HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
New Humanitarianism
Basra
as Military Target
by
Rahul Mahajan
March
27, 2003
Iraq's
desperate humanitarian situation has suddenly become a retroactive
justification for the war, even for the attacking of civilian targets. The need
to get aid into Basra has apparently prompted a British military spokesperson
to designate it as a "legitimate military target," language
reminiscent of Gulf War I, when the saturation bombing of Basra was justified
on the same basis.
As
verifiable civilian deaths mount toward 300 in this "war of
liberation," the need to establish American moral superiority is growing
rapidly. Thus Donald Rumsfeld's convenient rediscovery of the Geneva Convention
and thus the American media hysteria over al-Jazeera, which has the temerity to
provide balanced reporting of the war.
Thus
also a recent press conference by the execrable Andrew Natsios, head
administrator of USAID, in which he raised the already stunning mendacity of
the Bush administration to new heights. While beating his chest over the
massive preparations the United States has made to avert a humanitarian tragedy
in Iraq (always assuming the Iraqis don't screw things up by continuing
unaccountably to resist their liberation), he touched on the problems of Basra,
where only 40% of the people currently have access to potable water.
The
genesis of said problems, according to him, is "a deliberate decision by
the regime not to repair the water system or replace old equipment with new
equipment, so in many cases people are basically drinking untreated sewer water
in their homes and have been for some years."
A
deliberate decision by the regime. We've seen some remarkable lies about Iraq
from this administration including Dick Cheney's statement that Iraq has
"reconstituted nuclear weapons", Ari Fleischer's that Iraq did not
declare the range of its al-Samoud 2 missiles, and an attempt to pass off
crudely forged documents as proof that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from
Niger.
But
this. "A deliberate decision by the regime." The mind boggles. Ever
since Iraq's water treatment system was left in shambles by the Gulf War, where
the deliberate targeting of the entire electrical power grid caused water
pumping to shut down and sewage to fill the streets of Basra, the Iraqi
government has scrambled desperately to repair its water system, only to come
repeatedly face to face with one huge obstacle: the United States government.
Joy
Gordon's excellent article, "Cool War: Economic Sanctions as a Weapon of
Mass Destruction" (Harper's, November 2002), documents at length her
conclusion that "the United States has consistently thwarted Iraq from
satisfying its most basic humanitarian needs." Under the sanctions regime
set up over Iraq after the Gulf War, any country on the Security Council could
block or indefinitely delay any contract for goods submitted by the Iraqi government.
The United States has imposed far more blocks than all other members put
together; as of 2001, it had put half a billion dollars worth of water and
sanitation contracts on hold. The water treatment goods it has blocked at one
time or another include pipes (roughly 40% of the clean water pumped is lost to
leakage), earth-moving equipment, safety equipment for handling chlorine, and
no fewer than three sewage treatment plants.
But
there can be no doubt that, in the inimitable words of Madeleine Albright,
"we care more about the Iraqi people."
If
you're not convinced yet, consider this. After coming under harsh criticism
because of the frightful inadequacy of its humanitarian preparations, the
United States has made some attempt to remedy the problem. The original plan
was a reprise of the Afghan operation dubbed "military propaganda" by
Doctors Without Borders, in which some tens of thousands of meals would be
dropped out of planes every day, and, in the miraculous manner common in that
part of the world, each meal would feed a multitude; now, some shipments of
wheat have been added to the original plan.
The
same Andrew Natsios wrote an indignant rejoinder to the Washington Post,
claiming full readiness of the United States to "help Iraq.". Tucked
away in the middle of his missive: "Saddam Hussein has doubled monthly
food rations since October, trying to buy the affection of his people. As a
result, families have stored food at home."
In
other words, for all the humanitarian triumphalism of the "coalition,"
for all its great desire to level Basra so that Iraqis can be fed, the agency
that has taken meaningful steps to avert a catastrophe is the Iraqi government.
It did so under the severest of constraints; for over a year, revenue has been
depressed and the Oil for Food program is dramatically underfunded.
Saddam
Hussein is a brutal dictator who has subjected his people to horrible
suffering. There is little doubt about that. The fact that on at least the
grounds considered above he stacks up far better than the U.S. government, no
matter which administration, does not bode well for the future of the Iraqi
people.
Nor
does this brave new humanitarian world being created by the exponents of water
privatization and structural adjustment bode well for the future of anybody
else. On Iraq, the New Humanitarianism is clear: we had to destroy Iraq (over
the past 12 years, not just the last few days) in order to save it. Who will we
save next?
Rahul Mahajan is a founding member of the
Nowar Collective and serves on
the National Board of Peace Action. He is the author of the forthcoming book, The
U.S. War Against Iraq: Myths, Facts, and Lies, to be published by Seven
Stories Press in April 2003. His first book, The New Crusade: America's War
on Terrorism (Monthly Review, 2002), has been described as "mandatory
reading for all those who wish to get a handle on the war on terrorism."
His articles can be found at http://www.rahulmahajan.com. Email: rahul@tao.ca