***One of the basic tenets of the law of war is to make distinction between the civilians and the combatants. Weapons of war have always been designed and used in such a way that they target mainly the combatants with minimal collateral damage. Any departure from this principle is a gross violation of human rights and qualifies to be considered as a war crime. Such a crime is being committed against the innocent men, women and children of iraq for the last 10 years. Their only fault is that they have a leader called Saddam Hussein. if it is a sin for them to be stuck with him, it must be said that they are being more sinned against.***

AMERICANS have been at it again, taking pot shot at the lame-duck civilian targets in the so-called no fly zone in southern Iraq. The latest forays with cutting edge weapons of death and destruction have been ostensibly due to the dare of the Iraqis in setting up missile defence system defying a ban. Sending a message by the present incumbent of the White House that paternal legacy will be held high in the country that incurred his administration's wrath is a more likely explanation. America is not alone. In Great Britain it has a staunch ally, thanks to the undertone of special relation infusing the foreign policies of the two countries. A few days earlier when the present American administration was busy taking inventory of the White House, Britain faithfully filled up the interregnum and carried out several sorties in the no fly zone. BBC's video footage vividly showed the rubbles of a razed down veterinary hospital and mourners carrying dead bodies of their loved ones. Neither of these were military targets. But the press note issued by the British solemnly announced that Iraqis were hiding military installations in civilian guise. On the basis of this paranoid suspicion any and every civilian structure is a possible target for air strikes. Iraq can comply with the goal of the self-declared guardians of no fly zone only by making the northern and southern parts of the country no man's land.

But why should Iraq oblige America and Britain through military withdrawal from the northern and southern parts of the country? These are integral parts of its sovereign territory. Under what international law can a country be made to renounce its authority from any part of its land over which its sovereignty

extends? Moreover, while the whole "Operation Desert Storm" in 1990 and the post-war sanctions have UN approval, the declaration of no fly zone and subsequent air strikes in those areas by the Americans and the British have not even a whiff of approval from any quarter. Such attacks are nothing short of blatant aggression violating international law. Insofar as they cause wanton death to civilians they amount to massacre of the innocents. One may also ask the American and the British governments that if safeguarding the Kurds in north Iraq and the Shiites in the south is such an important moral imperative why have not they taken similar steps in Turkey and Iran where the Kurds are equally endangered or for that

matter in all the countries where minorities of every description are being persecuted and even subjected to periodic pogroms? There is a limit to having double standard and deviousness.

If the intermittent air strikes cause civilian massacre, the decade old sanction imposed through the UN against Iraq has set in motion a slow but inexorable process of genocide with its toll of lives becoming heavier with the passage of time. The children, the poor, the sick and the old have borne the brunt of this cruelty. Although the sanction imposed in 1990 at the end of the Gulf War excluded medicine and food, this exclusion was of no significance as Iraq was denied full access to proceeds from oil exports and because

of freezing of her assets abroad. After long six years' of nearly total ban on import of any item the UN Security Council passed a resolution providing an oil-for-food deal. Iraq was allowed to use half of its proceeds from oil exports to import food and medicine. The remaining half of earnings from oil exports was to be used for compensation to those who suffered by Iraqi aggression and occupation of Kuwait. Determination and ultimate conclusion of the process of compensation being based on so many factors and involving so many parties this process is likely to remain open ended for a long time. On the other hand, the requirement of tight scrutiny and approval by a UN sanctions committee of each and every consignment

of import have proved to be so time consuming that there is always a crisis of shortage of some essential items, whether food or medicine. The new food basket, though an improvement over the monthly ration hitherto arranged by the Iraqi government, was still below the minimum requirement of calorie and protein. According to a FAO/UNDP Mission the additionality in ration made possible by the oil-for-food deal was still "inadequate and unbalanced."

Because of fragility and vulnerability the children are the worst sufferers of this crunch. As a result of untimely and inadequate imports following the UN sanction the mortality rate of children below five has increased manifold. It has been estimated that the number of deaths

among children due to diarrhoea was 1,450 in 1983 and 18,777 in 1997. The corresponding numbers of pneumonia deaths during the two periods were 1,444 and 1,750 respectively. By now the economic sanctions resulting in interrupted and meagre flow of food supply have killed hundreds of thousands of children, 5,500 per day per month since 1990, according to an estimate. According to another estimate the number of deaths among children rose from 1,089 to 23,665 in 1997, after seven years of sanction due to malnutrition. By now the figure is much higher. A survey by the UNICEF and the Iraqi Government 1997 estimated that 31 per cent of the population, equivalent to 960,000 children were suffer-

ing from either mild, moderate or acute form of malnutrition, up from 18 per cent before the war. Meanwhile, millions among the adult population have remained hungry, the poor and the displaced being the majority. By denying raw materials, machinery and equipment the sanction has not allowed the economy to recoup and rise from the debris of war. Rising price inflation, frequent currency devaluation and chronic unemployment have ravaged the economy and inflicted untold miseries on the population, particularly the middle class and the poor. The ruling elite and the rich who were mainly responsible for the decisions leading to the aggression against Kuwait in 1990 have remained unscathed. Their old lifestyle, wallowing in

plenty and luxury, has hardly had any change for the worse. It is reported that by 1995 falling incomes and rising prices reduced the purchasing power of the middle class so drastically that many families were forced to sell family assets. This continues unabated.

Sanctions provide an innocuous, silent and deadly remedy. Most of the times, they don't work, given the resilience of the adversary. But sanctions never fail to harm and inflict suffering on the common people. They are marginalised and improvised without mercy. It would appear that the majority of innocents are being forced to pay for the culpability of the minority. Sanction wangles collective expiation for individual (or group) guilt or venality. Only the sadist and the diabolic minded can commit this kind of crime against humanity without qualms of conscience. The American and British governments

have shown their mettle in this respect beyond any shadow of a doubt. Their recklessness, hypocrisy and insensitivity have embarrassed, even pained, some of their allies. Violating the sanctions these countries have started sending relief materials and volunteers. Instead of upbraiding them the American and British governments should realise the gross violation of human rights caused by their blind pursuit of an antiquated policy of reprisal through attrition.

The long-running sanction is also ineffective in realising both its purported and hidden goals. Complete and total destruction of lethal weapons, on which withdrawal of sanctions now depends, can never be achieved to the satisfaction of the nit-picking die-hard. As the

Secretary General of the UN said in 1998: "I personally believe that Iraq being fully disarmed is never going to be possible. At the end of the day, the Security Council must decide whether Iraq is disarmed to the extent that it is not a threat to its neighbours." Although three of the five permanent Security Council Members take the view that Iraqi disarmament has gone as far as it could possibly go, they have been unable to convince the USA. The American and British governments should realise that as a goal total destruction of lethal weapons is meaningless. A country like Iraq with its potentially huge oil revenue can arm itself to teeth in no time. A better safeguard for world peace and stability is creating conditions where blatant aggression against neighbours becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible.

If the hidden agenda is to remove Saddam Hussein from power through a coup or popular uprising precipitated by the bite of sanction, the possibilities seem to be slim and remote. Judged by his durability during all these tumultuous years he is either too popular with his people or too clever to be pushed aside against his will. If he is popular the Americans and the British can claim some credit. It is their aggressive policy which has touched the raw nerve of Iraqi patriotism so adroitly been exploited by Saddam Hussein. As regards the potential plotters, they seem to have been more than adequately taken care of by him through patronage or ruthless preemptive measures. Neither bombing, nor sanction can destroy Saddam now. Their cessation could in future. At least the probability will be ratcheted up.

One of the basic tenets of the law of war is to make distinction between the civilians and the combatants. Weapons of war have always been designed and used in such a way that they target mainly the combatants with minimal collateral damage. Any departure from this principle is a gross violation of human rights and qualifies to be considered as a war crime. Such a crime is being committed against the innocent men, women and children of Iraq for the last 10 years. Their only fault is that they have a leader called Saddam Hussein. If it is a sin for them to be stuck with him, it must be said that they are being more sinned against.