Sir, - The British Ambassador, Sir Ivor Roberts (July 21st), writes that sanctions against Iraq are not about "choking off legitimate civilian trade or humanitarian assistance". This is incorrect. The reality is that the US-UK led sanctions have had devastating consequences for the Iraqi socio-ecomonic infrastructure.
Prior to 1990, Iraq's per capita GNP was over $3,000, today it is under $500, making it one of the poorest societies in the world. In 1997, UNICEF reported that "4,500 children under the age of five are dying each month from hunger and disease". Denis Halliday, UN humanitarian co-ordinator for Iraq, resigned from his post of Assistant Secretary General in 1998 in protest at the deaths of Iraqi children caused by UN sanctions.
Regarding Sir Ivor's claim that the UN Security Council insists that no compromise is made on the strict controls in place on Iraq's weaponry: What is the military threat from Iraq? Former UNSCOM inspector to Iraq, Scott Ritter, has publicly stated that there is no chance of a reconstitution of Baghdad's nuclear programme. Ritter has also called for the suspension of the UN sanctions. Militarily, Britian and the United States continue to lead revenge air assaults on the Iraq population, and these attacks have resulted in the deaths of thousands of children within the last decade.
Denis Halliday's successor, Hans Von Sponeck, resigned from his post, also in protest against the sanctions. Before his resignation, the Blair and Clinton administrations had called for Von Sponeck's removal because he had begun to include civilian casualties in his briefings.
The treatment of Kurds by Saddam Hussein is also broached by Sir Ivor. This treatment cannot be justified, and neither can the progom unleashed by Turkey against the Kurds. Yet the British government sees Turkey as a valued NATO member and as a candidate for the EU. The duplicity speaks for itself. - Yours, etc.,
George Sweeney, Kylemore Park, Derry.