Yesterday I attended a presentation given by Bert Sacks, a West Coast social activist affiliated with EPIC (Education for Peace in Iraq Center - headquartered in Washington, DC) and involved in trying to end UN sanctions against Iraq. The gist of his presentation was letting us (the audience) know about the living conditions faced by many Iraqis (he has visited Iraq 7 times), and why the US media has not been responsible in their reporting on the conditions faced by the Iraqi population due to the sanctions. He made specific reference to the UNICEF report indicating that 500,000 Iraqi children have died since the sanctions have been in place - a figure that was not widely reported or if it was, was downplayed by the media (NOTE: I cannot vouch for the veracity of this last statement by Mr. Sacks - it very may well have been widely reported).
He also showed a segment of a Frontline report made shortly after the Gulf War that made reference to the military’s targeting of facilities (specifically electric power plants) to ensure “leverage against Iraq” after the war. With the massive bombing against key elements of Iraq’s infrastruture (power plants) coupled with the sanctions placed against Iraq, his conclusion was that it isn’t surprising that 500,000 children have died and that living and health conditions for the average Iraqi have deteriorated. He also stated that it isn’t surprising that many people in the Mid-East are angry and upset with the United States given the lack of compassion that we (the US) have towards those people suffering in Iraq.
The reason I bring this up is that I wanted to bring about some discussion regarding the sanctions and whether the US policy regarding the sanctions may have had a bearing on the events that took place on 9/11. (Here’s an old thread covering the topic of sanctions against Iraq - http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=51826).
NOTE: Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I am not saying the United State’s policy regarding sanctions towards Iraq was the direct cause of what took place on 9/11 or that the US “deserved” the horrible acts perpetrated against it because of its policy towards Iraq.
What I am trying to bring discussion upon is whether the government’s policy regarding the sanctions of Iraq may have been a factor that “tipped the scales” towards outrage and made the attacks justifiable in the eyes of those responsible for carrying them out.
If the answer is yes, then should the US revise it’s policy towards Iraq re: sanctions in light of what occurred on 9/11? Or should they remain intact given the current situation in Afghanistan? Some other policy strategy?
Well, I would disagree that the fact that sanctions have caused pain, suffering and death amongst Iraqis, including children, has been “downplayed” by the press - I’ve been aware of this for many years from multiple press sources.
And yes, the sanctions against Iraq are one of the causes of (or, at least, excuses for) outrage against the US in the Arab world.
But …
Iraq can easily get the sanctions lifted - by letting international inspectors confirm that Iraq has no biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. And, given the fact that Iraq is the only country since WWII to use weapons of mass destruction, I think the world has a significant interest in seeing that Iraq no longer has these weapons.
Iraq has already signed agreements disavowing such weapons. Why is the UN (and remember, the UN is the organization that has imposed the sanctions) responsible for Iraq’s failure to abide by its agreements on such vital issues?
Were Iraq to comply with the sanctions protocols, there would be ample funds available to avoid the deaths, etc. (although the Iraqi people would still suffer to some extent). But Iraq took its own sweet time in even partially complying with the sanctions protocol, and even now refuses to comply completely. I acknowledge that the UN has been overly stringent on “dual-use” contracts, but I submit that Iraq’s non-compliance is the overarching factor.
The US tried to get the UN to change the sanctions protocol to lessen the suffering of the Iraqi people, via the imposition of “smart” sanctions. Iraq didn’t want this, and got Russia to veto the changes. Again, who’s at fault?
I agree with SuaSponte, but my guess is that the lifing of sanctions is not currently on the table. On the contrary, IMHO the question of the hour will soon be military action.
Many voices have been encouraging Bush to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, once the war in Afghanistan is won. Bush hasn’t shown his hand. However, now that the Afghanistan campaign seems to be ending with surprising speed, I expect the Iraq military option to receive serious consideration.
The “500,000 children” number is sheer bullshit. It’s an extrapolated figure that operates on the assumption that the reductions in child mortality prior to the sanctions would have continued at the same downward trend, which isn’t a logical assumption to make, and isn’t in ANY way based on an actual cause-and-effect connection between the sanctions and anyone dying.
Iraq IS permitted to sell oil to buy food and medicine. They choose to spend what money they can scrounge up on weapons instead. If any kids are dying in Iraq for want of medicine, it’s Saddam Hussein’s fault.
History has repeatedly shown that sanctions(which usually do major harm to civilians and not nearly enough harm to the intended target) are a poor way to get tyrannical sociopaths to comply with you demands. If the ruler of a country is more concerned with power than the welfare of the people, nothing short of violently overthriwing him will work.
In this thread I asked what the “true” nature of the sanctions were. In addition to many interesting responses, at least one of the links therein was most informative.