The more I understand it would seem this was Saddam’s fault. Food and medicine could still be traded for oil. But I would like opinions of people who know more about this than me.
That’s somewhat true, but not the whole story. A great number of medical items (indeed, anything that was “dual-use,” meaning it could be used for military purposes but also had other purposes) were banned outright. Chemotherapy equipment comes to mind.
Saddam could sell the oil and buy food and things with the money, but some necessary things were banned. In 2000/01, even the Bush administration was calling for “smart sanctions” which would reduce the effects on Iraq’s civilian population. The UN estimates that over 1.5 million people died as a result of the sanctions.
Of course the largest portion of the blame for these deaths and indeed most of Iraq’s ills in the last 20 years can be laid squarely at Saddam’s door.
However, one will almost always find that some blame must be “ours”, and the moral approach is to minimise it as much as reasonably possible: We must ask “Given that an immoral tyrant rules, what is the best way to proceed”?
I believe it was a mistake to trade oil for money, cash, bonds etc. which were then supposed to be spent on food, medicines and the like. A far more physical approach involving boxes of supplies for barrels of oil etc would have been far less efficient but might have avoided blatant embezzlememnt on Saddam’s part. (Even if Saddam had comandeered and sold these shipments, well, at least someone’s getting cheap medicine.)
IIRC, the largest number of deaths occurred in the years immediately following the first war, when Iraq refused to participate in the oil-for-food program at all. For that period, Saddam bears all the blame.
BTW, marley I thought the UN estimate was approx. 700,000. I’m not trying to score any points - 700,000 is still horrifying.
Sua
Many thousands of deaths were directly caused by the Ba’ath Party. They killed tortured and imprisoned anyone who spoke out against them, and their children as well. If one wants to assign blame to the US and UN, it should be for waiting so long to overthrow Saddam.
Which is horrifying, but not what he’s asking about.
The UN estimate was about 1.5 million, including 500,000 children - and that’s a few years old. The estimate also had 5,000 to 6,000 children dying per month.
Then by that “logic”, can’t I also place a majority share of the blame on Ronald Reagan and his Administration? After all, if the Reaganites hadn’t given Saddam Hussein military and financial aid during the Iran-Iraq war, then Iranians would have steamrolled over Saddam and avoided all this.
“avoid all this” is an interesting way to put it. I suspect history would’ve been changed dramatically if Iran had been the size of Iran + Iraq for the past 15+ years.
The Oil for Food program did involve selling oil for boxes of supplies (food, medicine, infrastructure). The UN Office of the Iraq Programme describes its Oil-for-Food program here and here. And these supplies often didn’t make it to the people of Iraq.
As I understand it, these reports were confirmed when UK/US troops invaded Iraq. Thus, the actual number of people that died due to sanctions is doubtless inflated because of Saddam’s actions.
I would put most if not all of the blame on Saddam. Sanctions were imposed directly because of his lack of cooperation with the cease-fire agreements and several UN sanctions. When deaths in the hundreds of thousands mount and you are doing this out of the “principle” of retaining your power, then you deserve all the responsibility for those deaths.
How many deaths have been attributed to the sanctions imposed on Cuba?
Well then, Reagan’s people shouldn’t have been selling arms to IRAN as well. Oops.
That’s mostly a trade embargo and is quite different. Does the UN have an embargo on Cuba, or is it just the US? I’m not sure, and that would be important as well. What we’re looking at with Iraq is the most severe set of sanctions in history.
Also, nobody has yet made any comment on the fact that people unquestionably died because necessary items were banned from Iraq, which I’d say is hard to pin on Saddam. I’ve also read that the Clinton administration decided in '95, when most of the weapons were gone (indeed, Hussein Kamel said they were ALL gone by this point) that the sanctions would not be lifted anyway.
Don’t forget the vast piles of rotting food and unused medical supplies we found stashed away in Iraq, hidden from those who could’ve used them. Yeah, I’m gonna have to lay the blame on Saddam here.
Jeff
A.Q.A., thank you for those detailed sources - I humbly stand corrected.
I find the implications of this even more daunting. How might we proceed in future: must we airdrop every syringe, biscuit or blanket directly into towns and refugee camps. Will the ruling regime open fire on anyone who approaches food lying on the floor?
And further, regarding the evidence of mass misdirection of the physical supplies themselves: Surely Saddam could not personally have ordered their misdirection or destruction out of sheer spite? What the whole affair suggests to me is that the country was simply saturated with corruption, right down to attempting to sell a box of medicine for a few pence when children for whom it would be priceless are dying in the streets.
Add this to the sheer scale of looting which took place after the first Gulf War and which continues to this day, and one must ask whether Saddam’s brutality was a cause of this suffering or his rise as a leader was merely a symptom of the desperate and savage aspects of Iraqi life. If the latter, did liberation make any difference? Time will tell.
Allow me to be the first to state that I simply do not believe this number. I’d love to see the evidence and methodology for determining it, though I have a sinking feeling there’s very little evidence and methodology behind it.
That is a broad and likely unsupportable statement. I’m not defending the Reaganites’ conduct, but given (i) Iraq’s better financial situation at the time, (ii) the greater professionalism and better equipment of the Iraqi military at the time, and (iii) Iran’s ideological decision to abandon proper military tactics (the greatest and most grosteque example being its use of human-wave martyr attacks), I doubt that the Reaganite aid did more than shorten the war in Iraq’s favor.
Sua
P.S. Did I spell anything right in this poist?
Thanks for the link, Daoloth. I had misremembered when the Iraqi government finally started participating in oil-for-food - I thought it was '93-'94; turns out it was '97.
That, IMO, tilts the balance very heavily in favor of “Saddam bears the blame.” If Richard Garfield (quoted in the article) is correct, once oil-for-food started, deaths dropped dramatically. Had Hussein accept oil-for-food when it was offered, a considerable percentage of the deaths (whatever number that actually is) would have been avoided.
Sua
Good cite. Just 100,000
"Yet the basic argument against all economic sanctions remains: namely, that they tend to punish civilians more than governments and to provide dictators with a gift-wrapped propaganda tool. Any visitor to Cuba can see within 24 hours the futility of slapping an embargo on a sheltered population that is otherwise inclined to detest its government and embrace its yanqui neighbors. Sanctions give anti-American enclaves, whether in Cairo or Berkeley or Peshawar, one of their few half-convincing arguments about evil U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War.
It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has been ineffective (especially since 1998) and that it has, at the least, contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990. With Bush set to go to war over Saddam’s noncompliance with the military goals of the sanctions, there has never been a more urgent time to confront the issue with clarity."
Just 100,000 dead children due to sanctions then, not 500,000. Bad enough IMHO.
Tagos, 100,000 was the low-range figure. The more likely figure according to Garfield was 350,000.
Sua
Thanks, I was being deliberately conservative (a novel and disturbing experience for me, I don’t think I’ll be trying it again!) to avoid someone claiming it was “only” 100,000.
IMHO again, any 6 figure number is too much blood on the hands of sanctions imposers, and by extension, their supporters, which included me originally.