Former Diplomat Deplores U.S. Sanctions on Iraq

Author: Charlie Goulding

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society," said Denis Halliday, a 34-year veteran of the United Nations. In his lecture on Feb. 15 entitled "Finishing Unfinished Business?: Iraq, a Decade After Desert Storm," Halliday critiqued the way the United States had dealt with Iraq prior to Sept. 11, and, ultimately, attacked President George W. Bush's recent intimations of a military campaign against Saddam Hussein.

In 1997, the United Nations appointed Halliday to head Oil for Food, a program designed to trade Iraqi oil for Western medicine and food. One year later, he resigned from the position. He was disillusioned by the United Nations policy toward Iraq, which he called "illegal and immoral."

Halliday expressed deep concern that since Desert Storm, an all-encompassing trade embargo has decimated the Iraqi economy, impoverishing millions of innocent civilians. Oil for Food, one of the few attempts to ameliorate the situation in Iraq, was, as Halliday noted, "inadequate in design and quality." He said that one of the most direct consequences of Iraq's impoverishment has been the exponential growth of its infant mortality rate, which now rivals that of Somalia.

Beginning his discussion with Desert Storm, Halliday faulted Iraq for invading Kuwait and blatantly breaching international law. Still, he did not believe that the U.S. response was entirely appropriate. He criticized the U.S. military for deliberately bombing civilian areas, as well as water and sewage systems. Halliday deplored the American missiles that were capped with depleted uranium, a substance that polluted Iraqi soil and water and increase Iraq's cancer rate by 15 times in certain regions.

Halliday's comments about current U.S. policy toward Iraq, one of the three countries recently labeled the "axis of evil" by George W. Bush, were even shrewder and more forceful. He questioned the very notion that the Iraqi situation remains some of the "unfinished business" left over from the first Bush administration. He cited a lack of evidence, as well as ideological differences between Osama bin Laden's Islamic fundamentalism and Hussein's incumbent Bath party, which is opposed to such fundamentalism, to suggest that America is wrong to implicate Iraq for the Sept. 11 attacks.

An attack on Iraq would not be advantageous to American or global interests, Halliday asserted. Halliday believes that, unlike his father, George W. Bush will not have the support of the United Nations should he choose to attack Iraq. He remarked that global powers such as Russia have publicly denounced the idea, and even America's closest ally, Great Britain, is hesitant to give its support. Should America choose to take matters into its own hands, Halliday said, it would undermine the integrity of the United Nations. He warned that America would subsequently lose favor within the United Nations, and the organization as a whole would lose its already diminishing credibility.

Halliday made his most pointed comments on America's self-image and its role in global affairs. He rejected the idea that America and the Middle East are fighting a good guy-bad guy war that demands continual intervention in the affairs of the Arab people. He attributed America's obsession with Hussein to sheer arrogance, founded not on the basis of sound moral judgment but rather the notion that "might is right." He even went so far as to suggest that American military actions are an extended effort to avert attention from current domestic issues such as health care and campaign finance reform.

Halliday implored the audience to consider alternatives to "unjustified" military action. He called for increased diplomatic measures to work with Baghdad and Hussein. He advocated dialogue, noting that "if you don't communicate, you can't influence."

Halliday proposed an alternative to American military force: America should lift its economic sanctions on Iraq in exchange for United Nations weapons inspectors being allowed back into the country. Should this fail, Halliday concluded, one could justify military action.

Above all else, Halliday's lecture questioned an element of U.S. foreign policy that is seldom challenged — a sentiment echoed by audience member Lindsey Perlmutter '03. Indeed, the U.S. has succeeded in demonizing Hussein and convincing us that the forceful removal of his government is both justified and essential. Halliday's presentation was an admonition to transcend the limited perspective of American media and government.

George Jaeger, another audience member, summed up the night's sentiments best when he said that the next few weeks would pose a tremendous test for our nation. War with Iraq could precipitate combat on an extended scale. The American government must be sure we have the ethical, political and military backing necessary before making the most important decision of the new millennium, he said.

For further information and opinions, the student organization The New Left encourages Middlebury College students to attend a viewing of "Paying the Price," a documentary by British film-maker John Pilger which explores how the children of Iraq have suffered over the past decade.