent and
legitimacy of international assistance to Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites,
blank trade sanctions on the Iraqi population certainly cannot figure
among such assistance as such sanctions do not have any direct bearings
on alleged government attacks against these minorities.

Myth 8. The U. N. sanctions include provisions allowing Iraq to import
foodstuffs and medicine for humanitarian purposes.

The U. N. Security Council was aware of the obligation, as reflected in
the Geneva Conventions, to respect humanitarian needs of civil
populations in a conflict. Thus provisions were included allowing Iraq
to sell oil with the aim to enable Iraq to purchase foodstuffs and
medicine. In practice these provisions are constrained by so many
requirements that their effectiveness is in fact nullified.

To begin with, any trade transactions covered by the humanitarian
provisions of the SC resolutions have to be approved by the U. N.
Sanctions Committee. The procedure involved is both very long--often
taking several months--and complicated. In many cases the length of the
procedure makes any competitive bidding practically impossible. The U.
N. Sanctions Commission has to obtain very detailed information about
each transaction, including the identity of the foreign supplier/buyer,
prices, quantities, delivery details, and other such factors.

Although Iraq is allowed to sell oil to enable it to import food and
medicines, the amount in question stands in no relation to the needs of
the Iraqi population. Sale of oil from Iraq is administered by a U. N.
-appointed commission, which deducts from the proceeds over 60% to cover
U. N.-imposed compensations to Kuwaiti citizens, U. N. operations in
Iraq and the cost of the U. N.-appointed commission, which administers
Iraq's oil sales. It is not surprising that the Iraqi government refuses
to accede to such humiliating conditions and has therefore been loath to
avail itself of this U. N. humanitarian generosity. Probably no Iraqi
government, even the most democratic one, would comply with the
draconian demands for compensation imposed unilaterally by the Security
Council and which, if respected, would prevent the economic development
of the Iraqi people for generations to come.

And even if one accepts that the Iraqi government bears part of the
responsibility for the sufferings of the Iraqi people -- by refusing to
comply with the U. N. imposed conditions for importing food and medicine
-- this does not exonerate the U. N. Security Council and U. N.
members, from their responsibility in ensuring the well-being of the
captive Iraqi population.

It should be added that the U. N. sanctions strictly prohibit the
import into Iraq of products that are not basically humanitarian in
character, such as spare parts for personal computers, wheels for
tractors and thousands of products necessary for rebuilding the
productive capacity of the Iraqi economy. Even books, including
scientific and educational material, are banned. The effect of the
sanctions, if not their direct intent, is to maintain the Iraqi people
as welfare recipients, depending on the good will of the U. N. and at
the mercy of its foes. The Iraqi government, and most probably most
Iraqis, object to such humiliating treatment by the international
community.

Myth 9. Member states of the U. N. must participate in the sanctions
decided by the Security Council.

Although formally correct, this statement is not entirely true. The
Security Council is not the government of the world. Its decisions have
some authority but they can be challenged.

As the Security Council is not a body representing the collective will
of the international community (which is represented by the General
Assembly) but a forum where a select group of states (the permanent
members) wield special privileges and power, its decisions are by
definition highly political and based on self-interest of these members.
Its decisions have thus neither the force of international law nor that
of judgments by independent courts.

The Security Council, moreover, is no moral authority by any reasonable
standards: Its permanent members, China, France, Britain, Russia
(formerly the USSR) and the United States of America, have in recent
years violated both the spirit and the letter of the Charter, including
by acts of aggression against other states' sovereignty, by military
occupation and through acts of international terrorism.

Any member of the U. N. can challenge Security Council decisions as
incompatible with his own interests or with principles of international
law and other binding treaties, especially the Geneva Conventions of
1949. Numerous countries have defied Security Council resolutions
without incurring sanctions, most prominently the State of Israel. A
member state moreover can seize the International Court of Justice and
request it to determine the legality of decisions made by the Security
Council before deciding whether to abide by these decisions.

The Nurnberg Charter, which has been incorporated into international law
by a universal consensus, established that individuals should refuse to
obey illegal orders, especially when such orders would violate
international humanitarian law. This principle can be invoked when
decisions by the Security Council are seen as violating principles of
international humanitarian law, the U. N. Charter and principles of law
recognized by civilized nations (jus cogens).

If a State, in spite of evidence that the implementation of Security
Council decisions would violate international law, carries out these
decisions, it becomes an accessory to these violations, with all
liabilities ensuing from such acts. A victim of such acts can, in such
cases, initiate legal proceedings against offending states. The U. N.
Security Council has no standing as object in litigation and cannot be
sued for damages. Iraqi lawyers, representing civilians who lost their
lives or their assets, as a result of attacks by allied forces on Iraqi
towns and villages, have initiated civil procedures against individual
states that participated in these assaults. They are justified in
demanding reparations from foreign states that caused them sufferings,
hardship and losses. As world peace is linked to global justice, it is
paramount that the international community compensate the Iraqi people
for its losses.

In addition, individual leaders of U. N. member states, who are
responsible for the implementation of the sanctions against Iraq, may be
considered as accessories in the commission of grave breaches of the
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols of 1977, if it
has been determined that these sanctions constitute such breaches. In
this case, it is the duty of all High Contracting Parties to the
Conventions to seek the prosecution of these leaders for war crimes.