It was a small gathering last Thursday; about 20 people carrying hand-drawn signs stood on the sidewalk adjacent to the US Customs House. It was sunny, cold and breezy. A few cars honked horns, and drivers flashed peace signs. But in spite of the cozy gathering, what the demonstrators were talking about–sanctions against Iraq and a local activist who has been fined for ignoring that embargo–called in issues of global proportions. In fact, how this David vs. Goliath drama unfolds could shape the definition of humanitarian aid. It also could help decide what role compassionate citizens can play in US foreign policy.
The trouble first began five years ago when Dan Handelman, a longtime Portland activist, traveled to Iraq to deliver toys and medicine to children. Handelman went with a Chicago-based organization, Voices in the Wilderness (VitW).
According to the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, that trip violated stern sanctions imposed on the Middle Eastern nation. This November, with tensions between the US and Iraqi governments increasing, the Treasury Department notified Handelman that he was being fined $10,000 for his humanitarian gesture in 1997. Kathy Kelly, co-founder of VitW, was slammed with a $20,000 fine for violating the ban. She delivered medicine to Iraqi families twice in 1998. (Kelly is currently in Iraq delivering more humanitarian aid, and has pledged to stay there even if bombing begins.)
A popular foreign policy tool for the US government, sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1991, and their purpose was to force Saddam Hussein to step down as ruler. But such sanctions are controversial; many believe that they harm the very population the US government is purporting to save–children and poor families. The government’s refusal to allow medicine and toys transported to children has taken on a particularly malicious tone.
A UNICEF study in 1999 reported that since sanctions were imposed in 1991, the mortality rate for Iraqi children under the age of five has reached alarming highs. Although this report stops short from placing full responsibility on US sanctions, it does intone that the lack of medicine, clean water and food have been primary contributors to the deaths of half-a-million young children.
At Thursday’s rally, several demonstrators spoke against the cruelty of the Iraqi sanctions. One speaker noted that the US government has banned the delivery of chlorine. “This is nuts,” he said, pointing out that the primary use of chlorine is for maintaining clean drinking water. Other speakers commended Handelman’s trip to Iraq.
“[Handelman] chose not to stand on the sidelines and do nothing,” noted one speaker. After several brief speeches, the group hiked to the post office to mail more medical supplies to VitW headquarters in Chicago.
Thus far, the drama has only played out as a series of stern, yet polite letters between Handelman and the Treasury Department. In fact, the tone of the letters is such that they might as well be notifying Handelman about an unpaid, expensive parking ticket.
Handelman’s response, in a letter dated November 27, is equally reserved. Underneath the veneer of civility, however, is a clear expression of compassion and, moreover, a ballsy legal defense. He clearly states his intention to defy the fines and a willingness to take the matter to court. (Handelman and VitW are currently undertaking a $30,000 fundraiser, but say that they will use that money for more humanitarian aid to Iraq, not to pay their fines.) Handelman’s letter also takes the opportunity to quote legal scholars, invoke constitutional principles and accuse the US government of violating international law by banning the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Locally, Handelman has long led Copwatch, a citizen’s group pushing for more police accountability. In his years in this self-appointed position, Handelman has proven that he can be a formidable and untiring opponent. While some activists may be all bluster and no bite, Handelman has shown that beyond his convictions, he understands the intricacies and tedium necessary to affect administrative policy changes. They may very well be just the skills necessary to challenge the Treasury Department.