A chronology of sanctions on Iraq - 1998

2^nd January: A rocket-propelled grenade hits a UN building in Iraq. The Iraqi government condemns the attack.

13^th January: Iraq blocks an UNSCOM team, saying it has too many British and American inspectors.

21^st January: UNSCOM inspectors and Iraq agree to bring in outside technical experts to assess the situation. Iraq still denies access to so-called presidential sites.

1^st February: Secretary General Annan notes in his report that the continuing collapse of the electrical system in Iraq could create: ‘…humanitarian consequences [which] could potentially dwarf all the other difficulties endured by the Iraqi people.’

5^th February: President Clinton orders a Marine expeditionary force of 2,000 troops and four ships to the Gulf. Britain also increases military presence in the Gulf.

20^th February: British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook tells ‘The Guardian’ in an article entitled ‘Saddam is to Blame’: ‘The new Oil-For-Food deal could solve the humanitarian crisis. It could pay for the food and medicines that the Iraqi people need so badly…could restore clean water and proper sanitation to hundreds and thousands of Iraqis, restore electricity to their homes and help the farmers increase their out put.’

(Cook fails to mention what the other twenty one million Iraqis are going to do without water and sanitation.)

23^rd February :UN Secretary General Kofi Annan works out an agreement with Iraq, defusing the inspections crisis.

2^nd March: SCR 1154 is passed. It warns Iraq of the ‘….severest consequences…’ if they fail to co-operate with UNSCOM. It does not contain any authorisation for the use of force.

7^th March: ‘The Independent’ runs an article in response to Prime Minister Blair’s comments that ‘…over 30,000 chemical warheads remain unaccounted for….’ and that ‘…Iraq’s desire to develop these weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to his neighbours, to his people, and to the security of the world.’ Blair had also made statements about how a teaspoon of anthrax could kill 100 million people, and cited alleged claims of UNSCOM finding enough bio/chem weapons to kill the world’s population several times over.

Professor Robert Nield of Trinity College, Cambridge rebuffs Blair’s figures: ‘To say they have found enough weapons to kill the world several times over is equivalent to the statement that a man who produces a million sperm a day can thus produce a million babies a day. The problem in both cases is one of delivery systems.’

Dr. Julian Perry Robinson of the Science Policy research Unit states that Blair’s figures were: ‘…a nonsense comparison….like saying 50,000 tons of bullets are enough to kill the entire world. Most large armies have that number, but it does not mean that the earth’s population is going to die.’

The article also mentions that US Ambassador to Kuwait Jim Larocco had stated in a briefing to US businessmen visiting Kuwait that ‘..gas masks are not required’…and are not distributed to Embassy staff. Indeed the Embassy was: ‘….not even interested in finding a source for gas masks…’ due to UNSCOM’s presence in Iraq and ‘…the fact that biological and chemical warheads are very ineffective.’

26^th March: UNSCOM inspectors, accompanied by senior diplomats, begin the search of presidential sites previously closed to inspection

At the end of the month UNICEF survey reveals that 58% of children are now suffering from malnutrition.

Habib Rejeb, head of the WHO in Baghdad commented: ‘Acute malnutrition here is about the same as in Haiti. Everything is breaking down. People have to drink polluted water so they become too sick to benefit from food.’

Power cuts last for 20 hours a day in the country, and for up to eight hours in Baghdad.

16^th April: Iraq threatens a new crisis in regard to UNSCOM unless talks to lift sanctions begin by the end of April. The Security Council votes to maintain the embargo.

30^th April: UNICEF publishes ‘Situation Analysis of Women and Children in Iraq 1997’ The report concludes that seven years of sanctions have had ‘…a devastating impact on the majority of Iraqi people, particularly children. The Oil-For-Food plan has not yet resulted in adequate protection of Iraq’s children from malnutrition and disease.’

18^th May: In response to a letter from an anti-sanctions campaigner, the Middle East Department of the British Foreign Office replies: ‘ Saddam Hussein already has the resources to enable the Iraqi health service to function properly. The government shares your concerns about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and has sympathy for the people of Iraq. Sanctions are aimed at the Iraq regime and not at them.’

22^nd May: Eric Falt, spokesman for the new Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday, reports that the nutritional status of Iraqi children has failed to improve over the last year. 25% are malnourished, 27% of children under 5 are chronically malnourished, 9% are suffering from acute malnutrition, and 24% are underweight. The inability, due to the lack of spare parts, of Iraq to deliver a working sanitation system means that civilians are still trapped in a cycle of disease.

27^th May: Having frequently complained about having no legal basis to challenge claims, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz writes a letter to Secretary General Annan to express concerns about the reparations/compensations being paid from the proceeds of SCR 986.

‘The truth of the matter is that the government of Iraq has no role, however small, which allows it to respond to the allegations contained in claims. It is unable to give its’ legal and objective opinion on claims, even when those are exaggerated. The Compensation Commission decides which claims should be settled, who is authorised to submit a claim, what should be considered direct losses, and what constitutes sufficient proof.

These measures create a legal screen which conceals the systematic subjugation of the Iraqi people. There are no reasonable grounds for this collective punishment of the Iraqi people. If this is not done [the verification of claims in accordance with international law and the rules of justice and equity] the compensation process will become simply an organised operation to strip the Iraqi people of their property, which they desperately need in order to rebuild their society and economy.’

24^th June: UNSCOM chairman Richard Butler reports that Iraq had placed deadly VX nerve gas in missile warheads.

30^th June: The US fires a missile at an Iraqi anti-aircraft battery in response to a ‘…threat…’ from Iraq against a British aircraft. The ‘threat’ being that Iraq had allegedly locked the plane on radar, a claim that Iraq denies.

At the end of the month a UN document based on Iraqi government figures indicates that cancer rates in the South of the country have risen six fold since the war. Support grows for the observation that this is directly linked to the allied use of Depleted Uranium ammunition. Extreme birth deformities are now occurring, with some babies born without eyes or limbs, and in some cases even without fully formed heads and brains.

August: Iraqi / UNSCOM relations are becoming increasingly strained. The Iraqi authorities are frustrated with new Chairman Richard Butler and correctly assume he will never present a report to the Security Council recommending a lifting of sanctions. Additionally they accuse UNSCOM of having been infiltrated by Western intelligence agents in a plot to overthrow the regime. The frequent talks between them are increasingly viewed as a cynical fraud.

(This claim was later proved to be entirely justified. Tony Blair had addressed the House of Commons and said: ‘We are looking at ways now, together with the Americans, of the possibility of removing Saddam Hussein altogether.’)

4^th August: ‘The Independent’ runs an article about the strained relations: ‘The [UNSCOM] ritual in Baghdad is being played out at the expense of Iraq’s ordinary citizens, as many as two million of whom have been brought to the edge of starvation.’

Butler refuses to certify that Iraq has destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq freezes all co-operation with UNSCOM, and the Security Council agrees to maintain sanctions. The US begins to threaten renewed air strikes if Iraq fails to comply with UNSCOM’s demands.

5^th August: ‘The Guardian’ quotes a statement made by Richard Butler in June: ‘It is important to note the order of magnitude of the weapons retained by Iraq; two thirds of the operational missile force [and] more than one half of  the chemical weapons.’

6^th August: In a peculiar about-face, Richard Butler is quoted in ‘The Independent’: ‘If this were a five lap race, we were halfway into the fifth lap. Why stop the race when you’re getting toward the finishing line?’

(The anti-sanctions campaign group Voices in The Wilderness later pointed out that if both of Butler’s comments were taken at face value, then UNSCOM had achieved more in the six weeks since June than in the previous seven years.)

Butler goes on to say the he was ‘…mystified by Baghdad’s action when resolution of several issue was near. The inspectors were apparently close, in the areas of missiles an chemical weapons, to being able to declare Iraq had complied with UN resolutions.’

Saddam Hussein is also mentioned in the article, and that he: ‘….demanded a new body of weapons inspectors, based in Geneva or Vienna, be created under the supervision of a monitoring group representing the five permanent members of the Security Council.’

7^th August: ‘The Independent’ points out that Iraq’s refusal to co-operate was limited to the weapons inspectors themselves. The video equipment and other safeguards were to remain in place, and UN weapons monitors were continuing to visit facilities. The article also points out that the ‘….focus of the argument was on the future role of Richard Butler…’

Russia’s deputy envoy to the UN, Yuri Fedotov, is quoted in ‘The Guardian’: ‘We are strongly convinced that Iraq is not the only one to blame for this situation, when a decision has been taken to break discussions. This decision we understand was taken by the chairman of UNSCOM [Butler] without duly consulting the Secretary General and Security Council.’ Fedotov goes on to say: ‘Sometimes when you are in a deadlock, you replace the negotiator.’

The ‘Financial Times’ quotes Kofi Annan, who has called for a ‘…comprehensive reassessment…’ of UN policy towards Iraq, adding that their ‘…frustrations came through, if not desperation.’

The ‘International Herald Tribune’ quotes him as saying: ‘I don’t think we will need military forces.’

8^th August: British Foreign Minister Robin Cook writes in 'The Times’: 'If Iraq does not honour its’ agreements then it would be profoundly wrong for the international community to reward its’ intransigence by lifting sanctions regardless.’

(A peculiar statement given his and Blair’s insistence in February and March that Iraq had plenty of money under SCR 986 to provide food and medical care.)

The ‘Financial Times’ also reports Clinton’s insistence that unless Iraq co-operates with UNSCOM, the US will block any move to lift sanctions.

9^th August: ‘The Independent’ runs another article about the UNSCOM / Iraq talks: ‘The discussions were certainly long winded, alternately chilling or tedious in their subject matter: exactly how many Iraqi warheads were filled with Anthraz spores before they were destroyed in 1992? Was a donkey, used in a biological experiment, tethered to a car or not? How many punctures were there in the tyres of an Iraqi convoy taking weapons to destruction pits seven years ago?’

10^th August: Madeleine Albright, now the US Secretary of State, is quoted in the ‘Financial Times’: ‘Saddam Hussein has wrestled himself to the ground. He is stuck in a box and he has thrown away the key.’

13^th August: UN envoy Prakash Shah arrives in Baghdad. Over the next seven days he tries, and fails, to persuade Iraq to rescind its’ decision to halt co-operation.

20^th August: Prakash Shah leaves Baghdad, but makes a statement before doing so: ‘I still think that a lot of discussions and bilateral negotiations can take place. I wouldn’t say this is a crisis.’

At the end of the month UNSCOM team leader Scott Ritter resigns ‘…in protest over the inaction of the Security Council in Iraq and interference by Britain and the US in UNSCOM’s work.’

(Ritter was later to level extremely serious accusations at the US and Britain as to exactly what this ‘interference’ was.)

8^th September: Iraq says the allegations that UNSCOM inspectors have been barred from certain sites is distorting the truth.

9^th September: SCR 1194 is passed.

It prevents any further 90 day reviews of sanctions by the Security Council, essentially trapping Iraq in a situation whereby an entirely new resolution will have to be tabled to lift sanctions, one which the US power of veto will always be able to block.

29^th September: Scott Ritter is interviewed on BBC Radio 4 and states: ‘….I’m somebody who doesn’t support the continuation of sanctions….I think they’re a horrible tool…..sanctions only punish the people of Iraq, they don’t punish this [Iraqi] regime.’

30^th September: UN Humanitarian Aid Co-Ordinator Denis Halliday resigns in protest at the effects of sanctions and the ineffectiveness of SCR 986 to deal with them. In his resignation speech he states: "We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and as terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."

Two weeks later he states:

"4000 to 5000 children are dying every month due to the impact of sanctions because of the breakdown of water and sanitation, inadequate diet, and the bad internal health situation."

Hans Von Sponeck is chosen as Halliday’s replacement.

15^th October: ‘The Independent’ quotes Margaret Hassan, a CARE International worker in Baghdad: ‘Sanctions are inhuman and what we are doing can not redress that inhumanity.’

19^th October: Kofi Annan is quoted in the ‘International Herald Tribune’: ‘I personally believe, as I think a lot of security Council members believe with 100% certainty, that Iraq being fully disarmed is never going to be possible. At the end of the day the Security Council must decide whether Iraq is disarmed to the extent that it is not a threat to its’ neighbours, that it has no weapons of mass destruction, and that it has no capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.’

30^th October: In the Security Council the US rejects proposals by Russia, France and China that will clearly commit the Council to lift the embargo if Iraq co-operates with UNSCOM.

31^st October: President Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act. It authorises Congress to provide $97 million’s worth of military equipment and training for now completely overt attempts to overthrow the regime.

(It is now clear that the US is not even bothering to consult other members of the Security Council or attempt to obtain any UN authorisation for any of its’ policies toward Iraq.)

On the same day Saddam Hussein halts UNSCOM weapons monitoring work in response. The US and Britain warn that military strikes are possible. Iraq refuses to co-operate with UNSCOM and a stand-off ensues.

(Recall Ekeus’ comment: ‘We do want Iraq to see light at the end of the tunnel, otherwise Iraq will conclude that it is not worth co-operating.’)

6^th November: British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook condemns the ‘…significant smuggling of Iraqi oil…’ and urges action to curb it. The actual value, as estimated by ‘The Economist’ in April is approx. $200 million per year, a sum that they describe as ‘….a tiny amount….’ in comparison to the amounts allowed under SCR 986.

12^th November: The US bolsters its’ military forces in the Gulf region.

13^th November: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan makes a final attempt to convince Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to rescind his decision not to co-operate with UNSCOM. President Clinton orders the military to proceed with plans for a massive cruise and air missile attack against Iraq. He directs National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to telephone General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and tell him to proceed with the strike on the 14^th.

14^th November: US Cruise missile carrying ships, and planes, are within 50 minutes of striking distance when CNN reports that a statement is forthcoming from Baghdad and that it will be a positive response to Annan's previous letter seeking a resolution to the crisis. President Clinton decides to pause the operation, in effect delaying but not aborting the air strikes. Soon after, the White House receives the first of three letters from Iraq that will clarify Iraq's position its agreement to let UN inspectors back in.

Clinton says the first Iraqi offer is not acceptable because of an annex detailing what the United States believes are conditions of Iraqi acceptance of inspectors.

The White House receives Iraq's second letter. Iraq said the annex contained views and preferences only and this letter spells out that its’ acceptance of inspections is unconditional.

A third Iraqi letter is received at the White House that specifies that Baghdad's previous decision to cease co-operation with weapons inspectors from UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency is null and void.

16^th November: ‘The Independent’ runs an article about UNSCOM. ‘A Finnish UN arms inspector claimed [to former Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds] that UNSCOM was only probably three months from completing its’ work. Tariq Aziz said [to Reynolds] "Decisions might have been taken very differently if Iraq had known about that." '

17^th November: 86 UNSCOM inspectors return to Iraq

18^th November: UNSCOM inspections resume.

19^th November: UN Secretary General Annan’s report describes the large shortfall of the 986 program. Falling oil prices, coupled with delays in acquiring spare parts for Iraqi oil installations have lowered the possible $5.2 billion sales potential to $3.15 billion. After deductions for compensation claims, UN costs and pipeline fees, only $1.68 billion is left. Annan comments that this figure would only have ‘…helped in preventing further deterioration of the humanitarian situation.’

(The report completely refuted Tony Blair’s claim that: ‘...We have allowed Saddam to sell oil to buy as much food and medicine for the Iraqi people as necessary.’)

22^nd November: Iraq says that ‘..provocative..’ requests for documents by the chief UNSCOM inspector are intended to provide the United States with a pretext for a military attack.

15^th December: UNSCOM reports that Iraq has not met its’ promises of co-operation.

16^th December: UNSCOM inspectors withdraw from Baghdad. Contrary to many western media reports, UNSCOM are not ‘…kicked out by the Iraqis…’ but are withdrawn by Richard Butler for reasons of their personal safety.

17^th December: US and British forces attack Iraq. The four-day bombing campaign is dubbed ‘Operation Desert Fox’. President Clinton announces that: ‘….a strong, sustained series of air strikes…’ are being carried out ‘….to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.’

British Prime Minister Tony Blair informs the nation live on television that he is attacking Iraq. He makes the announcement standing in front of a Christmas tree.

(Media coverage is a combination of bellicosity, patriotism and farce. ‘The Independent’ publishes a target list that includes such facilities as grain silos and unspecified ‘…civilian structures…’. ‘The Guardian’ prints a small map of Iraq with little arrows pointing to various parts of the country with captions stating: ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’.

(Numerous statements from the Pentagon and British Ministry of Defence had made the point that they didn’t actually know where these alleged weapons were.)

Once again power stations are attacked. By the end of the strikes Baghdad is experiencing power cuts of ten hours a day.

December 21^st: US and British pilots begin operating under relaxed rules for attacking Iraqi radar and missile sites. They now have permission to strike if Iraqi radar locks on to them.

Following ‘Desert Fox’ British and US planes roam across Iraq striking at will. Iraqi units are hit almost daily.

Former British Foreign Secretary Lord Healey is quoted in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ that there was ‘…no question…’ that ‘Desert Fox’ was unlawful: ‘It is illegal to attack with bombs targets in a sovereign country without direct authorisation from the Security Council.’

The WFP issue its’ latest report ‘Protracted Recovery and Relief Operation – Iraq’: ‘The main reason for outstanding nutritional problems is the massive deterioration in basic infrastructure, in particular water supply and waste disposal systems. The most vulnerable groups have been the hardest hit, especially children under 5. Throughout infancy they are subject to the vicious cycle of exposure to unhygienic conditions, leading to diarrhoea and diseases which negatively affect nutritional status, which in turn reduces immunity to disease.’