United Nations implications in war crimes
by Silvia Cattori
http://www.voltairenet.org/article146495.html
For Hans Christof von Sponeck, the former assistant secretary-general of
the UN, the
United Nations, far from garding the respect for international law and the
consolidation of peace, have themselves become a factor of injustice.
Thus, the
sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein's Iraq caused a human disaster,
whereas treaties
such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are used to ensure the
domination of
certain powers and to threaten others. It is time to change the system
completely.
Count Hans-Christof von Sponeck, born in Bremen in 1939, has been working
for the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for 32 years. Appointed by
Kofi Annan in
1998 as United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, with the status
of UN
Assistant to the Secretary General, Mr. von Sponeck resigned in March 2000
in protest
against the sanctions, which had led the Iraqi people to misery and
starvation. It is
with sorrow and bitterness that he speakes about the sufferings endured by
the
Iraqis, a people he knew well and learned to love, and he appeals to the
political
leaders responsible for the catastrophe in a moving interview he gave to
Silvia
Cattori.
Silvia Cattori: In your book "A Different War: The UN Sanctions Regime in
Iraq", you
denounced openly the fact that the Security Council betrayed the
principles of the UN
Charter. Could you give us specific examples where the UN Secretariat
behaved in an
especially condemnable way?
Hans von Sponeck: The Security Council must follow the UN Charter and it
must not
forget the Convention on the rights of the child and the general
implications of
these conventions. Moreover, if the Security Council knows that conditions
in Iraq
are inhuman - people of all ages have been in deep trouble, not because of
a
dictator, but because of the policies around the 'oil for food programme'
- and it
decides not to act, or not to do enough to protect the people against the
impact of
its policy, then one can argue very easily that the Security Council is to
be blamed,
for the very strong increase in the mortality rates in Iraq.
A definite example is that during the 1980s, under the government of
Saddam Hussein,
UNICEF identified 25 children per thousand under the age five years of age
that were
dying in Iraq for various reasons. During the years of sanctions, from
1990 to 2003,
there was a sharp increase from 56 per thousand children under five years
of age in
the early 1990s to 131 per thousand under five years of age at the
beginning of the
new century. Now everyone can easily understand that this was due to the
economic
sanctions, so it is out of the question that the Security Council
preferred to ignore
the consequences of its policies in Iraq under the pressure excercised by
the major
intervening parties including, and in particular, the United States and
Great
Britain.
Silvia Cattori: How could the Security Council neglect to consider the
fact that
these sanctions allowed the superpowers to misuse their position and
uniquely pursue
their war objectives, when it voted for other resolutions, like for
example
resolution 1559 which was particularly intended to provide the United
States and
Israel with a cover for future military strikes? Does that mean that the
Security
Council and the UN Secretariat, supposed to defend the people, have become
mainly
responsible for humanitarian catastrophes?
Hans von Sponeck: I would say, only those who either are ignorant, or
those who
cannot accept the defeat, will continue to argue that the humanitarian
drama in Iraq
was largely not due - not exclusively but to a large extent -to an
erroneous policy,
a policy of punishment. The Iraqi people were punished for having accepted
the
government in Baghdad, even though they were completely innocent.
Silvia Cattori: Our political leaders, who are present in all
international bodies,
knew perfectly well that these sanctions would have disastrous
consequences. Does
that mean that, by remaining silent, they have accepted innocent civilians
to be
killed, tortured, and starved?
Hans von Sponeck: I would say, unless the international community has a
very bad
memory, we cannot forget that, either there was silence or there was
connivance,
sup****t, or there was a deliberate effort to promote conditions of the
kind that
prevailed in Iraq during thirteen years of sanctions. Therefore, you get
different
levels of accountability, of political accountability. Not only the Prime
Minister of
Great Britain and the President of the United States and their governments
are
responsible, but others as well; Spain and Italy played a sup****tive role
that means
the former governments are responsible as well. Mr Aznar in Madrid and Mr
Berlusconi
in Italy are very much responsible for having contributed to the
humanitarian
disaster that evolved in Iraq. They will not accept this responsibility
but the
evidence is there.
Silvia Cattori: If the manipulation of the Security Council by the United
States is
the main problem and if the US continues to commit crimes pretending that
they have a
UN mandate, what can be done to correct that unacceptable situation?
Hans von Sponeck: I think that this is a very im****tant question. It is
relevant for
the debate about what kind of United Nations we need to protect the
international
community or to protect the 192 member governments from the danger that
certain other
governments misuse their authority, their information, their finances and
their power
to serve their own interest, but against the interests of peace, the
interests of
justice and the interests of mankind.
Silvia Cattori: How did you react to the execution of Saddam Hussein and
his
co-defendants, sentenced to death by a tribunal established by the USA?
Hans von Sponeck: I would say, first of all, that I was not surprised.
This was the
ultimate objective of those in power in Baghdad and of those who occupy
Iraq. It is
impossible to defend Saddam Hussein, but we can respond to the fact that
there was no
due process, but a masquerade. It was a tribunal that hid a prearranged
death
sentence under the cover of respectability. Saddam Hussein, like any other
person,
deserved the right to a fair trial, but he was not given a fair trial. And
therefore
I was upset by this obvious act, although we have international law,
despite the fact
that the European nations, the US and Canada as well as other western
nations
repeatedly express their intention to maintain justice, that they in fact
did not
protect justice.
Silvia Cattori: You wrote to President Bush and asked him to free Tarek
Aziz. Did you
get an answer?
Hans von Sponeck: I did not get an answer. I wrote this letter because I
know Mr
Tarek Aziz. My predecessor and I both think he is a person with whom we
had a correct
relation****p, a person who - despite what we read in the mainstream media
- tried to
look to the Iraqi people. He was ready and willing to consider proposals
for the
improvement of the humanitarian aid programme. From our perspective, from
my
perspective, he was a correct person. I cannot judge what Mr Tarek Aziz
did in Iraq
outside my fields of responsibility, but all I want to ask for is that a
person, who
is ill, if for no other than humanitarian reasons, should be treated with
dignity,
should be allowed to obtain medical care while having a fair trial. Just
like Saddam
Hussein, Tarek Aziz deserved, and deserves, to be treated in accordance
with
international law, in accordance with The Hague and the Geneva
Conventions. I object
to the fact that over three years after he voluntarily turned himself in
to the
occupation forces, he has not even been charged, and still remains in
custody while
he is badly in need of medical care.
Silvia Cattori: While the situation created by the occupation of Iraq is
frightening,
it is to be feared that the Resolution against Iran will be used by the
United States
to strike that country. The German Navy - formally under UN mandate - is
in place in
the Eastern Mediterranean. Is it because you know to what extent your
country is
involved in the projects of war of the United States that you recently
wrote an open
letter to Mrs Angela Merkel asking her to refuse all use of violence
against Iran?
Hans von Sponeck: That is correct. I feel very strongly that, gradually,
Germany and
other European countries are getting involved into power policy defined in
Wa****ngton
by power-hungry people. This is becoming more serious because these
power-hungry
people begin to realize that they cannot, on their own, implement a policy
of
domination. So they need the help of other governments now, and these
others seem to
be Central-European and Eastern European governments from Lithuania to
Great Britain.
They also try to politicise NATO and make it an instrument, which to a
large extent
has in fact already become a US instrument.
Therefore, just like any normal individual in this world, I cannot accept
the
attempts - sup****ted by Chancellor Merkel during the recent NATO summit -
to provide
this military alliance with a political mission. NATO is an instrument of
the Cold
War; for many years NATO was looking for a new mission, for a new role.
The only
thing the allies knew was that they have a military responsibility but,
with the end
of the Cold War in Europe, that responsibility no longer existed and was
no longer
necessary. So there was this desperate search for a new role.
I personally think that it is extremely dangerous that NATO now presents
itself as a
democratic instrument for western democracies while, in fact, it is a tool
in the
hands of the United States to implement the Project for the 'New American
Century'.
Neoconservatives in the United States made this famous proposal in the
1990s - while
the Bush administration converted it into its national security strategy
of 2002 and
subsequent years - and NATO is supposed to assist its implementation. The
responsible
politicians that recently met in Munich should have rejected this concept.
Mr Vladimir Putin, the Russian President for once did not mince his words
and
expressed plainly what many of us feel. Of course, those who follow a
different
agenda rejected his suggestions. However, there is a reality in what Mr
Putin said.
I am convinced that, due to this militarised politicisation of NATO, we
will have
taken a big step backwards to what is not only a Cold War atmosphere
between major
powers, but also, and this is the tragedy, to an increase in defence
spending in many
countries including China, Russia, and Western Europe. This spending has
already been
greatly increased in numerous countries, and it can serve no other purpose
than
escalating the polarisation between different groups around the world.
The world beyond Central Europe and North America is no longer willing to
accept a
western one-sided policy. The public no longer accepts the requirements of
last
century's military and economic powers. Their days are over and, if we do
not take
this into account, we will only make things worse.
To me, the key words at the moment are dialogue and diplomacy. We have to
accomplish
this in a clearly multilateral spirit, not in the spirit of a superpower,
which is
anything but a superpower be it economically, politically or morally, let
alone
ethically.
Even if there is a little bit of superpower spirit left in the United
States because
of its military power, it is not going to be enough to save the 'Pax
Americana'. 'Pax
Americana' is a thing of the past and the sooner we recognise this in
Europe and
prepare ourselves for multilateral cooperation - which is something
different from
the bilateral or NATO type cooperation - the better it will be.
Silvia Cattori: NATO is taking part in wars of occupation - in
contradiction to its
own Charter - and, in collaboration with the CIA, it is involved in secret
criminal
operations: What I think of in this context are the abductions of suspects
to secret
prisons. If Europe continues to submit itself to and accepts the
installation of
American anti-missile systems in NATO member states, might this not lead
to
confrontation, or even to the return to the worst days of Cold War?
Hans von Sponeck: It is insane. There is no excuse, and Condoleezza Rice's
argument
according to which Russia had no reason to worry about ten anti-missile
systems to be
stationed in Poland and in the Czech Republic is so dishonest. If ten can
be placed
today, twenty might be placed tomorrow. The very fact that these
antimissile systems
are positioned at the border of the former USSR, or Russia, is already
enough to
augment the reasons for confrontation between Russia and the West, let
alone China.
We are creating and we are shaping tomorrow's enemy. I, and with me many
others
around the globe, cannot accept this development. We do not count,
however, we are
weak, we are considered naive, we are considered 'blue-eyed people', as
the Americans
have often called us, who do not understand the 'global vision'.
Well, if we are living in a democracy, then I have the right to understand
this
'global vision', but I am not informed about it. I am just asked to rely
on the good
will and on the good intentions of a government like the one in
Wa****ngton. But I
cannot do so, we cannot do so, because we have been disappointed over and
over again
by misinformation, by brutal dishonesty, by power politics that only
served one
party. I am far from accepting this and, therefore I regard the whole
policy of
convincing the Czech and Polish governments to have these antimissile
systems as
extremely dangerous and misplaced. That is nothing but blatant and brutal
power
politics, which we do not need and which we will fight against. Peace,
future
internationalism and the consolidation of nations and progress - in the
spirit of the
UN Charter and other international laws - don't have any need of that.
Silvia Cattori: You were in Kuala Lumpur in February, to attend a
conference on war
crimes. There was, in the West, very limited media coverage on this
im****tant event.
If such meetings, which denounce the drifts of NATO and the violations of
the UN
Charter, are ignored, how can a debate be opened for reforming these
organisations?
Don't you feel like speaking in a desert while the media, the UN, the
States, go on
lying and ignore your struggle?
Hans von Sponeck: Well, you know, one should not be discouraged by the
fact that the
media ignore us. Most of the time, when citizens tried to convince their
leaders to
change direction, they have been ignored. Well, should that be the end of
the effort?
I do not think so. The very fact that people, not just fools, not just
misguided
dreamers, but very realistic people who have an overall view on the world,
who
understand the political processes, come together to debate in a serious
way the
conditions and misuse of power, gives im****tant evidence that the
international
conscience is alive, that an international conscience exists. Kuala Lumpur
did not
make it to the headlines; Hollywood makes it to the headlines, cheap
emotionalism,
and cheap quality media events like the Big Brother programme in London
make
headlines.
The fact that 5000 people got together in Kuala Lumpur to discuss war as a
crime,
against the background of all the global sufferings that these illegal
wars have
caused, did not make it to the headlines is regrettable, but it should not
make
people less willing to speak out. Those attacted by these crimes should
notice it.
Every one of us, as an individual, has a responsibility to observe, has to
make his
or her views known. In addition, I am sure that the Kuala Lumpur meeting
has created
more awareness in many circles around the world, which will ultimately be
transferred
into a greater resistance against these feint and selfish and one-sided
policies that
the West tries to enforce.
I am not anti-West, I am a 'Westerner' but that does not mean that I
cannot
critically look at the one-way street which has developed, the one-way
traffic on
which international power, international trade, international culture are
travelling.
That, as I have said before, cannot continue because it is no longer
acceptable, and
Kuala Lumpur brought together people from all over the world, who are of
the same
opinion. So this has, I am sure, added to an awareness, and a willingness
to invest
time in order to make views known. And if that does not hit the headlines
today and
bring about a change immediately, it may do so tomorrow, and if it is not
tomorrow,
then the next day.
Silvia Cattori: Voices who, like Mr Jimmy Carter's and Mr John Dugard's
denounce the
crimes of Israel in Palestine, voices who, like Mr Dennis Halliday's [2]
and your own
voice put the finger on UN's drifting off course in Iraq, all these voices
are
demanding for an immense respect. However, these are rare voices, which
can be easily
marginalised by the political powers. Aren't you disappointed that hardly
anybody or
only a few people at your level follow your example and take position
against these
state crimes and abuses?
Hans von Sponeck: Of course, I am disappointed. You know, these days,
every day, I am
waiting anxiously for a senior American general, a senior American
political
personality to come out and say: enough is enough, I will not continue to
sup****t
insanity, I will not go on sup****ting illegality, I will no longer sup****t
policies
that have led us into deep difficulties and deep violations of anything
that a
civilised person should stand for. Of course, one is disappointed, but in
view of
what has happened during the last few decades, particularly during the
years when Mr
Bush has been in power, we cannot allow ourselves to be idle. This is an
appeal for
the international peace movement which should be oriented towards a better
coordination, i.e. much better networking, much more combined effort, much
more joint
declarations. People from all over the world should join hands and
demonstrate to
themselves and to the larger public that they have the firm intention not
to accept
what has led us into a world in which the gulf is wide open between those
who have
nothing - and that is a very, very large majority, over one billion people
out of the
six and a half billion people on our planet living with less than one
dollar a day -
and the top ten percent who are living in unimaginable luxury and well
being.
This cannot continue. And if some people who listen to our conversation
may say 'here
is really a very naive person', and others say 'look this is a communist,
terrible,
he is asking for equality for everybody', I will tell them 'no, I am not'.
First of
all I do not think I am naive, secondly, I do not think I am a communist
in the
traditional sense. I am a person who, in 32 years of work for the United
Nations and
beyond, has learned to accept the fact that all of us are not equal, but
that all of
us should have equal op****tunities to develop our own contribution to
peace. It is
not a question of lack of money, there is plenty of money for everybody
but, what is
missing is the will to share the resources and to do more than pay lip
service to
this wonderful body of instruments that has been established by good
people after the
Second World War. Over the last sixty years, this body has tried to lay
the basis for
greater justice and for socioeconomic progress for everybody.
Silvia Cattori: All the hope that you feed must make you suffer, as you
are well
aware that for the Muslim peoples that the West is humiliating, the worst
is still to
come?
Hans von Sponeck: Of course. If you read and if you see, what is happening
in the
Middle East, there is no single day on which you do not feel ashamed, you
do not feel
the humilitation that strikes us when we see these poor people suffering
hard, people
from Palestine to Iraq and in other parts of the Middle East as well. The
human
language is not, at least for me, capable of expressing the feelings that
I really
have. It is horrifying. I come from a country, which experienced and
caused this
horrible Second World War. It lasted for five years, and we still talk
about it. What
about the many years in Iraq, thirty years of dictator****p, and thirteen
years of
sanctions, and now three and a half years of occupation: how much can an
individual,
how much can a nation endure? And if you see - I think of the universities
I visited
was in Baghdad, Mustanseriya University, Baghdad College, Baghdad
University - that
these institutions where young innocent people are supposed to prepare for
life, were
destroyed by bombs. When I was in Iraq, I saw people living peacefully in
integrated
neighbourhoods! I never heard a conversation like "I am a ****ite, you are
a Sunnite,
and you are a Turcoman" at that time.
Baghdad is the largest Kurdish city of the world with over one million
Kurds, and
there were many problems, for sure, there was a dictator, there were
political
murderers but, compared with what we see today, that was nothing. The
sectarian
confrontation that exists now was created by this illegal war. And the
threat towards
the Al-Maliki government is the limit of dishonesty: "If you do not bring
security to
Iraq, then we, the Americans, will reconsider to what extend we will
continue our
sup****t". What is this? Who established these kinds of conditions? Who is
responsible
for this chaos and the sectarian confrontation?
Silvia Cattori: Western countries condemn Iran that has signed the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, for a bomb that it does not have. They do not
condemn
Israel that did not sign this treaty, and that has nuclear bombs. Choosing
between
Israel that does not conceal preparing for waging a pre-emptive nuclear
war, and Iran
who wants to have a civil nuclear industry, is not Israel the one that is
really
threatening world peace, and is not Iran the target? How do you react to
this denial
of justice?
Hans von Sponeck: I have only one immediate response: it is a classical
example of a
double standard. We have a demand for a nuclear free zone: It is the
Security Council's
resolution 687 of April 1991 which in paragraph 14, calls for a nuclear
free zone for
the complete Middle East. Israel has not even signed the Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
Iran may have intentions that are against the long-term international
interests, but
Iran has not yet passed the red line. Mister El-Baradei, the director of
the
International Atomic Agency did not say that Iran had passed that line.
All he did
was to say that Iran has not fully disclosed, not transparently enough,
its
intentions and that Iran has put more centrifuges into operation.
But what an extraordinary demonstration of double standards, not to point
the finger
at Israel and others! What about Pakistan, what about India? And about the
US itself
which is openly working on a new generation of nuclear weapons, totally in
violation
of the Non-Proliferation Treaty of which the US is an initiator. So this
is a
disastrous double standard. If I were an Iranian, I would say: 'Sorry,
take yourself
measures to put into practice of what you say is the norm and then we can
talk, let's
sit down at the table, at the same eye level, with no preconditions.'
I accept the Iranian demand for dialogue. I think it is absolutely the
right thing to
do. Iran says: 'You have a disagreement, so let's meet, but do not come
and tell me
before I can meet you, that I must have fulfilled certain conditions that
you want me
to fulfil; I am sorry, we come, we meet, we talk, and we lay the cards on
the table.
And what we discover when we look at reality is a frightening attempt to
keep up a
double standard.
Silvia Cattori: What message would you like to give to those political
leaders who do
not care about human rights who wage wars and violating international and
human
rights? What message would you like to give to the populations who are, at
present,
exposed to the terror of occupying states? And what message would you like
to give to
those who oppose these wars but do not know how to stop them and are
grieving over
the inaction of the political parties?
Hans von Sponeck: To those who are violating human rights, I would say:
You must live
with your own guilty conscience, and how can you, in the light of all the
evident
damage, live with your guilty conscience? Don't you think that there are
better ways
to protect your interests by at the same time allowing others to benefit
from
existing op****tunities?
To those who are victims and those who are concerned, I would say: Never
give up,
just try your best, we all live in freedom, as healthy individuals, to
make our
contribution small as they may be. If we gather for that aim, if we
cooperate, if we
network, if we try to make our views known to those in power, we can make
a
contribution. We can use our votes -those of us who live in countries with
free
elections - let us make use of our votes but not in a mechanical way. For
it is a
great act of responsibility to cast a vote. Know your political
candidates, put
pressure on them, hold them accountable, check their records and, when
there is a
re-election, if you are not satisfied, encourage those who deserve your
confidence to
run for office. What else can we do?
Silvia Cattori
--
_____________________________________________________
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictator****ps and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--
|
