United
Nations Implications
In War Crimes
By Count Hans-Christof
von Sponeck & Silvia Cattori
26 March, 2007
Voltairenet.org
For
Hans Christof von Sponeck, the former assistant secretary-general of
the UN, the United Nations, far from garding the respect for international
law and the consolidation of peace, have themselves become a factor
of injustice. Thus, the sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein’s
Iraq caused a human disaster, whereas treaties such as the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty are used to ensure the domination of certain powers and to threaten
others. It is time to change the system completely.
Count Hans-Christof von Sponeck,
born in Bremen in 1939, has been working for the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) for 32 years. Appointed by Kofi Annan in 1998 as United
Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, with the status of UN Assistant
to the Secretary General, Mr. von Sponeck resigned in March 2000 in
protest against the sanctions, which had led the Iraqi people to misery
and starvation. It is with sorrow and bitterness that he speakes about
the sufferings endured by the Iraqis, a people he knew well and learned
to love, and he appeals to the political leaders responsible for the
catastrophe in a moving interview he gave to Silvia Cattori.
Silvia Cattori:
In your book ”A Different War: The UN Sanctions Regime in Iraq”,
[1] you denounced openly the fact that the Security Council betrayed
the principles of the UN Charter. Could you give us specific examples
where the UN Secretariat behaved in an especially condemnable way?
Hans von Sponeck:
The Security Council must follow the UN Charter and it must not forget
the Convention on the rights of the child and the general implications
of these conventions. Moreover, if the Security Council knows that conditions
in Iraq are inhuman - people of all ages have been in deep trouble,
not because of a dictator, but because of the policies around the ’oil
for food programme’ - and it decides not to act, or not to do
enough to protect the people against the impact of its policy, then
one can argue very easily that the Security Council is to be blamed,
for the very strong increase in the mortality rates in Iraq.
A definite example is that during the 1980s, under the government of
Saddam Hussein, UNICEF identified 25 children per thousand under the
age five years of age that were dying in Iraq for various reasons. During
the years of sanctions, from 1990 to 2003, there was a sharp increase
from 56 per thousand children under five years of age in the early 1990s
to 131 per thousand under five years of age at the beginning of the
new century. Now everyone can easily understand that this was due to
the economic sanctions, so it is out of the question that the Security
Council preferred to ignore the consequences of its policies in Iraq
under the pressure excercised by the major intervening parties including,
and in particular, the United States and Great Britain.
Silvia Cattori:
How could the Security Council neglect to consider the fact that these
sanctions allowed the superpowers to misuse their position and uniquely
pursue their war objectives, when it voted for other resolutions, like
for example resolution 1559 which was particularly intended to provide
the United States and Israel with a cover for future military strikes?
Does that mean that the Security Council and the UN Secretariat, supposed
to defend the people, have become mainly responsible for humanitarian
catastrophes?
Hans von Sponeck:
I would say, only those who either are ignorant, or those who cannot
accept the defeat, will continue to argue that the humanitarian drama
in Iraq was largely not due – not exclusively but to a large extent
–to an erroneous policy, a policy of punishment. The Iraqi people
were punished for having accepted the government in Baghdad, even though
they were completely innocent.
Silvia Cattori: Our
political leaders, who are present in all international bodies, knew
perfectly well that these sanctions would have disastrous consequences.
Does that mean that, by remaining silent, they have accepted innocent
civilians to be killed, tortured, and starved?
Hans von Sponeck:
I would say, unless the international community has a very bad memory,
we cannot forget that, either there was silence or there was connivance,
support, or there was a deliberate effort to promote conditions of the
kind that prevailed in Iraq during thirteen years of sanctions. Therefore,
you get different levels of accountability, of political accountability.
Not only the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the
United States and their governments are responsible, but others as well;
Spain and Italy played a supportive role that means the former governments
are responsible as well. Mr Aznar in Madrid and Mr Berlusconi in Italy
are very much responsible for having contributed to the humanitarian
disaster that evolved in Iraq. They will not accept this responsibility
but the evidence is there.
Silvia Cattori:
If the manipulation of the Security Council by the United States is
the main problem and if the US continues to commit crimes pretending
that they have a UN mandate, what can be done to correct that unacceptable
situation?
Hans von Sponeck:
I think that this is a very important question. It is relevant for the
debate about what kind of United Nations we need to protect the international
community or to protect the 192 member governments from the danger that
certain other governments misuse their authority, their information,
their finances and their power to serve their own interest, but against
the interests of peace, the interests of justice and the interests of
mankind.
Silvia Cattori:
How did you react to the execution of Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants,
sentenced to death by a tribunal established by the USA?
Hans von Sponeck:
I would say, first of all, that I was not surprised. This was the ultimate
objective of those in power in Baghdad and of those who occupy Iraq.
It is impossible to defend Saddam Hussein, but we can respond to the
fact that there was no due process, but a masquerade. It was a tribunal
that hid a prearranged death sentence under the cover of respectability.
Saddam Hussein, like any other person, deserved the right to a fair
trial, but he was not given a fair trial. And therefore I was upset
by this obvious act, although we have international law, despite the
fact that the European nations, the US and Canada as well as other western
nations repeatedly express their intention to maintain justice, that
they in fact did not protect justice.
Silvia Cattori:
You wrote to President Bush and asked him to free Tarek Aziz. Did you
get an answer?
Hans von Sponeck:
I did not get an answer. I wrote this letter because I know Mr Tarek
Aziz. My predecessor and I both think he is a person with whom we had
a correct relationship, a person who – despite what we read in
the mainstream media – tried to look to the Iraqi people. He was
ready and willing to consider proposals for the improvement of the humanitarian
aid programme. From our perspective, from my perspective, he was a correct
person. I cannot judge what Mr Tarek Aziz did in Iraq outside my fields
of responsibility, but all I want to ask for is that a person, who is
ill, if for no other than humanitarian reasons, should be treated with
dignity, should be allowed to obtain medical care while having a fair
trial. Just like Saddam Hussein, Tarek Aziz deserved, and deserves,
to be treated in accordance with international law, in accordance with
The Hague and the Geneva Conventions. I object to the fact that over
three years after he voluntarily turned himself in to the occupation
forces, he has not even been charged, and still remains in custody while
he is badly in need of medical care.
Silvia Cattori:
While the situation created by the occupation of Iraq is frightening,
it is to be feared that the Resolution against Iran will be used by
the United States to strike that country. The German Navy – formally
under UN mandate – is in place in the Eastern Mediterranean. Is
it because you know to what extent your country is involved in the projects
of war of the United States that you recently wrote an open letter to
Mrs Angela Merkel asking her to refuse all use of violence against Iran?
Hans von Sponeck:
That is correct. I feel very strongly that, gradually, Germany and other
European countries are getting involved into power policy defined in
Washington by power-hungry people. This is becoming more serious because
these power-hungry people begin to realize that they cannot, on their
own, implement a policy of domination. So they need the help of other
governments now, and these others seem to be Central-European and Eastern
European governments from Lithuania to Great Britain. They also try
to politicise NATO and make it an instrument, which to a large extent
has in fact already become a US instrument.
Therefore, just like any
normal individual in this world, I cannot accept the attempts –
supported by Chancellor Merkel during the recent NATO summit –
to provide this military alliance with a political mission. NATO is
an instrument of the Cold War; for many years NATO was looking for a
new mission, for a new role. The only thing the allies knew was that
they have a military responsibility but, with the end of the Cold War
in Europe, that responsibility no longer existed and was no longer necessary.
So there was this desperate search for a new role.
I personally think that it
is extremely dangerous that NATO now presents itself as a democratic
instrument for western democracies while, in fact, it is a tool in the
hands of the United States to implement the Project for the ‘New
American Century’. Neoconservatives in the United States made
this famous proposal in the 1990s – while the Bush administration
converted it into its national security strategy of 2002 and subsequent
years - and NATO is supposed to assist its implementation. The responsible
politicians that recently met in Munich should have rejected this concept.
Mr Vladimir Putin, the Russian
President for once did not mince his words and expressed plainly what
many of us feel. Of course, those who follow a different agenda rejected
his suggestions. However, there is a reality in what Mr Putin said.
I am convinced that, due
to this militarised politicisation of NATO, we will have taken a big
step backwards to what is not only a Cold War atmosphere between major
powers, but also, and this is the tragedy, to an increase in defence
spending in many countries including China, Russia, and Western Europe.
This spending has already been greatly increased in numerous countries,
and it can serve no other purpose than escalating the polarisation between
different groups around the world.
The world beyond Central Europe and North America is no longer willing
to accept a western one-sided policy. The public no longer accepts the
requirements of last century’s military and economic powers. Their
days are over and, if we do not take this into account, we will only
make things worse.
To me, the key words at the
moment are dialogue and diplomacy. We have to accomplish this in a clearly
multilateral spirit, not in the spirit of a superpower, which is anything
but a superpower be it economically, politically or morally, let alone
ethically.
Even if there is a little bit of superpower spirit left in the United
States because of its military power, it is not going to be enough to
save the ‘Pax Americana’. ‘Pax Americana’ is
a thing of the past and the sooner we recognise this in Europe and prepare
ourselves for multilateral cooperation – which is something different
from the bilateral or NATO type cooperation – the better it will
be.
Silvia Cattori: NATO
is taking part in wars of occupation – in contradiction to its
own Charter – and, in collaboration with the CIA, it is involved
in secret criminal operations: What I think of in this context are the
abductions of suspects to secret prisons. If Europe continues to submit
itself to and accepts the installation of American anti-missile systems
in NATO member states, might this not lead to confrontation, or even
to the return to the worst days of Cold War?
Hans von Sponeck:
It is insane. There is no excuse, and Condoleezza Rice’s argument
according to which Russia had no reason to worry about ten anti-missile
systems to be stationed in Poland and in the Czech Republic is so dishonest.
If ten can be placed today, twenty might be placed tomorrow. The very
fact that these antimissile systems are positioned at the border of
the former USSR, or Russia, is already enough to augment the reasons
for confrontation between Russia and the West, let alone China.
We are creating and we are
shaping tomorrow’s enemy. I, and with me many others around the
globe, cannot accept this development. We do not count, however, we
are weak, we are considered naïve, we are considered ’blue-eyed
people’, as the Americans have often called us, who do not understand
the ‘global vision’.
Well, if we are living in
a democracy, then I have the right to understand this ‘global
vision’, but I am not informed about it. I am just asked to rely
on the good will and on the good intentions of a government like the
one in Washington. But I cannot do so, we cannot do so, because we have
been disappointed over and over again by misinformation, by brutal dishonesty,
by power politics that only served one party. I am far from accepting
this and, therefore I regard the whole policy of convincing the Czech
and Polish governments to have these antimissile systems as extremely
dangerous and misplaced. That is nothing but blatant and brutal power
politics, which we do not need and which we will fight against. Peace,
future internationalism and the consolidation of nations and progress
– in the spirit of the UN Charter and other international laws
– don’t have any need of that.
Silvia Cattori: You
were in Kuala Lumpur in February, to attend a conference on war crimes.
There was, in the West, very limited media coverage on this important
event. If such meetings, which denounce the drifts of NATO and the violations
of the UN Charter, are ignored, how can a debate be opened for reforming
these organisations? Don’t you feel like speaking in a desert
while the media, the UN, the States, go on lying and ignore your struggle?
Hans von Sponeck:
Well, you know, one should not be discouraged by the fact that the media
ignore us. Most of the time, when citizens tried to convince their leaders
to change direction, they have been ignored. Well, should that be the
end of the effort? I do not think so. The very fact that people, not
just fools, not just misguided dreamers, but very realistic people who
have an overall view on the world, who understand the political processes,
come together to debate in a serious way the conditions and misuse of
power, gives important evidence that the international conscience is
alive, that an international conscience exists. Kuala Lumpur did not
make it to the headlines; Hollywood makes it to the headlines, cheap
emotionalism, and cheap quality media events like the Big Brother programme
in London make headlines.
The fact that 5000 people
got together in Kuala Lumpur to discuss war as a crime, against the
background of all the global sufferings that these illegal wars have
caused, did not make it to the headlines is regrettable, but it should
not make people less willing to speak out. Those attacted by these crimes
should notice it. Every one of us, as an individual, has a responsibility
to observe, has to make his or her views known. In addition, I am sure
that the Kuala Lumpur meeting has created more awareness in many circles
around the world, which will ultimately be transferred into a greater
resistance against these feint and selfish and one-sided policies that
the West tries to enforce.
I am not anti-West, I am
a ’Westerner’ but that does not mean that I cannot critically
look at the one-way street which has developed, the one-way traffic
on which international power, international trade, international culture
are travelling. That, as I have said before, cannot continue because
it is no longer acceptable, and Kuala Lumpur brought together people
from all over the world, who are of the same opinion. So this has, I
am sure, added to an awareness, and a willingness to invest time in
order to make views known. And if that does not hit the headlines today
and bring about a change immediately, it may do so tomorrow, and if
it is not tomorrow, then the next day.
Silvia Cattori:
Voices who, like Mr Jimmy Carter’s and Mr John Dugard’s
denounce the crimes of Israel in Palestine, voices who, like Mr Dennis
Halliday’s [2] and your own voice put the finger on UN’s
drifting off course in Iraq, all these voices are demanding for an immense
respect. However, these are rare voices, which can be easily marginalised
by the political powers. Aren’t you disappointed that hardly anybody
or only a few people at your level follow your example and take position
against these state crimes and abuses?
Hans von Sponeck: Of course,
I am disappointed. You know, these days, every day, I am waiting anxiously
for a senior American general, a senior American political personality
to come out and say: enough is enough, I will not continue to support
insanity, I will not go on supporting illegality, I will no longer support
policies that have led us into deep difficulties and deep violations
of anything that a civilised person should stand for. Of course, one
is disappointed, but in view of what has happened during the last few
decades, particularly during the years when Mr Bush has been in power,
we cannot allow ourselves to be idle. This is an appeal for the international
peace movement which should be oriented towards a better coordination,
i.e. much better networking, much more combined effort, much more joint
declarations. People from all over the world should join hands and demonstrate
to themselves and to the larger public that they have the firm intention
not to accept what has led us into a world in which the gulf is wide
open between those who have nothing – and that is a very, very
large majority, over one billion people out of the six and a half billion
people on our planet living with less than one dollar a day –
and the top ten percent who are living in unimaginable luxury and well
being.
This cannot continue. And
if some people who listen to our conversation may say ’here is
really a very naïve person’, and others say ’look this
is a communist, terrible, he is asking for equality for everybody’,
I will tell them ’no, I am not’. First of all I do not think
I am naïve, secondly, I do not think I am a communist in the traditional
sense. I am a person who, in 32 years of work for the United Nations
and beyond, has learned to accept the fact that all of us are not equal,
but that all of us should have equal opportunities to develop our own
contribution to peace. It is not a question of lack of money, there
is plenty of money for everybody but, what is missing is the will to
share the resources and to do more than pay lip service to this wonderful
body of instruments that has been established by good people after the
Second World War. Over the last sixty years, this body has tried to
lay the basis for greater justice and for socioeconomic progress for
everybody.
Silvia Cattori:
All the hope that you feed must make you suffer, as you are well aware
that for the Muslim peoples that the West is humiliating, the worst
is still to come?
Hans von Sponeck:
Of course. If you read and if you see, what is happening in the Middle
East, there is no single day on which you do not feel ashamed, you do
not feel the humilitation that strikes us when we see these poor people
suffering hard, people from Palestine to Iraq and in other parts of
the Middle East as well. The human language is not, at least for me,
capable of expressing the feelings that I really have. It is horrifying.
I come from a country, which experienced and caused this horrible Second
World War. It lasted for five years, and we still talk about it. What
about the many years in Iraq, thirty years of dictatorship, and thirteen
years of sanctions, and now three and a half years of occupation: how
much can an individual, how much can a nation endure? And if you see
– I think of the universities I visited was in Baghdad, Mustanseriya
University, Baghdad College, Baghdad University – that these institutions
where young innocent people are supposed to prepare for life, were destroyed
by bombs. When I was in Iraq, I saw people living peacefully in integrated
neighbourhoods! I never heard a conversation like “I am a Shiite,
you are a Sunnite, and you are a Turcoman” at that time.
Baghdad is the largest Kurdish
city of the world with over one million Kurds, and there were many problems,
for sure, there was a dictator, there were political murderers but,
compared with what we see today, that was nothing. The sectarian confrontation
that exists now was created by this illegal war. And the threat towards
the Al-Maliki government is the limit of dishonesty: “If you do
not bring security to Iraq, then we, the Americans, will reconsider
to what extend we will continue our support”. What is this? Who
established these kinds of conditions? Who is responsible for this chaos
and the sectarian confrontation?
Silvia Cattori: Western
countries condemn Iran that has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, for a bomb that it does not have. They do not condemn Israel
that did not sign this treaty, and that has nuclear bombs. Choosing
between Israel that does not conceal preparing for waging a pre-emptive
nuclear war, and Iran who wants to have a civil nuclear industry, is
not Israel the one that is really threatening world peace, and is not
Iran the target? How do you react to this denial of justice?
Hans von Sponeck:
I have only one immediate response: it is a classical example of a double
standard. We have a demand for a nuclear free zone: It is the Security
Council’s resolution 687 of April 1991 which in paragraph 14,
calls for a nuclear free zone for the complete Middle East. Israel has
not even signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran may have intentions
that are against the long-term international interests, but Iran has
not yet passed the red line. Mister El-Baradei, the director of the
International Atomic Agency did not say that Iran had passed that line.
All he did was to say that Iran has not fully disclosed, not transparently
enough, its intentions and that Iran has put more centrifuges into operation.
But what an extraordinary
demonstration of double standards, not to point the finger at Israel
and others! What about Pakistan, what about India? And about the US
itself which is openly working on a new generation of nuclear weapons,
totally in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty of which the US
is an initiator. So this is a disastrous double standard. If I were
an Iranian, I would say: ’Sorry, take yourself measures to put
into practice of what you say is the norm and then we can talk, let’s
sit down at the table, at the same eye level, with no preconditions.’
I accept the Iranian demand
for dialogue. I think it is absolutely the right thing to do. Iran says:
’You have a disagreement, so let’s meet, but do not come
and tell me before I can meet you, that I must have fulfilled certain
conditions that you want me to fulfil; I am sorry, we come, we meet,
we talk, and we lay the cards on the table. And what we discover when
we look at reality is a frightening attempt to keep up a double standard.
Silvia Cattori:
What message would you like to give to those political leaders who do
not care about human rights who wage wars and violating international
and human rights? What message would you like to give to the populations
who are, at present, exposed to the terror of occupying states? And
what message would you like to give to those who oppose these wars but
do not know how to stop them and are grieving over the inaction of the
political parties?
Hans von Sponeck:
To those who are violating human rights, I would say: You must
live with your own guilty conscience, and how can you, in the light
of all the evident damage, live with your guilty conscience? Don’t
you think that there are better ways to protect your interests by at
the same time allowing others to benefit from existing opportunities?
To those who are victims
and those who are concerned, I would say: Never give up, just try your
best, we all live in freedom, as healthy individuals, to make our contribution
small as they may be. If we gather for that aim, if we cooperate, if
we network, if we try to make our views known to those in power, we
can make a contribution. We can use our votes –those of us who
live in countries with free elections – let us make use of our
votes but not in a mechanical way. For it is a great act of responsibility
to cast a vote. Know your political candidates, put pressure on them,
hold them accountable, check their records and, when there is a re-election,
if you are not satisfied, encourage those who deserve your confidence
to run for office. What else can we do?
[1] A Different Kind of War:
The Un Sanctions Regime in Iraq. Berghahn Books 2006, ISBN 1845452224
[2] Mr Dennis Halliday, former
UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq,
predecessor of Mr Hans von Sponeck, that the sanctions led to resign
in protest in September 1998. He declared at that time: « We are
destroying an entire society (...).This is illegal and immoral ».
His resignation was followed by that of Mr Hans von Sponeck and two
days later, by that of Mrs Jutta Burghardt, in charge of the UN Food
Programme who joined the declaration of the two former.
Click
here to comment
on this article