Everyone who criticises the United Nations sanctions on Iraq is called an apologist for Saddam Hussein, so I should say straightaway that Saddam is a bastard. It seems clear to me that condemning the role of sanctions in Iraq's humanitarian crisis does not mean you support the gassing of Kurds, but neither Robin Cook nor his successor at the Foreign Office, Jack Straw, can quite get his head around the concept.

So just to be doubly clear about this, Saddam is the biggest fucking bastard ever. He is a murderous dictator. He invaded Kuwait. He invented foot-and-mouth. He cut David Beckham's hair. He ghost-wrote Bridget Jones's Diary. He is the bloke on London Underground's last train every night who sings "I'll take you home, Kathleen". He was at the wheel of the mystery white Fiat driving through the Paris underpass on that fateful night. He gave the Nepalese crown prince a bottle and a gun. He was probably at Michael Barrymore's party.

Just over two weeks ago, Saddam Hussein* decided to block oil exports from Iraq, belatedly adding an international profile to the "fuel protest movement" (commonly known as the Road Haulier Division of the Countryside Alliance). Had these two events been synchronised, we could have seen Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, popping up at British oil depots, waving his mobile phone at the protest organisers and shouting: "The lads in Baghdad are backing you!" I know this is fantasy. For a start, mobile phones are banned from export to Iraq. Where would an Iraqi get one?

The blockade is a protest at the US and UK** attempts to introduce "smart sanctions", essentially a slightly modified version of the current oil-for-food programme. Officially, oil-for-food is the only channel for goods into Iraq, and it is through this programme that Iraq is forced to sell its oil. There is an illegal oil trade, but this money seems to benefit primarily the Ba'athist elite rather than ordinary Iraqis. There is also some home-grown agricultural produce. However, Iraq was between 60 and 85 per cent dependent on food imports, and has suffered severe water shortages, making the total amount of Iraqi-grown food supplies drastically less than is needed. So most Iraqis are almost wholly dependent on the oil-for-food supplies.

Since oil-for-food was introduced, Iraq has received goods worth the princely sum of approximately $118 per Iraqi per year***.

This $118 has to pay for everything from housing and water sanitation to food and healthcare. Iraqis have been forced to sell most of their possessions in order to survive, and more than a million of them haven't survived. But before goods started arriving under oil-for-food in 1997, Iraq had no official imports. So, in more than ten years of sanctions, each Iraqi has received goods worth not $118, but roughly $52 a year. If Cook or Straw believes that a person in Iraq can live a sane and productive life on $1-$2.27 a week, then let them try it. I'll even be generous and round the sum up to $5, just to give them a chance.

If they did accept the challenge, this is what would happen: they would have a cup of tea and a flapjack, go to the loo, make a quick phone call, and that would be it, their entire allowance gone. They would be forced to eat and do nothing for the rest of the week. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, considering the damage they seem to inflict when they are "doing something".

Over the ten-year sanctions period, each Iraqi has had $29 spent on his or her food per year, and $5 on health. For water and sanitation (the lack of which is one of the major causes of ill health), the 19.1 million citizens of central and southern Iraq get $2 each. If any other country had that level of poverty and enforced ill health, Guardian readers would be rushing to "adopt a granny", and medical students would be pushing beds round the high street collecting for them.

For education, central and southern Iraqis have had 75 cents each a year. It was therefore probably for the best that the US put on "hold" a contract for pencils to Iraq. They would have impetuously splashed out on a couple of HBs and that would have been their budget for the year. Next year, they might get some paper - unless the US objects to paper on the grounds that it has discovered that Scud missiles are now being constructed using origami and that Tel Aviv is in danger of being showered with wonky swans and party hats.

"Smart sanctions" may well improve the speed with which some goods get to Iraq, but the scheme is far from the humanitarian triumph that is being claimed. Although there is no limit to the amount of oil Iraq can sell via oil-for-food, the US and UK have stopped 40 per cent of "oil spares" (equipment used in the oil industry) reaching Iraq by putting them on "hold". In practice, there is a cap on the amount of oil Iraq can sell, because it doesn't have the ability to produce more; this, in turn, restricts the quantity of goods it can buy.

"Smart sanctions" will not dramatically increase the quantity of food and health supplies - or any other goods for that matter. Jack Straw**** will no doubt argue that "smart sanctions" might work if given time, but time is just one of many things that Iraqis do not have.

*bastard

**totally moral good guys

***a breakdown of these figures is provided by Bristol University's Dr Eric Herring on the New Statesman's website

****very moral new Foreign Secretary

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website