In this thread ( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=51351 ) Collounsbury and myself started getting into it over sanctions being lifted on Iraq. Given that the thread linked above is about an entirely different subject I thought I’d start a new thread here to explore the issue further.
Embargos in general seem to be of dubious use. I personally can’t think of a time where an embargo or ‘sanctions’ in general have caused a government the US has a problem with to fold or give in. Usually the government in power (read the head honchos) continue to live large and let the crap fall on the general populace. Theoretically the general populace should get sick of this and rise up to overthrow their government. Unfortunately the governments we tend to throw sanctions at are usually some form of police state and the populace has little if no chance of successfully overthrowing their government and usually manage to get themselves killed if they try.
This is, of course, exactly what we see in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is still in power and the general population of Iraq is taking it on the chin with the sanctions. Saddam Hussein clearly does not care one bit for the suffering of his people. Indeed, he is frequently the cause of their suffering.
So, in this regard, sanctions are worthless. Some would say less than worthless as the sanctions hurt the people you don’t want hurt while not achieving any goals the sanctions were intended for in the first place.
On the flip side you have the US government along with its coalition partners lay down the law to Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War. Basically a list of sanctions that would be imposed on Iraq till Iraq and/or Saddam Hussein met a laundry list of requirements to have them lifted. Far from trying to meet any part of the list Saddam Hussein perpetually tried to subvert the terms of the agreement.
Now, ten years down the road, most of the coalition partners wish to back out and lift sanctions on Iraq. The reasons given are that sanctions are unsuccessful, hurting innocent civilians and beginning to piss off other Arab countries. This makes for good political sound bites but as is often the case the reasons are more simple if less compelling. There is business to be done in Iraq and money to be made.
The question is: Is this a compelling enough reason to lift sanctions? Has Saddam Hussein been sufficiently chastised to leave be? Has Saddam Hussein’s military been sufficiently weakened to pose no further threat to his neighbors and the world at large?
Frankly, I don’t think so. I believe that Saddam, given a chance, will do all in his power to rebuild militarily and, if possible, get back at the west which humiliated him. Unfortunately, there is evidence for some of this:
So, it seems, sanctions against Iraq are acting as a bulwark against Russia seeking to reassert its influence. In addition to Iraq the article linked above describes serious efforts to arm Iran and India to make, “a de facto geopolitical alliance of Russia, Iran and India… to oppose the U.S. influence in the region.” (quote from same source linked above)
FWIW (and correct me if I’m wrong) the UN cannot lift sanctions on Iraq without the approval of the US regardless of what former coalition partners may wish. It might be a good idea for the US to listen to its friends (France and Germany chief among them wishing to ease or lift sanctions) but the US is not compelled to do so if it so chooses.
We have short term tactical considerations here and long term strategic ones to consider. In the other thread that prompted this one it was suggested that the US policy towards Iraq amounts to “adolescent emotional reasons”. In short, the US is deciding to be recalcitrant about the whole thing in the face of obvious considerations that indicate the US should lay off if it was being truly rational.
I think that answer is too glib and that there are many reasons and factors to be considered that make an easy answer impossible.
Any thoughts?