‘Soaring Child Mortality In Iraq’: But Who Cares?
May 8th, 2007 | 12 responses
(Photo courtesy care2.com)
“Infant mortality in Iraq soars as young pay the price for war,” writes Andrew Buncombe in The Independent.
“Two wars and a decade of sanctions have led to a huge rise in the mortality rate among young children in Iraq, leaving statistics that were once the envy of the Arab world now comparable with those of sub-Saharan Africa.
“A new report shows that in the years since 1990, Iraq has seen its child mortality rate soar by 125 per cent, the highest increase of any country in the world. Its rate of deaths of children under five now matches that of Mauritania.
“Figures collated by the charity show that in 1990 Iraq’s mortality rate for under-fives was 50 per 1,000 live births. In 2005 it was 125. While many other countries have higher rates – Angola, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, all have rates above 200 – the increase in Iraq is higher than elsewhere.
“Precisely how many children died because of sanctions is unknown but a report in 1999 from the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), suggested that between 1991 and 1998 an additional 500,000 died.
“Denis Halliday, who resigned as the UN’s humanitarian coordinator in protest at the sanctions, said at the time: ‘We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral.’
“Kathy Kelly, an anti-war campaigner with Voices in the Wilderness, said last night: ‘The punishment of children through the economic and military war against Iraq has been the greatest scandal’.”
It is said that the test of any civilised country/society lies in its visible concern about women and children, especially during wars and conflicts. If it is absent then the thin line dividing civilised behaviour/thought and barbarism simply vanishes.
I have enjoyed writing for The Moderate Voice blog for more than a year now.
However, what I have experienced (and what has baffled me most) is the priority (in America?) to first ascertain whether a blogger/writer/commenter is a “leftist”, “moderate”, or a “rightist”, or a “liberal”, or a “neo-con”, or whatever.
This tendency to label would have appeared funny (if not eccentric)…but for the fact that even human tragedy and suffering are at times viewed from within the prism of these labels.
I wonder which label would cover the writer of this tragic story on the impact of war and conflict on the children in Iraq?
12 Responses to “‘Soaring Child Mortality In Iraq’: But Who Cares?”
I share your outrage, but isn’t everything in the article old news? We knew from earlier reports that UN sanctions (and Saddam’s response to them, pushing their effects on those least capable of defending themselves) had a horrendous impact on infant mortality in Iraq before the war. Note the main study is from 1999.
I’m surprised that important information is missing here. The article is essentially silent on how that infant mortality has changed since the war. Yes, it quotes a 2005 figure, but how has the war changed it? Have things improved since sanctions were ended despite Iraq’s other problems? Can you honestly say?
Sadly, this estimate of 500,000 Iraqi infant deaths that resulted from UN sanctions before the war (other, more responsible estimates are lower but still appalling) is much, much higher than the number of Iraqi deaths estimated due to the war and later violence. Higher even than Saddam is said to have murdered during his regime.
That should give you pause. This isn’t an argument against the war but against UN sanctions. It turns out there are still things more terrible than war.
Let me make it clear…this is not “my outrage” but today’s news item from The Independent newspaper.
As a blogger I am just quoting from a newspaper of some standing.
We know well how all statistics with regard to Iraq are being fudged today. So how do we get the real picture?
Well if you want to make an issue regarding the children’s death please get in touch with The Independent newspaper.
Swaraaj _ Strick seems to be using selective cut and paste. This snip from the article states that mortality has increased from 1990 to last year, the war is more deadly than sanctions.
Rudi – it is a horrible situation by any definition. But the unanswered question is when did the rate peak (during Saddam’s rule or after), and is it currently trending down or up over the past few years?
Women and children wouldn’t do very well under the Taliban-type regime that would take over in Iraq if the war were terminated without thought to the consequences.
I don’t think the appropriate question now is whether Saddam killed more or less. The appropriate question now is: what kind of policies will minimize suffering in the future? Remaining fixated on the question of whether the war itself was proper or helpful is a good question for history and assignment of political responsibility during elections or hearings, but not useful for policymaking in the midst of a political and military crisis. We need to respond to the situation as it exists now and decide whether withdrawal, continuation, or some middle way alternative is the best way to reduce suffering in Iraq.
I would think that it’s probably next to impossible to get accurate stats right now in Iraq and it seems likely that the situation probably hasn’t improved much since the era of the sanctions. Solving this problem, like so many others, is a matter of recreating the infrastructure, purchasing new equipment, supplies, medicine, and training personnel or having an influx of trained medical personnel from elsewhere. I’d wager a bet that almost none of that has happened in midst of battle zones and suicide bombers.
I agree with Swaraaj here: this isn’t a partisan problem, it’s a humanitarian one.
Actually, I recall reading a news blurb on this very subject at http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com. Too bad search is not my friend today.
In any event, the results were a mortality rate of 1 in 8 by 8 years of age. An astonishing 12.5% mortality rate for that time frame. I believe this was indeed higher post W, but its probably been two months so, and my memory is not great.
However as supporting evidence of malnourishment is up form 19% in 2003 to 28% today its probably more than fair to say its far worse post W. Especially given that women and children tend to get hit the worst in these scenarios.
linkie: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/carintern/9e9e54eac735cfcd9b98b3a8e031cfa4.htm
Also, if you take an embargoed nation that has food cards and compare it to one that has civil war, targeting of doctors and medical facilities by all sides (including us), and reduced food cards… Well, really now what do you expect to find honestly??? An improvement?
The Human Odyssey has a post on this subject.
Here is a link to the actual study. In the text below the study says a conservative estimate is a 36% increase in infant mortality since the start of the war.
http://www.savethechildren.org/publications/mothers/2007/SOWM-2007-final.pdf
died in 2005 before
Iraq’s child mortality rate has increased by a
staggering 150 percent since 1990, more than any other
country. Even before the latest war, Iraqi mothers and
children were facing a grave humanitarian crisis caused by
years of repression, conflict and external sanctions. Since
2003, electricity shortages, insufficient clean water,
deteriorating health services and soaring inflation have
worsened already difficult living conditions. Some
122,000 Iraqi children (1 in
reaching their fifth birthday.133 More than half of these
deaths were among newborn babies in the first month of
life. Pneumonia and diarrhea are the other two major
killers of children in Iraq, together accounting for over 30
percent of child deaths.134 Only 35 percent of Iraqi
children are fully immunized, and more than one-fifth
(21 percent) are severely or moderately stunted.135
Conservative estimates place increases in infant mortality
following the 2003 invasion of Iraq at 37 percent.136
Damn spam filter or other BS, the smiley face doesn’t belong and blockquote didn’t take. What happened to the old buttons?
Rudi: Ths smiley is because you typed the number 8 with a close parenthesis behind it- that automatically turns into an emoticon.
For blockquotes, I’ve been writing out the tag codes: type the word blockquote with the angle brackets around it before the text that you want to indent, and then same thing at the end but put the / before the word blockquote to make it a close tag.
I’d like to see the idiot proof ones back too though: much quicker that way.