Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq.
November 19, 2002 12:29 AM Subscribe
Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq. The terror of the war on terror: "A war against Iraq could kill half a million people, warns a new report by medical experts - and most would be civilians." The
report (pdf format) is from
Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. One of the report's conclusions: "It cannot be emphasised too strongly that even a best-case scenario of a limited war of short duration, perhaps comparable to 1991, would have much greater impact on the Iraqi people and would initially kill three times the number who died on September 11."
posted by fold_and_mutilate (49 comments total)
« Older Cyprus was another world.
The city of Paphos migh... | Secret U.S. court OKs electron... Newer »
The Iraqi people's mental and physical health and well-being were seriously harmed by the direct impact of the 1990-1991 war. They were further weakened by the indirect effects of the conflict in a variety of ways that stem from the consequences of economic collapse, and from widespread infrastructural destruction and damage to services and facilities such as food production, energy supplies and health care that are key influences on morbidity and mortality.
In the ensuing decade, the continuing imposition of sanctions on Iraq led to further dramatic damage to health and well-being and an acceleration in social decline. The no-fly zones enabled faster recovery in the north but US and UK air strikes damaged health and the environment. OfF, the world s largest relief programme, prevented humanitarian disaster and health and social indicators began to improve throughout Iraq from late 1997, especially in the Kurdish autonomous region. However, OfF has institutionalised a state of crisis and has not prevented serious violations of rights to food, education, employment or health care, all factors that impact on health and now faces a funding shortfall. While the economy has picked up in the last three years, it is not clear how widely the impact of recovery is felt beyond the million-strong elite surrounding the regime.
The most probable scenario for the threatened war on Iraq was outlined as a basis for estimating its likely impact on health and the environment. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that even a best-case scenario of a limited war of short duration, perhaps comparable to 1991, would have much greater impact on the Iraqi people and would initially kill three times the number who died on September 11. Except the elite, protected by wealth and privilege, most of those who have survived were much healthier mentally and physically in 1990. They are now far less able to withstand further assaults on their health, suggesting an exponential growth in the potential harm.
The Gulf War also triggered extensive damage to the environment of neighbouring countries, and to the health and well-being not only of coalition combatants but also of civilians in neighbouring countries and in developing countries hit by its negative impact on trade. Estimates of how a new war might damage the global economy, and thus indirectly harm the health and well-being of millions more people, are speculative but none the less serious for being hard to gauge.
Some argue that the continued negative health effects of the regime must be traded off against the short-term effects of a war. The brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein undoubtedly damages health in many ways, from direct action such as torture and execution to worse physical health and the mental and physical decline associated with living in fear. The regime's failure to comply with UN resolutions, thus undermining the case for easing sanctions, and its hindering of the implementation of OfF by manipulation of oil supply and failure to agree on oil pricing, also lays further serious health effects at its door. It appears, however, that the slow but perceptible improvement in health since 1998 might continue under present conditions. It cannot be argued that doing nothing would necessarily damage health, and it might even help it to improve.
Furthermore, and most importantly, in spelling out the massive death and destruction a war would probably cause both directly and indirectly in Iraq and the rest of the world, this report is not making a case for doing nothing . Neither is it concerned with apportioning blame. It argues that in assessing how best to tackle this dangerous regime and work towards democracy and social justice for all, the true cost of war must be calculated and widely debated. If the war is likely to cause worse problems than those it sets out to solve, then it is ill-advised under any circumstances, and other options must be explored.
The many options on the spectrum between doing nothing and going to war against Iraq have by no means been exhausted.
The report also makes a number of cogent recommendations, and ends with the following observation:
Overarching all these proposals is an urgent need for humane and wise global leadership which recognises that national security is impossible without international security and that this can be achieved only by the measures outlined above. Medact and IPPNW call on those concerned to make the 21st century a safer era by pursuing peaceful means of resolving conflicts with Iraq, and to think carefully about the effects of waging a war that might damage our fragile planet and its people for decades to come.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:40 AM on November 19, 2002