POLITICS-IRAQ: Effect of War Could be ‘Devastating’

By Sanjay Suri Reprint | | Print |

Sanjay Suri

LONDON, Nov 12 2002 (IPS) - A war on Iraq could cause up to half a million deaths and have devastating consequences for years to come, according to a major new report released in London Tuesday.

The study by Medact, the British affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, examines the likely impact of a war on Iraq from a public health perspective.

Estimates of the total possible deaths on all sides during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to more than 260,000. Civil war in Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths, the report says. Additional deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000.

The report warns that if nuclear weapons are used, up to four million people could die in a war on Iraq.

The report marks the first public assessment of the consequences of a war on Iraq, Jane Salvage, international health consultant and author of the report said at its launch in London. The findings in the report are "essential for debate and decision-making," she said. "How can we debate the pros and cons of an attack on Iraq if we don’t know what the consequences will be."

The report was written after extensive consultation with doctors, nurses, Iraqi health specialists and specialists in the effects of war on health from the United States and Britain, Salvage said. Former chief of the Australian military General Peter Gration had noted the report was militarily sound, Salvage said.

The likely course of an attack on Iraq is outlined in the report as a heavy aerial attack aimed at destroying military installations and infrastructure. The report envisages destruction of roads, telecommunications centres and electrical supplies.

This would be followed by an invasion from the south to target the oilfields "but there may be an attempt by Saddam to sabotage them," she said. There would be another attempt to invade from the north and then target Baghdad and other cities. The invasions would destroy several civilian facilities, Salvage said.

The destruction of electrical supply can have a direct and devastating consequence on health, said Mike Rowson, director of Medact. "If electricity is out, health is out, a fact that many still do not recognise," he said. Lack of electricity has been a crucial factor in child mortality and in the health profile of a country, he said.

"Over the past few years we have seen a slight improvement in the health profile of the Iraqi people," he said. "We need to build on that now and not destroy it further."

The Medact report says there are several effective alternatives to war. These could include smart sanctions aimed at the elite, giving enough time to UN (United Nations) inspectors and to make sure they work objectively, create a visible system to contain flow of weapons-related goods into Iraq, develop political processes to disengage the components of the Iraqi regime from one another and create a reconstruction plan to encourage a post-Saddam rule of law.

"Assumptions that Saddam Hussein would roll over easily are misplaced," said Salvage. "The U.S. aim is regime change, and Saddam’s aim is regime preservation," she said. "And we have all seen how wily he can be at that game."

But in targeting Saddam Hussein Western powers are disregarding the consequences for the Iraqi people, Salvage said. "The Iraqi people have been kicked once by the Gulf War, a second time by sanctions, and are they going to be kicked a third time?" she said. "If a war scenario meant a minimum of 50,000 British or American deaths, would anyone be talking war? Is there something less about an Iraqi life?"

The report says that the aftermath of a conventional war could include famine and epidemics, millions of refugees and displaced people, and economic collapse in Iraq. Destablisation and possible regime change in neighbouring countries, and more terrorist attacks are possible, the report says.

"The financial burden will be enormous on all sides, with arms spending, occupation costs, relief and reconstruction possibly exceeding 150 billion to 200 billion dollars," the report says.

The casualty estimates are drawn from a study of the Gulf War and from comparable conflicts in Somalia and to an extent in the Balkans, and from information on the current state of health in Iraq. Despite a slight improvement, "people are far weaker mentally and physically than in 1990 and therefore less able to withstand new assaults on their health and find strength for recovery and reconstruction."

The report aims to influence decision-making and the public debate on a war on Iraq. It warns that the avowed U.S. aim of regime change means that any new conflict will be much more intense and destructive than the Gulf War in 1990-91. Most of the victims would be non-combatants, the report warns.

The report warns also that if Saddam Hussein has the chemical and biological weapons that he is said to have, he would be more than likely to use them, with long-term consequences for health.