A chronology of sanctions on Iraq - 1999

10^th January: ‘The Guardian Weekly’ publishes a letter by Dr. Peter Pellet, professor of Nutrition at the University of Massachusetts: ‘World-wide, poverty is the main determinant of malnutrition and child mortality. Hence it is not surprising that artificially induced poverty by economic embargo produces the same results.

Deprivation and excess deaths are real in Iraq, and I can personally attest to the devastating effects of the embargo on ordinary life from having been a member of three UN food and nutrition missions. Sanctions are not the humane alternative to war that they are purported to be, and if there were justice in this world these actions promoted by the US and Britain in the name of the UN would be seen as the crime against humanity that they are.’

‘Le Monde Diplomatique’ runs an article in which Denis Halliday describes the sanctions a s a form of ‘…torture…’

Professor Noam Chomsky publishes an article in ‘Frontline’ on the bombings: ‘[They were] surely intended and understood to be a message of contempt for the Security Council. This action is in fact a call for a lawless world in which the powerful will rule. The powerful happen to be the United States and Britain, which is by now a pathetic puppy dog that has abandoned any pretence of being an independent state.’

13^th January: In response to an earlier French proposal to lift sanctions and replace UNSCOM with a less intrusive system, the US calls for the $5.2 billion cap on oil sales to be lifted, whilst retaining the basic ploy of SCR 986 and UNSCOM.

14^th January: ‘The Times’ accurately sums up this meaningless gesture, and Britain’s support for it: ‘Since Iraq can not meet even the existing UN oil sales quotas because of the low price of crude, the practical effect would be small. But the political effect would be huge: Britain would be free of claims that it is punishing the Iraqi people….’

The ‘Irish Times’ runs an article on the same day that indicates that the US continues to pressure Iraq via other means: ‘To keep pumping and exporting its’ oil, Iraq must upgrade and update its’ entire production sector. But Washington has refused to entertain such a possibility, just as it has rejected efforts to bring new fields into production. In particular the US has turned down requests from the Oil Exploration Company to conduct preliminary work for the development of two new ‘giant’ West Qurna and Ahdad fields, which could increase Iraq’s already massive reserves by as much as 40%.’

21^st January: After hearing of the news that Voices In The Wilderness, US, a sanction busting activist group who take medicines and food to Iraq, are threatened with a US imposed $160,000 fine for doing so, Professor Noam Chomsky of the Massachussettes Institute Of Technology, Edward Hermann, Edward Said and Howard Zinn write to ‘The Independent.’ They highlight their support for these ‘…courageous activists…’ and point out: ‘This month US policy will kill 4,500 children under the age of five in Iraq, according to UN studies. This is not foreign policy – it is sanctioned mass murder that is nearing holocaust proportions.’

25^th January: US missiles strike the al-Jumhuriya residential district of Basra, and ‘unidentified’ missiles hit the village of Abu-Khasib 16 miles to the South. The UN reports that 17 people have been killed, approx. 100 injured and approx. 45 houses damaged or destroyed.

US Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon states: ‘The US regrets any civilian casualties, but has no independent evidence that any Iraqis were killed.’

This statement completely contradicts the UN’s own report, and photos by Iraqi journalist Abel Al-Jorani later circulated amongst campaign groups.

(British Minister of Defence George Robertson, later to become the head of Nato, visited air crews in Kuwait, and told the BBC in a short news piece: ‘We have to continue making these air strikes in order to carry on with our humanitarian work.’

General Michael Rose, former UN Force Commander in Bosnia later condemned ‘Desert Fox’ and the ongoing air offensive: ‘The continual TV images of the West’s high-technology systems causing death and destruction to people in the Third World will not be tolerated forever by civilised people.')

28^th January: ‘The Washington Post’ quotes an unnamed US official with ‘..responsibility for Iraq…’ :

‘We bought seven years and that’s not bad….the longer we can fool around in the Council and keep things static the better.’

12^th February: The ‘Seattle Post Intelligencer’ quotes Denis Halliday: ‘We simply can not let two [UN] member states continue to pervert the UN into a weapon of mass destruction.’

21^st February: Robert Fisk of the ‘Independent on Sunday’ reports: ‘With little publicity, and amid virtual indifference in Western capitals, US and British aircraft have staged well over 70 air strikes against Iraq over the past five weeks, inflicting more damage than ‘Desert Fox’ [in an] air offensive…carefully calibrated to avoid criticism or public debate.’

Fisk also notes that Iraqi missile sites and radar stations have been attacked without warning because: ‘…solely their presence, rather than any offensive activity, was said to menace American forces in the Gulf.’

February: For some time the British and US governments have been citing the lower malnutrition figures in the North of Iraq, as compared to the Centre/South, as evidence of Saddam’s lack of concern for his people. These accusations fail to point out that the North is run solely by highly trained and paid UN staff, with an accompanying fleet of well maintained vehicles, computerised inventory and distribution systems. The Centre/South has no access to any such use of these systems. (They also fail to point out that the private sector activity and smuggling levels are higher in the North). Kofi Annan’s report makes the point: ‘It is important for the Sanctions Committee to acknowledge that a humanitarian programme of such magnitude requires a commensurate level of transport, communications and material handling equipment and be ready to act favourably on requests for logistical support.’ Executive Director of Oil-For-Food Benon Sevan also notes in his report: ‘….few of these essential prerequisites have been made available in an efficient and timely manner.’

March: The UN humanitarian panel set up in late January to additionally assess needs, issues a damning indictment (later published in April) of the 986 program, and SCR 1153, passed in 1998 to ‘expand’ it.

The humanitarian panel reports: ‘The gravity of the situation is indisputable and can not be overstated. The magnitude of the humanitarian needs is such that they can not be met within the context of the parameters set forth in SCR 986 and succeeding SCR 1153…..nor was the programme intended to meet all the needs of the Iraqi people.’

It continues: ‘Given the present state of infrastructure, the revenue required for its’ rehabilitation is far above the funding level available under SCRs 986 and 1153.’

And: ‘Under current conditions the outlook will remain bleak and become more serious with time. The humanitarian situation will continue to be a dire one in the absense of a sustained revival of the Iraqi economy.’

(The UN had recently estimated that the cost to fully rebuild the electrical grid, upon which all other services depend, as being $7 billion.

‘The Economist’ had pointed out in an article on February 6^th that: ‘…with Iraq’s dilapidated wells able to pump only $3 billion worth in the most recent six month period, and their capacity declining by about 6% a year [from damage caused by pumping over capacity], plans for lifting any cap on oil sales are meaningless. The $600 million worth of spare parts the UN has allowed Iraq to buy will do no more than stem the decline.’

In the same issue it had noted that the panels’ ‘…recommendations will not be binding, merely plans for plans. Indeed they were only formed as procedural ruse to bypass the deadlock in the Council. Iraq, for its’ part, has already condemned the setting up of the panels, complaining, with good reason, that it will only lead to further delays in fixing policy.’

The other two panels, set up to deal with weapons monitoring and compensation claims, recommended that a new inspection regime ‘…more intrusive than the one so far practised…’ be installed, and that to date ‘…Iraq has not provided sufficient explanations about missing Kuwaitis, or co-operated enough in returning looted property.’)

The report concludes: ‘It is up to the Security Council to decide whether economic sanctions on Iraq should be maintained, modified or lifted in the light of other inter-related aspects that were beyond [the panels’] mandate. Having in mind these limitations, the panel is proposing recommendations it believes may lead to incremental improvements:

Remove the ceiling on allowable exports under ‘Oil-For-Food’.

Authorise private investment flows into the Iraqi oil industry and other non-military export industries

Reduce by an agreed percentage the revenue allocated to the UN compensation fund.’

(The US rejected the panel’s proposal to encourage private investment and the reduction of compensation claims. The British government was prepared to back a proposal for compensation reduction for ‘…a fixed time..’ but remained committed to maintaining the embargo until all weapons inspections were complete.

The ‘Guardian’ later stated that the panels’ report would have been front page news….if it wasn’t for the Kosovo crisis….

…..in which US led attacks later destroyed the civilian infrastructure….

….and the Security Council later imposed sanctions……)

6^th March: ‘The Economist’ reports: ‘For a force supposedly protecting civilians, the American and British jets controlling the skies above Iraq go about their task in a peculiar manner. Their near daily attacks on the "perceived danger" of Iraqi air defences have disrupted the distribution of food and medicine, cut off the flow of oil that pays for those supplies and, on occasion, killed the people they are supposed to be protecting.’

7^th March: ‘The Washington Post’ reports that a secret meeting between US Defence Secretary William Cohen and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Henry Shelton had taken place on January 8^th. This changed guidelines that governed how planners selected Iraqi targets and how pilots responded to Iraqi actions. They were now permitted to attack any part of Iraq’s dilapidated air defence and radar system in response to any activity from them anywhere in the country. This included Iraqi radar simply being aware of them. The article notes that: ‘Except in cases where they are in immediate danger, pilots rarely respond directly to Iraqi aggression…’ and describes a case where F-15’s were ‘illuminated’ by radar, and the response by other planes an hour later was to drop 31 laser-guided bombs.

A unnamed US State Department official is quoted as saying it is ‘….a mini undeclared war.’

The article also quotes an unnamed military official: ‘It’s a strategy we fell into….it’s not one we originally planned, but it’s working very, very well for us.’

9^th March: Dave Toycen, President of World Vision, Canada, states: ‘The slum conditions I saw in Southern Iraq are as bad as anywhere I’ve seen in the Third World.’

18^th March: The UN issues a press release citing Kofi Annan's February warning that: ‘The most serious issue facing the implementation of the programme at the present is the growing shortfall in revenues.’ The press release also highlights the Executive Director of Oil-For-Food, Benon Sevan, as having informed the Security Council: ‘The current level of oil revenues and the need to fund oil sector equipment had resulted in the resources [that are] available for the humanitarian programme had remained virtually unchanged as compared to the first three phases [90 day periods]’

28^th March: ‘The Observer’ reports: ‘In a confidential paper sent to the UN with the authority of the British Foreign Office Minister Derek Fatchett, the government admits "….the needs of the Iraqi people are not being met by the Oil-For-Food programme." It blames the fall in world oil prices and Iraq’s failing infrastructure.’

(This paper totally contradicted Fatchett’s responses to letters sent to him by anti-sanctions campaigners: ‘There is adequate provision, under the Oil-For-Food deal for food and medical supplies to reach those in need.’ The paper also contradicted similar statements made by Foreign Office staff member Carol Hinchley in her responses to letters: ‘Despite revenue under Oil-For-Food being less than we had hoped, it still ought to be sufficient to meet the immediate needs of the Iraqi people.’

The Foreign Office also accused the Iraqi regime of devoting more revenue to the electricity sector than to food and medicine, and that this was an indication of the brutality of Saddam Hussein. Given Kofi Annan’s observation in his February ’98 report that the repair of the power system was Iraq’s highest priority, these were misinformed statements at the very least.)

2^nd April: The Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation/ Physicians for Social Responsibility ‘sanction busting’ delegation arrives in Baghdad, headed by Bert Sacks. They are accompanied by the foreign desk editor and a staff photographer from the ‘Seattle Post Intelligencer’ newspaper. Over the next seven days the delegation delivers medicines and meets with UNICEF and UN representatives, as well as Iraqi Ministry Officials and civilians. On the 5^th they attend a presentation/interview by Humanitarian Aid Co-ordinator Hans Von Sponeck.

‘If you assume lets say for the sake of argument, 2 billion dollars twice a year for 22 million people, then you are getting a per capita figure per year of 180, just under 180 dollars. Now I ask you, 180 dollars per year? That’s not a per capita income figure, that is the figure out of which everything has to be financed: from electrical services to water and sewerage, to food, to health, the lot. Now if you have 180 dollars and then the press ask me: ‘…do you consider that adequate for survival…?’ I can say at the very best, that the nose is just above the water, so that you are not drowning, but over the course of years, the nose is increasingly touching that water and many people are already drowning. So it is not a figure that we can really take lightly or accept as adequate.’

Von Sponeck also describes the actual beaurocracy involved in importing humanitarian supplies:

‘The government of Iraq, though ‘Kammadia’, the organisation at the Ministry of Health responsible for ordering will say, ‘..we want this box of medicines.’ They look to a supplier, somewhere around the world, they find a supplier, that supplier makes an offer, that offer has to transfer into a contract, the contract has to be signed. It then comes to us, through the government of the producing country, because the onus is on showing that you don’t break the embargo, that you are not a sanctions buster, is from the country where the item is made that is to be exported to Iraq. So the government, usually the Ministry of Defence, comes into it, it has to authorise the export of that item. The mission of that country to the UN then submits the item, the request to the UN, the UN then submits that to the sanctions committee, the sanctions committee has to approve it, and the Banque Nationale de Paris, as the holder of Iraqi money, must then release, on the basis of an irrevocable letter of credit, the funding. Now, ladies and gentlemen, can you imagine what can happen in the course of that many steps in terms of the delay that may occur?’

He describes as ‘…propaganda...’ the many Western claims that the Iraqi government is withholding supplies from civilians imported under SCR 986. Instead he cites the tremendous difficulties of transport and logistics, and the state of the infrastructure:

‘You have heard, I’m sure about the so-called overstocking. If you get from someone a mono-causal explanation, then start getting suspicious. It is not, I repeat not, and you can check this with my colleagues, a pre-meditated act of withholding medicines from those who should have it. It is much, much, more complex than that.’

His comments completely confirm the findings regarding distribution problems that Secretary General Annan pointed out in his report of September ’98. It also totally refutes the accusation made by British Minister of Defence George Robertson on March 6^th that ‘…Saddam now hoards vast quantities of medical supplies rather than distributing them to his people.’

Von Sponeck concludes that if the situation continues without change, the scene will be set for a disaster that will extend much further into the future:

‘Right now we are setting the stage for depriving another generation of the opportunity to become responsible national and international citizens of tomorrow, and that might be the most serious aspect of it all.’

(Grant Wakefield and Miriam Ryle, two British members of the delegation, filmed the proceedings and asked permission to use his comments in a news piece for possible broadcast. Von Sponeck replied: "If I can’t say these things, I’ll resign."

To read a transcript of Von Sponeck's presentation, click HERE )

The subsequent report from the ‘Seattle Post Intelligencer’ was circulated to all members of the US Congress.

Whilst in Baghdad, Wakefield and Ryle also interview Iraq’s Director of Veterinary Services Dr. Fadil Ahbess. He describes the enormous impact on the animal wealth of Iraq that the lack of vaccines has had. An epidemic of Foot and Mouth disease has ravaged the country. Ahbess states: ‘The total number of animals which are infected so far has reached two million. The death toll is about 400,000.’

Ahbess makes the point that the effect on animal wealth is profound especially at a time when Iraq desperately needs meat for protein, and milk for children.

He shows them photographs of another infestation, Screw Worm Fly, that was first reported in the country in the heart of Baghdad in September 1996: ‘It was just like a fire. Within a few weeks it had involved 13 provinces out of 15…..it infested more than 65,000 of all kinds of animals, including 20 persons.’

Ahbess asserts that whilst there is no proof that the pest was deliberately introduced, he is adamant that it was ‘…mechanically transported…’ into the country.

‘Infestation occurred in the centre of the country, then spread from the centre of the country to the borders. If it came from out neighbours the infestation could have started on the borders and [moved] to the centre. Also, Iraq did not import any live animals during the whole period of embargo.’

(Subsequent investigations by Wakefield into Ahbess’ and the Iraqi’s claim that the only Foot and Mouth Vaccine factory in the country was destroyed by UNSCOM were disputed by them. Ewan Buchanan of UNSCOM informed him that the factory had indeed been a vaccine facility prior to the Gulf War, but that the Iraqis had converted it to Botulinum Toxin production and had accumulated ‘…hundreds of tons…’ of this material. He said that Iraq had unsuccessfully attempted to re-convert back to vaccine production, and that in 1996 it had, with Iraq’s co-operation, been destroyed and sealed by UNSCOM. A visit to the sealed plant by Wakefield and Ryle was surrounded by unusually high Iraqi security. Ahbess denied UNSCOM’s assertions, and had written a letter of complaint to Kofi Annan. He was later to tell journalist Felicity Arbuthnott that he intended to take the case to the International Court in The Hague.

Ahbess’ disturbing claim that the Screw Worm fly had been ‘…genetically modified…’ were later investigated by two biologists at Glasgow University. Results were inconclusive. Wakefield later received a copy of an alleged Pentagon policy briefing that described various methods of waging biological war against the animals of a target country.)

7^th April: The Security Council meets to discuss Iraq. ‘Nobody is in a hurry,’ an unnamed diplomat tells Agence France Press.

17^th April: Wakefield and Ryle interview Denis Halliday in London. He confirms all of Von Sponeck’s observations. He also describes some of the tactics that the Sanctions Committee have used to delay imports of humanitarian goods into the country.

Off camera he recounts a case where the Committee permitted insulin to be imported, but denied syringes on the grounds that they constituted an input to Iraqi industry, or could be diverted to military use.

He also recounts a story of UNSCOM inspectors visiting Iraqi secondary schools and destroying the science textbooks there. He describes sanctions as genocide, and whilst conceding that the Iraqi government haven’t always functioned efficiently in the embargo situation, places the blame on the Security Council members.

‘I hold the member states responsible for the sanctions regime on Iraq. I hold them responsible for the genocide that is now existing in Iraq.I hold them, responsible for resolutions and implementing resolutions that undermine the spirit and the content of the UN Charter, which undermine the Declaration of Human Rights, which undermine the Convention of the Rights of the Child, and other provisions of international law which provide for economic and social well-being, and so on. I mean we have the ironic situation where Saddam Hussein himself has undermined the human rights, political rights of his own people. We in the UN and the Security Council have taken away many of the remaining rights, such as food, housing, education, opportunities, employment, well being. That’s what we’ve done. It’s a tremendous irony that the UN itself is taking away the rights of the Iraqi people.’

(To read the full interview with Denis Halliday, click HERE )

May: Two British anti-sanctions activists Gabriel Carlyle and Andrea Needham are jailed for 45 days after throwing a bucket of fake blood against the wall of the Foreign Office. They attempt to present evidence of the effect of sanctions in court but are prevented from doing so by the magistrate.

A BBC news report shows Hilary Clinton and Cherie Blair attending and speaking at a US held conference entitled: ‘Hearing Children’s Voices.’ Grant Wakefield names his 11 minute campaign film, shot whilst on the WPSR delegation to Iraq in April, with the same title. He sends a copy of it to each of them. There is no response.

(Cherie Blair’s secretary later responded: ‘Mrs. Blair will watch the film as soon as she can find the time.’ As of 16^th January 2001, she still hasn’t. Cherie Blair later held a party for children at 10 Downing Street.)

18^th May: Kofi Annan’s report on distribution problems states: ‘The WHO has reported that Kimadia [Iraqi government administrative body] warehouses currently operate at 20 to 35% of their pre-sanction capacity. The warehouses have no proper handling equipment and lack transport to move the supplies to end-user facilities.’

The report completely refutes claims by the US and Britain that ‘…Saddam is to blame…’ for not distributing supplies obtained under SCR 986

24^th May: the ‘Middle East Economic Survey’ reports on a recent Anglo/Dutch proposal to suspend the embargo on Iraqi exports following Iraq’s co-operation with a new weapons inspection body, UNCIM (UN Commission on Investigation and Monitoring). The suspension would require a 120 day period of co-operation before any action was taken, and they comment that the proposal seems designed: ‘….to exclude production sharing agreements [between Baghdad and foreign oil companies] for the discovered but undeveloped oil fields because of US opposition.’

‘MEES’ reports that France has asked for the $5.2 billion oil ceiling to be lifted, and, in an effort to speed the process, for the UN Secretariat to consider humanitarian contracts rather than the Sanctions Committee. The proposal is turned down ‘…mainly by the US and UK…’

25^th May: Save The Children (UK) submits evidence to the House of Commons International Development Committee’s ‘Inquiry on the Future of Sanctions’ : ‘…Children are the victims of sanctions. They are the most vulnerable to the shortages and hardship that sanctions often lead to. Save The Children believes it is unacceptable and unjustifiable for children to be harmed this way.’

17^th June: Agence-France Press reports: ‘A day after Washington’s UN envoy tentatively backed a British proposal [to suspend sanctions after 120 days co-operation] the US State Department stressed that US policy towards Baghdad had not changed. "We have changed neither our policy nor our attitude in any way whatsoever," said State Department spokesman James Foley. Referring to the British initiative Foley said Washington…"..can support parts of it…"’

June 24^th: Former UNSCOM Chief Inspector Scott Ritter is interviewed by members of the Fellowship of Reconciliation Nicholas Arons, Doug Hostetter, Clayton Ramey, and Seattle FOR member Bert Sacks. He is asked how Iraq can realistically be expected to rebuild the country in light of the new Anglo/Dutch plan, what the implications are for the US Iraq Liberation Act, and how UNSCOM was manipulated by the US for its’ own interests and not for the mandate granted it by the UN.

‘There are two steps in the economic rehabilitation of Iraq and the Iraqi people. One is the lifting of sanctions and the second is the reconstitution of the economy. The economy cannot be reconstituted from the outside, it has to be reconstituted from within. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people have to take control of their economy and their way forward. This resolution gives no hope for that.

I just wish people would see the transparency of this effort. It's not serious arms control; it's not serious anything. This is hypocrisy at the highest levels and I am disturbed by it.’

‘[In] having Congress pass the Iraq Liberation Act they have politicised this. They have taken it out of the realm of reality and put it in the realm of politics, tying the administration's hands. How can you pursue a policy of arm's control and disarmament in Iraq under the blanket of international law when your policy of regime removal is the exact opposite of that?

What I am worried about is the fact that our policies are just continuing the suffering of innocent people and actually bringing the Middle East to the brink of yet another war. From an American's perspective it's going to cost American lives. And that's something I think the American people have no clue about. They are sitting here thinking Saddam and anti-Saddam thoughts, the evil of the Iraqi tyranny, etc. They don't understand that our policies are killing six-thousand kids a month. Every time I speak and bring that fact up people are like: "What?" They are just totally divorced from the reality of what is happening in Iraq.’

‘I was a US citizen working for the UN conforming to the UN mandate. But that mandate started getting blurred with US policy. I never did regime removal, I never did sanctions continuation; what I did was arms inspection. I don't believe that there should be a linkage between economic sanctions and arms control -- the two don't mix. It's bad policy to put on economic sanctions, period -- you are making the wrong people suffer. But that's the decision someone else made.

Our job was to disarm Iraq as quickly as possible. My job was to find weapons -- we undertook an intensive intelligence campaign to gather information on where these weapons were. Then we needed to send inspections teams to Iraq to find these weapons. The US didn't like that. Simply put: they didn't want that kind of resolution because if you disarm Iraq you lift the sanctions. The last thing the US wanted to do was lift sanctions. Sanctions are a vehicle of containment.

They put pressure on Richard Butler, who should go down in history as one of the most duplicitous people in the history of the United Nations. This is a man who is supposed to be an international civil servant, who sold out to the US from the very beginning and then lied about it repeatedly. Butler did more to destroy UNSCOM than anybody. Butler allowed UNSCOM to be used by the United States and others to achieve objectives which had nothing to do with the Security Council mandate.’

(In a subsequent BBC ‘Panorama’ investigation broadcast later in the year, Ritter again accused the US of deliberately compromising UNSCOM and of using intelligence agency personnel to collect data on Iraq for the purposes of overthrowing the regime. Iraq had long accused UNSCOM members of being spies. Tariq Aziz had previously made a statement in 1998: ‘This is not a UN commission. Because of the dominance of the Americans and British it has been turned into an American agency, with the help of the British.’

Indeed the US supplied a building in Bahrain, code-named ‘Gateway’ where short burst transmissions were beamed to a satellite which split the information into two transmissions, one for the US National Security Agency at Fort Meade, and one for the UN in New York. Butler was asked about ‘Gateway’, and he replied: ‘I won’t talk about ‘Gateway…..it’s not something I’m prepared to talk about in public.’

In the programme Special Advisor to the UN William Arkin stated categorically: ‘The very concern that UNSCOM always had about eavesdropping was that somehow that eavesdropping would be used in an illegitimate way, and when push came to shove that is exactly what happened. You can have all the satellite photographs in the world, but there’s nothing like being on the ground, and UNSCOM had access on the ground, and everyone needed UNSCOM to do their bidding. The very facilities that the concealment team were most interested in were the facilities that were bombed [during ‘Desert Fox’]. Those facilities, many of which the US didn’t even know about in 1991, were only collected as a result of UNSCOM’s access on the ground.’

Thus Iraq was bombed for refusing to co-operate with spies seeking the overthrow of the regime.)

June: The worst drought in 100 years hits Iraq. Hans Von Sponeck declares that the effect on crops is ‘….a catastrophe…’ with 90% of wheat and barley failing to germinate. He raises concerns that this will mean the government will be unable to sustain the monthly ration at current levels. In over two years of the operation of SCR 986, the full monthly ration has been available only six times. Von Sponeck reports that he will be asking the Security Council for immediate additional funding to cope with the crisis.

Sarah Graham Brown publishes her book: ‘Sanctioning Saddam : the Politics of Intervention in Iraq.’ She quotes US epidemiologist Richard Garfield, who has been suspicious of child mortality figures in Iraq. He asserts in opposition to UNICEF acknowledged statistics that sanctions have in fact resulted in 227,000 excess deaths among children from August 1990 to March 1998. He postulates that given this estimate: ‘….there were an average of 60 excess deaths each day. These child deaths far outnumber all deaths on all sides, among combatants and civilians, during the Gulf War.’

2^nd July: Kofi Annan reports that due to Iraqi efforts to raise as much revenue as possible, 20% of oil wells in the North and South are ‘…irreparably damaged…’ and that the oil industry continues to exist in ‘…a lamentable state.’ His report coincides with the news that for the very fist time, due to high oil prices, Iraq will be able to meet the permitted level of sales.

6^th August: Benon Sevan is quoted in a report by Associated Press: ‘Large amounts of food and medicine arriving in Iraq are sub-standard, damaged or unusable.’

(His comment confirmed Hans Vons Sponeck’s assertions in his April 5^th interview that Iraq is often being subjected to fraudulent contracts.)

15^th July: The ‘Washington Post’ reports: ‘[According to administration officials] the United States has seen no indication that Baghdad has resumed its’ chemical and biological weapons programs.’

22^nd July: US Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh responds to the news that the $5.2 billion oil cap is to be lifted: ‘My question would be…what for? Is that humanitarian needs? Or are we getting into suggestions about rebuilding the Iraqi economy, which is a very different question for the Security Council.’

29^th July: India signs a commercial and financial agreement with Iraq, in apparent defiance of sanctions, to provide 100,000 tonnes of wheat and 1000 buses. Peter Burleigh responds to the news immediately: ‘We’re seeking confirmation…..It would be very surprising if any government…..were to consciously and publicly violate those sanctions.’

30^th July: India makes an about face, issuing a public statement that clarifies its’ ‘…official…’ position, and re-affirming its’ strict conformity to the UN resolutions concerning Iraq.

12^th August: UNICEF reports the findings of a major survey into child deaths in Iraq. It states that children under 5 in central and Southern Iraq are: ‘…dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago.’

In a press release, Executive Director Carol Bellamy states: ‘If the substantial reduction in child mortality in Iraq during the 1980’s had continued through the 1990’s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under 5 in the country as a whole during the period 1991 to 1998.’

In his own report attached with UNICEF’s, epidemiologist Richard Garfield concedes that he now regards his previous report as ‘…extremely conservative…’

(A specialist panel was assigned to the UNICEF team conducting the survey in conjunction with the Iraqi government. They found no evidence of Iraqi manipulation or attempts to twist the data to indicate higher death rates.)

To coincide with the release of the UNICEF report, BBC journalist Jeremy Bowen has the lead story in the 9 o’clock news that powerfully demonstrates the effect of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis.

In a ‘Questions and Answers’ document, UNICEF repeats the conclusion of the UN Humanitarian panel: ‘Even if not all the suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the security Council and the effects of war.’

On the same day ‘Guardian Weekly’ reports ‘….a devastating blow for non-proliferation…’ as ‘…Saudi Arabia appears to be seeking nuclear weapons….’ The Saudi Defence Minister ‘…had toured Pakistan’s secret nuclear facilities.’

In a review of Scott Ritter’s book ‘Endgame’, William Arkin, a defence analyst and advisor to the UN wrote that UNSCOM ‘…probably completed 99% of its’ task….’ and that ‘…100% can probably never be guaranteed.’

13^th August: The US and British governments seize on UNICEF’s data concerning the lesser cases of malnutrition in the mainly Kurdish North. James Rubin of the State Department tells Agence-France Press that this is: ‘…proof that Saddam Hussein was to blame and not sanctions….the clearest conclusion to be drawn is that the Oil-For-Food programme works in the regions where it is allowed to work freely.’

This statement is at odds with UNICEF’s findings in the same report: ‘What we do know is that the difference [in mortality rates North + South] can not be attributed to the differing ways the Oil-For-Food programme is implemented.’ It goes on to point out: ‘Sanctions themselves have not been able to be so rigorously enforced in the North as the border is more ‘porous’…’ and that the North has received: ‘… far more support per capita from the international community than the South and centre.’

(Richard Garfield later wrote a letter to the ‘New York Times’ which was not published. ‘Goods have been approved by the UN and distributed to the North far faster than in the centre and South.’ Garfield described: ‘…the arbitrary, ineffective, or destructive control sometimes exercised by the Security Council over Iraqi funds for food and medicine…’ as ‘…tyrannical…’

Sarah Graham Brown noted in her book: ‘It was quickly evident that the scale of the infrastructural damage and the needs of health and nutrition in [South + central] Iraq were far beyond NGO capacities.’

The US State Department issued a large report in response to the UNICEF document and condemned Saddam Hussein for causing his people to suffer under sanctions.)

14^th August: ‘The Independent’ reports: ‘Over the past eight months, US and British planes have fired more than 1,100 missiles against 359 targets…….more than triple the number of targets attacked during ‘Desert Fox’. By another measure, the pilots have flown two thirds as many missions as NATO pilots flew over Yugoslavia in 78 days of around-the clock war there.’

Journalist Robert Fisk put the civilian death toll at ‘…more than a hundred…’

20^th August: British activists from ‘Voices in The Wilderness’ Joanne Baker and Dave Rolstone address the National Co-ordinating Meeting [of UK anti-sanctions groups] after their recent ‘sanction busting’ visit to Iraq. Baker describes seeing a young boy employed in a sewage works raking the mess because parts ordered under SCR 986 eighteen months prior had still not arrived.

(Baker and Rolstone laid down a challenge to the British Government and Tony Blair to arrest them for violating the export laws on Iraq. Rolstone told the British Press: ‘One of us is a liar. One of us is breaking the law.’ The government did not take up the challenge.)

22^nd August: ‘The Sunday Telegraph’ reports that: ‘President Saddam Hussein has been caught red handed smuggling vital supplies of baby milk and medical supplies meant for Iraqi children.’

(The story actually had been reported by a Kuwaiti official to Associated Press on August 17^th. A ship bound for Dubai had been intercepted and the Kuwaitis found ‘….75 cartons of talcum powder, 25 cartons of baby bottles and 25 tons of cotton seed for livestock.’ The condition of the goods was not reported. Within 5 days the talcum powder, according to the ‘Sunday Telegraph’, had mysteriously transformed into baby milk, itself a peculiar irony as UNICEF had just recommended to the Iraqi government that they remove baby milk substitutes from the ration and promote exclusive breast feeding.

In his April 5^th interview Hans Von Sponeck had pointed out that: ‘…very often Iraq is the victim of fraudulent contracts…’ and that ships often returned goods that were of extremely poor quality. He cited one particular case where rice was shipped to Iraq, with the top layer appearing fine, only for the Iraqis to discover that underneath the entire shipment was rotten. His comments were confirmed by Benon Sevan in his report of August 6^th.

Another accusation in relation to the ‘…hoarding of medicines…’ was also dismissed by Von Sponeck, who cited a cynical tactic by the Sanctions Committee to permit imports of medicines, but not the re-agents required to test them. Testing of medicines by re-agents is standard world-wide practice.)

26^th August: British Independent television broadcasts journalist Michael Nicholson’s investigation into the effect of Depleted Uranium ammunition on both Iraqis and Gulf veterans. His findings include that US Army DU expert has been tested at 5000 times above permissible exposure rates. Rokke asserts categorically that the US and UK knew the dangers of DU and failed to publicise them: ‘The British government knows because they approved the videos and training materials I developed. I had a British officer assigned to me that worked with me to develop them.’

Nicholson’s narration also refers to: ‘….a once classified document written six months before the war that warned the US army of the health risks to civilians and combat troops. It also warned that if the facts were known it could cause a public outcry.’

Nicholson travelled to Basra in Southern Iraq, the worst affected area, and interviewed Iraqi paediatrician Dr. Kalb. Kalb showed him photographs of extreme birth deformities and recounts cases of children born without eyes, or with one eye in the middle of the forehead. Nicholson’s narration in the report states: ‘Some of these photographs are far too disturbing to broadcast.’ Iraqi geneticist Selma Al-Taha asserts: ‘With the passage of time Depleted Uranium is washed by the rain into the soil [and thus into the food chain]. This is a disaster comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.’

He also interviews anti-DU campaigner and uranium expert Dr. Rosalie Bertell: ‘I think it’s the end of war myself. I think they’ve gotten to the point where they’re killing their own people, which is ridiculous. Any kind of intelligent animal would stop at a point like that.’

(Also featured in the investigation was UK veteran Ray Bristow who had been tested for DU contamination was found to have 100 times beyond permissible limit. Having unsuccessfully attempted to investigate his own illness through standard British government channels, he travelled to Baghdad to attend an international conference on DU. Whilst there British military police raided his home and removed his computer and all his files. Out of 40,000 UK troops who were in the Gulf, only 5 have so far been tested for DU exposure, as at January 2000.

Incidences of cancer in Southern Iraq have increased as much as 700% since the war, with a 400% rise in deformities, and sharp increases in miscarriages and Downs Syndrome children. Iraqi scientists claim to have measured some areas of the country as having 5000 times the permissible safe level of background radiation.)

On the same day as the broadcast of Nicholson’s investigation, Agence France Press reports: ‘The United States and Britain are gathering steam for a large scale operation against Iraq.’ If the Anglo/Dutch proposal on new weapons inspections is adopted by the Security Council, then this will ‘…provide the US and Britain with a new legal tool to take measures against Iraq……pressure is rising in the US to impose a deadline on Iraq to meet conditions set by the UN, after which Washington will act.’

30^th August: Pakistani President Muhammed Rafiq Tarar calls for an end to the embargo, stating that the government is: ‘…deeply distressed at the magnitude of humanitarian suffering caused by the UN sanctions.’

Air Force Brigadier General William Looney, head of the US Central Command's Airborne Expeditionary Force states in the Washington Post:

‘They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there is a lot of oil out there we need.’

(‘The Washington Post’ article reports on the continued bombing and quotes that ‘…payback…’ for Iraqi ‘…provocations…’ (meaning the Iraqis have seen the planes on radar) ‘…usually comes hours later and miles away, and may be delivered by a different aircraft.’ The article quotes an unnamed Pentagon official: ‘On many days the attack planes go directly to a target and drop bombs as a response to a perceived provocation earlier in the day, or even the day before.’

It is worth noting that even at full military strength in 1991 the Iraqis were able to down only a single allied plane during the whole war. All allied losses were caused by friendly fire incidents or accidents. It is also worth noting that in response to public outrage about the continued bombing, US air crews later removed live explosives from bombs and replaced them with concrete. Why they should do this when the US consistently claimed that bombing runs did not produce any civilian casualties remains a mystery. In a response from a campaign letter to the British Ministry of Defence, a Mr. Simon Wren wrote: ‘You may be surprised to learn that Saddam Hussein has offered a reward to any anti aircraft crew that shoots down an allied plane.’ To date, the reward has not been claimed, primarily due to the fact that allied planes fly at altitudes far beyond the range of Iraqi anti-aircraft fire.)

3^rd September: ‘The Times’ runs a short article entitled ‘Iraq still a threat, says US’. A new White House study had concluded that ‘Iraq is still working on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and on missiles.’ The ‘Christian Science Monitor’ obtained a copy of the report and stated: ‘It stops short of concluding that Iraq has resumed its’ arms programs.’

(‘Future Threat’ rhetoric was common in the study which outlined ‘…concerns…’ and considered it ‘…prudent to assume…’ that Iraq is ‘…still intent…’ on developing such programs.

The report contradicted earlier remarks made by the US administration in the ‘Washington Post’ article of July 15^th.)

10^th September: ‘Arabic News’ reports: ‘Fears prevail in Iraq's neighbouring countries of the epidemic of polio spreading from Iraq into their territories. Official medical sources said, "The disease is spreading in Iraq, and it is on its way to Jordan, Syria and Turkey as there are cases occurring in these countries which threaten to spread epidemics and diseases in these countries."

Iraqi Health Minister Medhat Mubarak accused the USA and UK of being behind the spread of epidemics in Iraq through viruses conveyed by UN Special Committee (UNSCOM) under the chairmanship of Richard Butler, accusing Butler of being an agent for Israel.’

(It is worth noting that after years of accusations of Iraq being ‘….a threat to its’ neighbours….’ the spread of diseases ensured that it now definitely was.)

September: ‘The New Internationalist’ magazine devotes an entire issue to Iraq. Journalist Felicity Arbuthnott reports that US planes have bombed flocks of sheep and backs up the report with photographic evidence. She also notes that Screw Worm infestation has increased to 70,000 cases and caused an additional 20 human deaths. In reference to Ahbess’ claim of ‘…mechanical transportation….’ she points out that the only air traffic allowed to land in Baghdad is UN chartered planes, and US and UK planes are the only ones allowed to fly over Iraq. Screw Worm Fly can not ‘travel’ on carcasses, only on live animals, which confirms Ahbess’ assertion that Iraq has not imported any live animals during the embargo, and that it is native only to South America. She cites an unnamed biological warfare expert at the German Bundestag: ‘Iraq is the latest victim of what appears to be a deliberate introduction of Screw Worm…in Libya an outbreak occurred in 1989, at a time of exceptionally strained relations with the US. In a year it covered 5000 sq. kilometres and killed 12,000 livestock.’

(On 20^th August 1998, US planes had attacked and destroyed the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, claiming that it manufactured biological and chemical weapons. The plant was Iraq’s only source of Screw Worm Fly vaccine. In Wakefield and Ryle’s interview with Denis Halliday, he referred to Iraq’s $250,000 contract with El Shifa to produce vaccine. El Shifa’s owner later attempted to take the US to court.)

Arbuthnott also points out that despite small improvements in the living conditions of the Iraqi population, the average professional salary per month is still only sufficient to buy one of the following: 1kg of tea, One medium sized tin of baby milk, Two toothbrushes, 4kg of rice, or One tube of lipstick. Average shop prices of essential commodities have risen to 850 times the pre-war level.

In an interview with an unnamed diplomat she is told: ‘People always go on about Saddam’s palaces, but quite frankly anyone with foreign currency is rich. Labour costs peanuts, local materials are cheap. One of those palaces probably cost the same as a bungalow in York [UK].’

(Many accusations had been levelled at Saddam Hussein for building these palaces, and even high ranking Western government officials had accused him of misappropriating funds from SCR 986. These accusations are misinformed at the very least as Iraqi authorities have absolutely no access to foreign currency whatsoever. All items in the 986 programme are purchased via letters of credit and the UN controls all the funds held in the escrow account in Paris.)

21^st September: The United Nations news service reports: ‘US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright insisted Monday that any easing of the devastating sanctions against Iraq must not enrich Saddam Hussein "for palaces and poison gas" on the eve of expected talks about Iraq at the United Nations.

Albright claims: "The Baghdad regime has tried hard to silence the Iraqi people and to hide the evidence of its crimes against them." Her comments seem to come in reply to the senior United Nations official, Hans von Sponek in Baghdad. He called on Sunday for an immediate and unconditional lifting of many sanctions that would open the way to bigger flows of food, medicine and most other Iraqi imports.

In an impassioned call about the dangers of "using the human shield" in hopes of coaxing Iraqi concessions on arms issues Hans von Sponek, United Nations Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq said on Sunday, "Please remove the humanitarian discussions from the rest in order to really end a silent human tragedy."

On the opening day of the annual UN General Assembly session, Albright met in her hotel room with a group of Iraqi opposition leaders, financed by the US to lobby other countries about the Iraq sanctions, as part of President Clinton's $97 million that Congress earmarked for supporting efforts within Iraq to topple the current government.

France, Russia and China have been sympathetic to Iraq's contention that its’ Government has essentially carried out its obligations to the weapons inspectors. Those Governments now appear to support a plan that would allow an immediate end to the sanctions in return for Iraq's agreement to a new and less intrusive system of weapons inspection.

But United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator, Hans von Sponek, said a dispute over plans to revive international weapons inspections in Iraq now posed increasing risks to the social fabric in a country that has already suffered more than nine years of United Nations sanctions.

"Don't play the battle on the backs of the civilian population by letting them wait until the more complex issues are resolved,"

Von Sponek and his predecessor, Denis Halliday, have long tried to turn international attention toward the suffering of ordinary Iraqis, while the United States and Britain continue to focus on the perceived intransigence of the Iraqi Government, and to blame that Government for the economic plight of its citizens.

Iraq's health authorities said on Sunday that 7,632 children under the age of five died in August as a result of shortages of food and medicines caused by the sanctions, the Iraqi News Agency said.’

(The report also quoted the Iraqi Health Ministry as saying that ‘…the latest deaths brought to nearly 1.2 million the number of people who have died during the nine years of sanctions as a direct result. Since the imposition of sanctions on August 6, 1990 and up to late August 1999, nearly 2 million (1,187 486) Iraqis have died of sanctions-related causes.’)

Esmat Abdel-Meguid, the Arab League's Secretary General, announces that Arab states would like to see the lifting of UN sanctions.

October: British activist Dave Rolstone makes a second ‘sanction busting’ trip to Iraq. He hands in a letter to 10 Downing Street before departing explaining what he’s about to do. No action is taken. Whilst in Baghdad he meets with Dr. Popal, the WHO’s acting representative, and requests an interview. Popal declines on grounds of inappropriateness. Rolstone hands him a letter he has received from the British Foreign Office in response to his questions about Iraq. Popal reads it and states: ‘Okay, you can record me now. I must reply to this.’

6^th October: ‘The Iraqi New Agency’ reports: ‘Iraqi Agriculture Minister Abdul Ilah Hameed has held the U.S representative at the 661 Committee responsible for delaying and obstructing the approval of contracts for agricultural equipment to deal with the drought that has hit Iraq as a result of the rainless season and the drop of water levels of the Rivers Tigris and the Euphrates to their lowest points since 1961.

Minister Hameed said the Ministry had taken some measures to handle drought, among which co-ordination with the U.N Humanitarian Co-ordinator and the representative of Food and Agriculture Organisation in Iraq to lessen the effect of drought. But he said that despite the intervention of these parties, the 661 Committee had approved only 2 out of 13 contracts submitted in this regard.

The contracts are for the supply of 700 spray irrigation systems, 1000 pumping sets, 500 spray irrigation devices, 300 20-hp pumping sets, 500 immersion pumps and 312 electricity generators.

The Minister wondered at statements by US officials in which they claim that Iraq has done little or nothing to combat drought. He said the Ministry and all agriculture sector staff had been implementing many programmes to overcome the problem through such measures as water rationing, giving priority to staple crops, providing alternative animal feed, and launching campaigns to control sheep diseases.’

15^th October: ‘Reuters’ reports: ‘The United Nations Gulf War reparations body said on Friday it had paid out $11.8 million to 687 people in 21 countries who proved losses above $100,000 caused by Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. These initial payments of up to $25,000 each, the first in the category for losses above $100,000, bring to $3.65 billion the amount paid by the UN Compensation Commission, it added.

A total of 223 Kuwaitis received the largest amount in this batch of payments, a total of $3.4 million, the statement said. A total of 141 Jordanians are to receive $2.4 million, while 97 British citizens will get $1.7 million and 96 US citizens who will share roughly the same amount, it added. The next largest groups of successful claimants in this round were Canadians (36 individuals who receive $586,161), Sudanese (31 who receive $571,222) and Israelis (11 who receive $228,533), according to the Geneva-based Commission.

Set up by the Security Council, the fund receives 30 percent of revenue generated from the export of Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products under an oil-for-food sales accord between the United Nations and Iraq. It receives more than $250 million a month under the deal, according to UN officials.
The claimants in this category are entitled to $75,000 more each in a later phase of payments, according to the statement.’

25^th October: ‘The Washington Post’ runs an article quoting Kofi Annan who is accusing the US of ‘….disrupting the Oil-For-Food programme upon which millions of people depend for their survival.’ He also: ‘….accused the United States of using it’s muscle on the Sanctions Committee to put indefinite "holds" on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of humanitarian goods.’

(Executive Director Benon Sevan valued the goods on hold in August at $500 million, and in October as $700 million. As at October 12^th, 23.7% of applications had been placed on hold. It is worth noting that the UN Secretary General was now directly accusing the US of impeding the functions of SCR 986)

November: ‘Voices in The Wilderness – US’ activists attend a speech by Madeleine Albright she is giving to 2500 people at the Council on Foreign Relations in Chicago. Three minutes into her address Father Bob Bossie interrupts her with the question: ‘Ms. Albright, 500,000 Iraqi children have died because of sanctions. Is the price worth it?’

Albright does not respond, 15 activists are removed from the hall and 5 are later arrested.

3^rd November: ‘Agence France Press’ reports: ‘The UN sanctions committee has blocked an Iraqi contract to import 16 heart and lung machines, for fear that part of the order could be put to military use, the United Nations said Wednesday.

"The reason given for the hold is the need for further technical specifications and a concern that one item is on the list of ... potential dual-use items," the UN humanitarian programme said in a weekly update. It said each heart and lung machine includes a computer for monitoring the patient's condition.

Iraq's health ministry submitted the contract -- for which a value was not given -- for approval on August 17 and it was put "on hold" on October 14, the UN said. The equipment is manufactured in Denmark and is to be supplied by a Jordanian firm. The humanitarian programme is "working with the concerned missions to provide the information requested," according to the UN statement.

Baghdad has repeatedly accused US and British representatives on the sanctions committee -- which has to approve Iraq's foreign contracts – of using fake pretexts to block its imports.

Last month, UN humanitarian aid co-ordinator Hans Von Sponeck criticised the sanctions panel. Many of its decisions were "a deterrent for the implementation of the humanitarian programme," he said, complaining that the committee was blocking an increasing number of requests for imports to Iraq.’

17^th November: Benon Sevan makes a statement to the Security Council spelling out the consequences of the holds on these goods, particularly in the agricultural sector where the FAO had estimated: ‘…loss of as much as 20,000 tons of wheat production.’ In the electricity sector 51% of the applications for the South/centre remained on hold which: ‘…According to the UN development programme could potentially achieve a 50% increase in electricity supply if these holds were released.’

(According to Kofi Annan’s November report: ‘Daily power cuts had reached an average of 12 hours per day in most of the governorates.’)

23^rd November: US planes attack sites in Mosul, Northern Iraq. Shrapnel and shock waves from the explosions hit a school and destroy a civilian home.

(The British media did not report the story until December 23^rd, and quoted an unnamed Air Force spokesman: ‘There is nothing to support claims of injury of damage to civilians.’)

17^th December: SCR 1284 is passed by 11 votes. France, Russia, China and Malaysia abstain.

The resolution called upon the Secretary General to set up a new weapons inspection body, UNMOVIC, and to appoint a chairman of the body within 75 days. The chairman would then submit an organisational plan to the council. Within 60 days ‘…after they have both started work in Iraq…’ UNMOVIC and the IAEA would draw up ‘…work programmes for the discharge of their mandates…’

(Thus only after 255 days could the Security Council meet to even discuss the possibility of ‘…suspending sanctions….’, and this in light of the Council’s own statement that ‘…improving the humanitarian situation in Iraq…’ is one of the ‘….fundamental objectives….’ of SCR 1284.

The Humanitarian panel’s recommendations at the beginning of the year that the compensation fund payments be reduced were never acted upon, and SCR 1284 stipulated that there was to be no change to this policy. Iraq profoundly rejected the resolution.)

18^th December: ’The Independent’ reports that the success of SCR 1284 ‘…could depend on the interpretation…’ of the ‘…deliberately vague text….’ With ‘…Britain and the US expected to insist on the most stringent interpretations….’ that Iraq has ‘….co-operated in all respects….’

(The US and Britain later nominated Rolf Ekeus to head up UNMOVIC. Iraq rejected the nomination, as did France, Russia and China.)

21^st December: Madeleine Albright addresses leaders of the American Muslim community at a special Iftaar Dinner: ‘Killing the innocent does not defeat terror; it feeds terror. Your are making new enemies when what you need are friends.'