Iraq and Sanctions: Myth & Reality

An attempt to dispell key myths put forward by proponents of sanctions policy

(originally published in Iraq Under Siege, South End Press, 2002).

Background: Sanctions and War

Resolutions, reports and chronologies on more than a decade of sanctions and war on Iraq.

March 2003

Iraq and Weapon’s of Mass Destruction

Like so many proponents of war against Iraq, retired U.S. Senator Fred Thompson frequently sites the “continued” development of WMD’s; so far the most damning evidence has been Colin Powell’s speech before the UN and the Tony Blair dossier, which Washington has embraced. The evidence is indeed damning; the “germ factory” in Khurmal, of which Powell produced photographs on February 5, was visited by Luke Harding of the London Observer two days later, who found “a dilapidated collection of concrete buildings…a few empty concrete houses…a bakery…paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking.” The satellite photos Colin Powell exhibited as evidence of WMD production are even more questionable opposite Hans Blix’s statements-supported by the IAEA (nuclear weapons inspectors)–that there is “no evidence” of mobile weapons labs or active WMD programs from either satellite photographs and intelligence sources. The dossier on Iraq’s terror and weapons of mass destruction, produced by Tony Blair and praised by Colin Powell and the White House, was plagiarized from journalist Sean Boyne’s 1997 contribution to the defense magazine Janes and Ibrahim al-Marashi’s post-graduate thesis. Much of the plagiarized information is 12 years out of date. Boyne, who is opposed to the war, and Al-Marashi note that, even though Blair’s version retains the grammatical and typographical errors of the source documents, much of the statistics had been altered.

UNMOVIC, the UN biological and chemical weapons inspections team, has found empty warheads and has also dismantled mustard gas warheads. These warheads were to be dismantled by UNSCOM in 1998, but the job was interrupted when Washington withdrew the UN inspection team without Security Council approval immediately prior to the Operation: Desert Fox bombings. Following several days of assessing the Iraqi al-Samoud 2 missile, UNMOVIC stated that the range of the missile can exceed 150km, that this “falls in the prohibited zone and its engines should probably be destroyed.” Iraq recently allowed U-2 spy plane overflights, and, as the invasive and thorough inspections process continues, Hans Blix, executive director of UNMOVIC, has frequently challenged the notions that the inspections process has been undermined by Iraq and that his reports support a campaign for war.

See Also:

• Robert Scheer, “House of Cards: Bush’s Paper-Thin Evidence to Justify a War has Fallen Apart,” Los Angeles Times, February 11, 2003.
• Luke Harding, “Revealed: Truth Behind US ‘Poison Factory’ Claim,” Observer UK, February 9, 2003.
• Michael White and Brian Whitaker, “UK War Dossier a Sham, Say Experts,” Guardian/UK, February 7, 2003.
• John Barry, “The Defector’s Secrets,” Newsweek Magazine, March 3, 2003.

Iraq’s Threat to the Region and to the United States

At the League of Arab States Beirut summit in March 2002, all 22 nations stated their opposition to a U.S. strike against Iraq; this includes Kuwait, which resumed diplomatic relations with Iraq after a formal apology for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Arab League Director Hisham Badr stated, “The league totally rejects a war against Iraq because this will open the doors of hell.” Furthermore, Kuwait and Iraq have slowly begun to normalize relations, first by discussing the matter of 600 Kuwaitis missing from the invasion and the return of Kuwait’s national archives. If the weakest country in the Gulf region-the country Iraq invaded and occupied–is not threatened by Iraq, then it is a gross exaggeration to claim that Iraq poses a threat to the world’s only superpower, especially considering Iraq’s military capabilities are a fraction of what they were during Desert Storm.

Though Washington promotes pre-emption as a deterrent to threats and terrorism from Iraq and its agents, CIA director George Tenet has stated the contrary: that, right now, the threat of terrorist attack against the U.S. from Iraq is minimal to none, but the likelihood dramatically increases in the event of a U.S. invasion.

Except for Kuwait, Iraq’s neighbors are superior military powers and are among the top recipients of U.S. arms sales and subsidies, especially Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The entire Gulf region, except for Iran, Syria and Iraq, are covered with U.S. military bases; more than half of Kuwait’s land is occupied by U.S. military. The U.S. has offered Turkey a $26 billion aid package (Turkey’s counter-offer asked for nearly twice the amount, then Washington lowered the offer to $15 billion, according to Reuters). Despite the risk of inflaming the local populations, many nations in the Persian Gulf have no choice but to cave in to Washington’s strong-arming. The regimes hosting the U.S. military may depend on too much foreign aid and World Bank loans to risk noncompliance with U.S. interests; in 1991, Yemen’s vote against war against Iraq cost it $70 million in development aid-its entire aid package.

Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Although the CIA and British intelligence have found no clear links, both Colin Powell and President Bush have frequently asserted that the Government of Iraq and al-Qaeda are allies, noting the presence of Ansar al-Islam in the northern, semi-autonomous Kurdish governorates. A radical Islamist militia, al-Islam is fundamentally opposed to the secular government of Iraq just as they are at war with the secular Kurdish PUK for control of a portion of northeastern Iraq. Though their leader, Mullah Krekar, lives in Norway, Al-Islam has a safer haven under the northern U.S.-protected “no-fly” zone-where U.S. Special operations have been on the ground for a over a month–because the Baghdad government forbids dissident militia groups who see the Baghdad government as “infidel.” In his February 5 speech to the UN, Powell noted “decades of contact” between al-Qaeda and Saddam,” despite the fact that al-Qaeda is about 5 years old. The “evidence” for Washington’s claim comes from the testimony of al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees under torture; such evidence is seen as “soft evidence” by the intelligence community-unreliable until corroborated.

See Also:

• Editorial, “Torture Is Not an Option,” Washington Post, December 27, 2002.

Liberating the People of Iraq - Regime Change

Under the paper-thin front of “liberate the Iraqi people,” many “regime change” options are being tossed around Washington. In the interest of maintaining control in a potentially unstable situation, a situation sitting atop a petroleum gold mine, the most likely invasion scenario involves extended semi-permanent occupation of Iraq to secure access to the oil fields. Whether or not one believes that oil is the underlying motive for this ongoing war, one must accept that, as the source of 95% of Iraq’s foreign exchange, securing oil reserves must be the foundation of a U.S. military occupation. This resource will help finance the rehabilitation of the entire country and may even pay for the U.S. war and occupation, especially if the U.S. follows through on its threat of unilateralism. In other words, the United States is likely to go to war against Iraq and then bill them for it.

Washington’s best-case scenario for keeping Iraq intact relies on maintaining the regime structure, offering Ba’ath governors amnesty in exchange for answering directly to the U.S. military occupational commander; consider the collapse of the Soviet Empire and Yugoslavia after Tito-a U.S. occupation could keep Iraq’s borders intact.

Foreign military rule by the country that has waged a 12-year war against you could hardly be called “liberation.” The establishment of a U.S. military occupation of Iraq is no closer to “liberation” than French military dictatorship following the American Revolution would have meant “liberation” to colonists. The people of Iraq have no say in American politics, have no command over nuclear-ready trident submarines in the Persian Gulf, and have no say in the bombs that continue to fall on their houses, 12 years after Iraq withdrew from Kuwait. At the very foundation of truths we Americans hold to be “self-evident” is the right of self-determination, a right denied the Iraqis living at the end of U.S. gun barrel.

To be blunt, the people we’re bombing have lived with our brand of liberation for 12 years. It isn’t liberating anybody. Examine Washington’s record of “regime change” and “liberation” -the support of Hussein, Shah Reza of Iran, Bin-Laden, Pinochet, Mobutu, Suharto, Samoza, Garcia, Papadoc, death squads in Latin America, secret police in Iran…the view on the ground is a lot different from the view in front of a newspaper or television.

Until recently, Washington has chosen the exiled General Nizar al-Khazraji to run the interim government in Iraq; al-Khazraji was commander during the use of chemical weapons throughout the 80’s and the invasion of Kuwait. However, Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress has since been dubbed the head of the interim government in Iraq. Chalabi, like all the names on Washington’s list, has little connection to Iraq. Chalabi just returned to Iraq for the first time since his 11th birthday and is relatively unknown among the general population. Government by Washington appointee or military occupation denies the Iraqi people freedom and self-determination.

Now there is one thing feared and dreaded above all in Iraq, and that is the United States government. Like in Afghanistan, a camera crew may find people celebrating–dancing to their “liberation” at the hands of U.S. troops; the majority of ordinary Iraqis will have little thanks for the United States. After more than 12 years, the bombs and sanctions that killed well-more than a million civilians come with a new American military regime giving orders to the old Baghdad regime-will the ordinary victims throw a party for this?

See Also:

• Chris Toensing, “U.S. Support for the Iraqi Opposition,” Foreign Policy in Focus, Janaury 2003.
• Stephanie Nolen, “Plan Would See U.S. Rule Postwar Iraq,” Globe & Mail, February 12, 2003.
• Rupert Cornwell, “‘Hundreds of Thousands of Troops’ to Occupy Iraq, says US General,” Independent, February 26, 2003.

Humanitarian Consequences of War in Iraq

Likely to far exceed the destruction wrought by Desert Storm, the Pentagon’s new battle plan-”shock and awe”–sees a barrage of 800 cruise missiles on Iraq in two days, twice the number launched during the entire 40 days of Desert Storm. Although the White House sees this “surgical” method as a way to minimize the killing of ordinary Iraqis, the Pentagon promises that there will not be one safe place in Baghdad, a city of several million. As one would assume, this means again the destruction of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure, still in disrepair from the last 12 years of bombing and economic sanctions. Imagine waging the entire Gulf War against Texas in one day, then repeating it for a few more days…

The English anti-sanctions think-tank/campaign CASI has made available recent UN reports on the humanitarian consequences of a U.S. strike; the tonnage of bombs dropped during the last Gulf War exceeded that of 7 Hiroshimas; military strategist Harlan Ullman views the current battle plan “rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima-not taking days or weeks but minutes.” The UN document “Likely Humanitarian Scenarios” estimates half a million casualties and 3.03 million Iraqis facing famine, including “2.03 million severely and moderately malnourished children under five and one million lactating and pregnant women.” This report also estimates 900,000 Iraqi refugees as a result of a full-scale U. S. strike. The $30 million of emergency aid thus far pledged to handle the humanitarian consequences amounts to roughly $1 per Iraqi.

See Also:

• “Internal UN Document: Likely Humanitarian Scenarios,” December 10, 2002.
• William S. Kowinski, “Bombing Baghdad into ’shock and awe’,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 16, 2003.

Ready to go - The Oil is Ripe for the Taking

The argument that the U.S. needs to consume Iraqi oil is false; the stakes are control over access. U.S. control over Iraq’s oil would mean near-absolute control over the world’s oil supply. The foundation of U.S. oil security in the Persian Gulf is the U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia–on the world’s richest known oil reserves; Iraq has the second richest known oil reserves, although speculation hints that Iraq may have much more. As is stands, the Saudi regime increases or decreases its oil output at the request of Washington; this allows the U.S. to control crude oil prices and influence the economies of its major competitors. Such control is an asset to more than 41 U.S. administration officials with ties to arms and energy.

Sitting on top of the second richest known oil reserves is a government who offers “most favored nation” status to China, Russia and France–not the United States; under U.S.-led economic sanctions, Iraq’s oil is off the open market, and the lifting of economic sanctions under the current regime means that first dibs on Iraqi oil contracts goes to these countries and not the U.S. In a post-Hussein Iraq occupied by the United States or U.S. appointee, these contracts are void, and Washington has control of modern society’s most precious resource.

Prior to the first Gulf War, no Arab state wanted a U.S. base on its soil. In the last 12 years, the United States has secured bases all over the Persian Gulf (Turkey, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, and neighboring coastal regions). This forward basing in the region allows the United States to occupy and secure access to Arab oil through military force without having to build a coalition: the international consensus required for Desert Storm is no longer necessary nor available. This forward basing puts local populations against the United States by showing that U.S. interests are friendly toward dictatorial regimes, not to the populations living under those regimes.

Let us not underestimate the significance of oil to the current White House. As Henry Kissinger once said, “oil is too important a resource to be left in the hands of the Arabs.” More recently, Vice President Dick Cheney, when he was CEO of Halliburton, the world’s largest oil services company, told the Cato Institute, “the good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States.” To solve this, the good hyperpower must see fit to impose U.S.-friendly regimes where there is oil and gas.

See Also:

• Professor Marjorie Cohn, “Oil: Weapon of Mass Destruction,” Jurist, 2002.
• Ralph Nader, “What Role the Oil Industry Playing in Bush’s Drive to War?,” CommonDreams.org, February 14, 2003.
• Michael T. Klare, “Oiling the Wheels of War,” The Nation, September 19, 2002

The U.S. Economy

Behind the threat of U.S. war against Iraq lies a pressing need to address domestic issues, including increased unemployment, growing deficits, corporate fraud, massive reductions in pension funds, and the development of long-term economic stability outside of arms and oil. War will continue to not only direct our monetary resources away from America but also our human resources-especially middle class and blue-collar Americans–as the number of reservists are pulled away from their work to serve active duty.

The short-term economic crisis approaches a critical stage as needs increase and budget gaps widen in the wake of the White House’s recent economic proposals. The 3,000-page federal spending plan offered by Washington on February 3 substitutes 5-year forecasts for the usual 10-year projections of revenues and expenditures; with states facing the harshest budget crises in 50 years, the reduction of federal funds means an immediate need to balance state budgets by slashing programs which aid the needy. With unemployment nearing a decade-long high, these programs will be in greater demand as they are simultaneously tapered down to accommodate a widening budget gap, California’s being the worst so far– $26-$35 billion in the next 16 months. In New York, with Wall Street still in a slump and the after-effects of 9-11 on the economy, New York is losing out a on great deal of tax revenue. The rest of the states face similar budget crises.

The price tag for this war-just to win-ranges from $80-$200 billion dollars. Add to that 10 years of occupation and reconstruction, and the price goes as high as $2 trillion. According to the U.S. treasury Department, February 2003 saw the budget deficit sit higher than $6 trillion. The national debt continues to increase by $1.29 billion per day. Military spending still takes 51% of the federal budget’s discretionary spending.

In sum, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin procured $5.6 billion more of arms contracts in 2002 than in 2001; this figure excludes weapons-related contracts with NASA or any other government agency- this figure is Department of Defense contracts only. Lockheed-Martin, the world’s largest weapons contractor, boasts an 11% net increase in net sales alone from 2001-not agreements or the dollar value in contracts but a $26.6 billion net sales profit; more than 65% of this is in arms. Boeing, the second largest U.S. arms contractor, has laid off more than 30,000 workers since 9-11 and seen war contracts increase by $3.3 billion last year. America’s #1 export is weapons for war; regardless of political partisanship, our economy depends on supporting military conflict and responding to terror with war.

Domestic Security

If the threat of terrorism on U.S. soil is to be a national priority, then the vulnerability of potential targets must be reexamined; how vulnerable are nuclear plants in America? Chemical and biological weapons stockpiles? What safety precautions ensure the security of the millions of Americans living around our own sources of weapons of mass destruction? Boeing, the world’s second largest arms manufacturer, sits in the middle of downtown Chicago. Lockheed-Martin has plants and facilities all over Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Picatinny Arsenal, the top research and development facility in the United States (depleted Uranium, nuclear weapons, high-tech weapons systems), is less than an hour from New York City. Aberdeen Proving Grounds and Edgewood Arsenal, nestled between Baltimore and Washington, is the very seat of U.S. chemical and biological weapons program. What does all this mean for the millions of Americans living in the shadow of our nation’s stockpiles? The strength of the U.S. military is directed abroad to the neglect of America’s safety at home.

See Also:

• Lockheed Martin
• Boeing
• Center for Defense Information
• Joe Feuerherd, “Fiscal mess, drive to war put social services on the block,” National Catholic Reporter, February 14, 2003.

At Risk: U.S. Soldiers and the Environment

The United States has a consistent record of exposing military personnel to hazardous and toxic materials, from exposing soldiers to radiation in above ground atomic bomb testing to the Tuskeegee experiment to Agent Orange to Depleted Uranium. From 1955-1975, the military’s Project: MK-ULTRA experimented on more than 8,000 U.S. servicemen with LSD, BZ and PCP. The anthrax vaccine is connected with a number of ailments including stomach paralysis and death, and there are a number of risks to DU exposure, including radiation and heavy metal poisoning. PB, an FDA-approved drug to protect soldiers from nerve agent Soman, is a possible contributor to Gulf War Syndrome and is known to cause muscle damage and magnify the effects of Sarin.

For the soldiers occupying Iraq, the risk of Gulf War syndrome is especially high. As a result of the 1991 ground war, southern Iraq, northern Kuwait and parts of Saudi Arabia are heavily contaminated with depleted Uranium (U-238), a heavy, radioactive metal with a 4.4 billion-year half-life. DU, fired from A-10 Warthogs and Abrams tanks, is the best armor-piercing material known. As a lump of metal, DU is not terribly toxic; however, upon impact what’s left is dust comprised of 60-80% sub-aerosol particles. After entering the body through inhalation, ingestion or through open wounds, DU sticks especially close to tissues where there is a lot of cell mitosis-bone marrow, reproductive tissues, brain, etc. It is passed on through the placenta to a child and through the father; the effects of range from cancer to non-syndrome congenital malformations, among other ailments and symptoms. The effects of DU are as lasting and permanent in the environment as on the lives of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

According to United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, more than 50,ooo lbs. of DU was fired by tanks alone during Desert Storm. In one instance, 660 rounds weighing 7,062 pounds burned at a military camp in Doha, Kuwait. More than 400,000 vets were exposed to more than 315 tons of DU dust, much of it containing trace elements of plutonium, the most toxic element known to humankind (one source of DU is spent cooling rods from nuclear reactors). In addition to DU, add the exposure to chemical weapons from disabled supply depots and air pollution from oil fields set ablaze by Iraq and U.S. bombs, and you have a very toxic environment. The Veterans Administration has registered 164,000 Gulf War veterans on disability status; nearly 15,000 have died since Desert Storm.

Aftercare for Gulf War vets has been sub-standard; this is likely to continue as President Bush has already slashed $275 million from the healthcare budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Preparations and safeguards for soldiers are in the same state: the Government Accounting Office reported in 2002 that, of the 800,000 defective chemical weapons suits the military had purchased, nearly 250,000 were still unaccounted for. As of February 2003, 250,000 are still unaccounted for.

See Also:

• Campaign Against Depleted Uranium
• National Gulf War Resource Center
• “Bio/Chem Attack Protection Questioned,” 60 Minutes, February 15, 2003.
• Linda Carroll, “Gulf War syndrome looms anew,” MSNBC, January 7, 2003.

The Risks of Regional Instability

The “liberation” of Afghanistan has left the locals living in a country where the current U.S.-imposed government maintains control over Kabul during the day. At night, it might as well be the wild west. The civil war of warlords involved in narcotics trafficking has seen a sharp increase in the export of heroin and opium from Afghanistan. The vice president has already been assassinated. The situation is so unmanageable that the current president Hamid Karzai, former Unocal advisor, will only accept U.S. military personnel as his bodyguards,.

Consider Iraq’s regional politics: Washington’s official policy advocates the assassination of Saddam Hussein. Who or what may fill the power vacuum? Start with internal, Ba’ath party rivalries and infighting, then add to that sectarian interests drawn along religious lines: the Shi’a majority in southern Iraq, Kurdish majority in northern Iraq, and the Sunni power structure in Baghdad. Kurdish uprisings in Iraq means Turkey has to get involved; Turkey already routinely invades and occupies northern Iraq to attack the Iraqi Kurds. In the south, you have to add Iran to the mix and recognize the thousands of Iraqi Shi’a living in Iran as refugees. Add in Saudi Arabia to counter-balance the rise of Shi’a power in a region where a Sunni minority holds power among a Shi’a majority. On a neighborhood level, how many scores are there to settle? What about vendettas from informants and collaborators and insurgents from 1991’s uprisings? There are a number of Gulf states where, with the support of the U.S., a tiny and very wealthy minority keep a tenuous hold over the powerless and fed up masses; below the surface is a powder keg waiting for a spark, and Israel is a lot closer to the Persian Gulf than the United States.

Without even entertaining the worst-case scenario, Iraqi society, from top-down to bottom-up, could very easily implode.

The Price of this War: Our Freedom

The INS requires all male, U.S.-based non-citizens aged between 16 and 45 and hailing from 20 countries-Muslim and Arab countries–deemed potential sponsors or sources of terrorism to report to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to be fingerprinted and photographed and to present all visa documents for inspection; after thousands of foreigners answered the first call to register with the INS on December 16, 2002, many found themselves immediately imprisoned, detained or deported. Among those jailed by the INS are foreign nationals who legally entered the United States and have properly applied for green cards but whose status is pending. Those who remember may compare this to the internment of Japanese immigrants during WWII; Rep. Howard Coble (D-NC), Chairman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, both expressed his support for the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII and the new INS registration because “some of these Arab-Americans are probably intent on doing harm to us.”

Though Americans have a constitutional right to “petition their government for a redress of their grievances,” rally and protest organizers are meeting with increased resistance from law enforcement and legislators. Recent revisions in parade and public assembly laws nationwide require longer wait periods and more red tape. Direct judiciary intervention is increasingly frequent; federal judge Barbara Jones recently denied a permit for the February 16 march organized by United for Peace and Justice, citing the “security risk” of an “unorganized, large-scale march” in front of the United Nations–though there is no “security risk” regarding the notoriously drunken St. Patrick’s and National Puerto Rican Day parades; the police even refused to allow portable toilets at the rally. In addition, the New York Times reported that “tens of thousands” of would-be attendees were denied access to the United for Peace rally by police barricades.

Through the Patriot Act and other security measures, America has seen its highest principles undermined for its own good; secret detentions and the broadening of surveillance powers have put hundreds of people behind bars without disclosure and due process; the repeal of the Presidential Papers Act by executive order and the unofficial leashing of the Freedom of Information Act keep the actions of public officials out of the public eye. Since 9-11, federal agencies sought lists of Arab Americans to interrogate and spy on, but many local law enforcement agencies refused to cooperate. The proposed TIPS program, which sought to employ neighbors as spies, was an unsuccessful step towards Soviet-style domestic spying.

Though the Justice Department had denied its existence until it was leaked, John Ashcroft’s Domestic Security Enhancement Act expands the already questionable powers of 2001’s Patriot Act; among other things, the “Patriot Act II” further squashes the Freedom of Information Act such that public oversight into the domestic security apparatus is nonexistent. In addition, this bill prevents courts from protecting victims of harassment and illegal invasions of privacy by law enforcement. Most important, according to Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin, is the power to strip American individuals of their citizenship-those who give “material support” to any organization deemed “terrorist” by the U.S. Attorney General.

See Also:

• Jack M. Balkin, “USA Patriot Act: A Dreadful Act II,” Los Angeles Times, February 13, 2003.
• Anai Rhoads, “The INS Registration Deadline Arrives - Civil Rights Questioned,” PoliticalCircus.com, January 10, 2003.
• Jim Lobe, “ACLU Calls For Congress to Investigate Arab, Muslim Detentions,” OneWorld.net, January 14, 2003.
• The Center for Public Integrity

Big Problems and Even Bigger Solutions: A More Humane Global Policy

We call upon all parties involved to use all means of negotiation and arbitration to solve this war with Iraq. Our commitment to nonviolence demands that we must first witness, then recognize our role in this war, then envision a workable alternative and take nonviolent action. Above all, there has to be openness and honesty, truth and disclosure on the part of all parties. Can we do this? Can we recognize that no hands, either in Washington or Baghdad, are bloodless? Can we be truthful in holding ourselves, as individuals and as a nation, to the standards we demand that our adversaries adhere to? To solve the problems of global violence we must. The forces of war and terrorism may destroy a symptom but continue to leave the problem untouched.

This world is too small for isolationism and isolationists-the interests of governments and peoples have permanently overlapped, especially for those living in the United States. There is hardly a cave or corner on this planet untouched by American culture and American business interests; even if one entertains political or economic isolationism, we’re generations past such a possibility. Starting with the obvious-”we’re here”-we must ask what our role should be, as a nation, as a social and economic force, and as individuals.

From clothing to consumer technology to crafts to appliances, America used to produce goods that advanced modern society. Today’s America lives with a huge trade deficit; our current workforce has shifted to fast food and service employment, and 0ur number one export is weapons and war. In almost every conflict on the globe, America is supporting at least one side. In the arms race between Pakistan and India, America arms both. In countries throughout the Middle East especially, dictatorial regimes are propped up by U.S. support. The displacement of some 3 million Kurds by Turkey has been accomplished with U.S. material and financial support. The displacement and killing of thousands of Palestinians from their homelands by the government of Israel is being and has been accomplished with material and financial aid (to the tune of more than $3 billion/year) from the American taxpayer. The U.S. financed and supported bloodshed in much of Latin America throughout the 80’s and continues this legacy in Columbia to this day. Consider our role as investors: if our investment in the world is war, terror and weapons, what will the return be? What has the return been? Will such an investment continue to find its way home? If America’s dominant contribution to the world is weapons and war, then a solution to global violence must be based upon a change in our role as a nation and as a people.

In the case of Iraq, Americans have been told that there are two choices: either we go to war or we do nothing. On the contrary, there are a number of alternatives:

• Lift economic sanctions, allowing the people of Iraq room to breathe, to live, to rebuild their lives and the means to move toward self-determination.
• Immediately cease all acts of war against Iraq, including the routine invasions and bombings of the no-fly zones.
• Washington and Baghdad engage in direct dialog to negotiate the issues of disarmament and disclosure on a universal standard with a competent mediator.
• In compliance with UNSCR 687, the U.S. adhere to disarmament standards it laid out for the region by reducing the flow of arms to the entire region, including Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal.
• The reduction of U.S. weapons of mass destruction stockpiles in compliance with international laws chartered and endorsed by the U. S. government and the UN.
• To further the engendering of stability in the region, not only divesting from arms and weapons and weapons of mass destruction but investing in human need and human resources which advance the security and self-sufficiency of nations in the region.
• Support the ready-made institution for furthering global security, regional stability, and global accountability-the United Nations. Note the successes of the World Food Program, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and all the other UN agencies that have made staggering progress in curing illnesses and meeting humanitarian needs worldwide. These challenges and demands can only be met with the support and participation of member states, most importantly the support and participation of the most powerful country ever to exist-the United States. With the support of the United States, mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court, the ABM treaty and Kyoto Protocols could effectively address international criminal activities, global violence and impending environmental crises. We must invest in global justice.