In the wake of 9-11, a number of statements have been made to the effect that the US led sanctions against Iraq have contributed to tremendous animosity against the US (in fact, some statements have, IMO, essentially justified the WTC attack with that argument). For example see this gem from the September 19th Toronto Star written by their editor emeritus:
Yesterday, according to the October 2 National Post,
What is the real nature of the sanctions against Iraq? Is there evidence that people, children, are dying because of it? Is the Iraqi government itself diverting what aid does enter its country away from those in need?
I’m putting this in GQ since I’m looking for facts. Mods, please move it to GD if you think that’s best.
and being born in Iraq is just about as unlucky as it gets.
The sanctions were introduced and upheld by the UN Security council, 14 members of which aren’t the US. 4 of those nations have the veto. So one can’t put the entire blame on the US, although it sure does give some people a nice warm glow to do so.
Anyway: The economic situation in Iraq is really, really bad. The sanctions make that worse, as is the nature of that particular beast.
The Oil-for-Food deal allows Iraq to sell all the oil it can in return for food and medicine (and some stuff necessary to maintain the oil production infrastructure). There have been complaints about the sanctions being unnecessarily strictly enforced, especially as regards to medicine, and it would appear that some of these complaints have some justification.
OTOH, the sanctions have worked in that Saddam Hussein has not got his hands on weapons on mass destruction. What would have happened then is anybody’s guess, but a Saddam Hussein bursting on to the Middle East stage with nukes could presumably kill more people in an afternoon than years of Iraqi poverty can.
To state the obvious, the Hussein regime is at the core of this problem, and we still haven’t found a workable way of dictator-toppling other than war. The sanctions seem to isolate the problem, but it is the Iraqi people who’re paying the price. However sad that is, alternatives aren’t really forthcoming.
It’s a friggin’ tragic situation.
It is hard to know exactly what goes on with regard to things like this, but the assumptions behind sanctions killing half a million people are doubtful and the idea America deserved the attack is observed.
Articles about the effect of sanctions appeared in the July 22 edition of The Economist.
Organizations against the sanctions (e.g. CASI) state that half a million have died. However, child mortality in Iraq improved considerably during the 1980s following Americna aid and the war with Iran and this figure assumes the gain in child mortality continued to progress at the same rate. Furthermore, the sanctions exclude both food and medicine and there is ample evidence it is the Iraqi government that continues to export food and in essence willfully deprive its own citizens for the purposes of profit and propoganda. The half million figure assumes that the Iraqi government has a genuine interest in providing its citizens with needed goods and that sanctions are the only thing responsible for the deaths – in fact, the Kurdish minority has often been deprived goods for political reasons.
Nevertheless, the sanctions are probably causing considerable humanitarian distress, although less than claimed. The impression that they are causing many deaths is widespread and it would be prudent to rethink them, as discussed in the September 22 edition of the Economist. The Iraq regime is not noticably weaker because of them, they are punishing some Iraqi people and the perception that there is a humanitarian crisis is widespread. It would be foolish to claim America deserved to be attacked because of them.
Most Canadian media articles do not support this view published by a publicity seeking feminist; Canadian papers have a long standing tradition of including both left and right wing views on most matters which are not widely held and which do not represent the feelings of most Canadians. For example, The Globe and Mail, a conservative paper, has an excellent column by Naomi Klein, the author of No Logo.
I feel the sanctions should go because they are not effective and there it is convenient to blame them for the real humanitarian crisis occuring in Northern Iraq. But the lack of will to import food and distribute medicines is probably more responsible despite a convenient scapegoat.
The assumptions behind sanctions killing half a million Iraqui children may be doubtful, but you won’t get any argument from Madeleine Albright, who also finds the figure acceptable.
It’s been a long day, so I’ve just seen your responses. Very interesting.
Spiny Norman: Am I right in understanding that any one of the four states with veto power could cancel the sanctions at any moment? If so, why are the three non-US veto holders not vilified in the same way as the US? Actually, I think I know the answer to this second question.
Dr_Paprika: How would a person like Ms. Thobani respond to the fact that food and medicine are specifically excluded from the sanctions? Is there a globalist party line on that?
nickc: Most impressive. I suppose the anti-American media and WTC apologists would claim that the photos are fake?
I’ve got a question: I remember hearing on the radio about a book some journalist or scholar has written about the sanctions against Iraq.
IIRC, the book talks about a part of Iraq (Northern Iraq, with the Kurds?) where the sanctions were still in effect, but the organization running the humanitarian aid was not the Iraqi government (the UN, maybe?). The survival rates of children, health conditions, nutrition, etc. were all better than in the parts of Iraq where the Iraqi government was running things.
Armed even with the truth, America is not going to be able to win round the hearts and minds of Muslims, especially Arabs, within a matter of weeks or even months. But it can hope to gain their acquiescence, through the information disseminated by their governments. It also has a longer-term task, however: that of garnering support for whatever new regime or structure it wishes to encourage in Afghanistan, to succeed the Taliban. For that task, it needs to think back to the Gulf war.
Iraq poses both an immediate propaganda challenge and a lesson about what not to do when you have won a war. The immediate challenge is that, both within the Muslim world and in the West, it is widely believed that American-led sanctions and the no-fly zones enforced by American and British fighters have led directly to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. America, it is said, has a double standard: it supports Israel in responding to murders of Israeli citizens but cares little when Arab children die.
The true cause of those deaths is Saddam. Although sanctions contribute to his country’s impoverishment, it is he who has chosen to restrict the distribution of food and medicine that is permitted by them, and facilitated by an “oil-for-food” programme, both directly and by siphoning off some of the resources for himself. Nevertheless, the truth is that sanctions have failed, on two counts. They have failed to bring down the Iraqi dictator. And they have allowed him to win his own propaganda war, by associating America with dying children.
P.S.: Who knows what these obscure feminists are thinking?
Out of curiosity, how were the sanctions supposed to bring down Hussein? The only ways I can think of are:
A mass uprising against him by the people he’s diverting aid from.
An invasion from Iran or another country.
A coup from inside his army.
Number 1 is very unlikely to happen or succeed as long as he has firm control of military. Number 2 doesn’t seem like something we’d want, seeing as how we got problems with Iran. Which leaves number 3 as being the winner of sorts…although I think it would create a very unstable situation that might lead to number 2 and is unlikely to happen anyhow as long as Hussein keeps his army happy and in line.
So I guess I’m saying, what were we thinking? Are the sanctions just punishment? Were we expecting behavior modification? Have sanctions ever worked anywhere? (I don’t see Castro changing his tune and we’ve been embargoing him for 40 odd years now).
I agree the logic seems naif, but that was what the Americans claimed they anticipated as they argued for sanctions.
Sanctions in Cuba are ineffective since until the mid 80s they were irrelevant due to Soviet intervention, and afterwards because older Cubans remember the gross inequalities under Batista. Most Cubans are ready for democracy, however, and after Castro dies I can’t see any further history for state socialism.
I think sanctions did play an effective role in South Africa. I think sanctions are indeed punishing the Iraqis and that this policy needs to be scrapped. I think the U.S. grossly misinterpreted Saddam Hussein in many ways.
Look up the Kurdistan region of Iraq. This area is governed by the UN in order to protect Kurds from Iraqi attack. They area doing quite well and have a strong economy. Of course, Saddam doesn’t want his people to know that.
But what is the alternative, if this policy is scrapped?
I’m constantly hearing that “the US is killing thousands of Iraqui children” with sanctions (and understand that I’m not inferring that that was your claim!). My reaction isn’t apathy, it’s just that I can’t see what other recourse there is.
Giving this a bump in the hopes that someone might have a workable answer or at least a thought… What is a possible endgame scenario for post-sanction Iraq? We all agree that sanctions aren’t working, but most also agree that simply doing away with them isn’t a viable solution, all other factors remaining the same. So, what’s the answer? A US-backed puppet government? It’s ‘worked’ before, but it’s not a very popular idea. Thoughts?
Iraq agreed to allow the U.N. to inspect Iraqi weapons facilities as part of the conditions to end the Iraq/U.S. conflict. However, Iraq kicked out the inspection team some 3 years ago, and has refused them back in since.
Being that Iraq has broken the terms of their surrender, I believe the U.S. is justified or even obligated to take military action against Iraq.
And you know what else? I’ll bet we do just that.
There are five permanent members with veto power on the Security Council: The U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China (formerly Taiwan until sometime in the 70’s). There are 10 other non-veto, non-permanent members. To approve a resolution, you need the support of all five permanent members and some other number of the rest of the members. I think you need 10 out of 15 total. But I’m guessing that lifting the sanctions would be seen as a whole other resolution, and thus the sanctions couldn’t just be vetoed by one of the five members, but would have to be approved by all 5.
On South Africa, it seems to me that sanctions succeeded because it was a democracy (at least for the white people). They realized they were suffering economically for no good reason, and that helped lead to the end of apartheid. But in countries that are not democracies, sanctions seem pretty pointless
This thread should be for factual answers to the question of exactly what the sanctions prohibit and related factual matters. Whether the sanctions should be lifted or what might replace them is fodder for Great Debates. I invite you to start a new thread in GD on the subject.