Excellent post. I asked that same question of the anti-war crowd on this bbs about a month ago and got a grand total of zero responses.
http://www.accuracy.org/iraq.htm May 20, 1991: President George Bush: "At this juncture, my view is we don't want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." James Baker, Secretary of State: "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Sanctions may not have started out solely the purpose of effecting regime change, but quickly evolved into that.
Zero responses? I've said way too many times that the alternative is to freaking employ real diplomacy, starting on September 12, 2001. This WWF stuff has not really rallied the world to our side. Maybe it's too late. But these human shields believe that every diplomatic angle has not yet been exhausted. Apparently, a lot of people agree with this sentiment. For the record, I think these people are kind of stupid to be putting themself as the disposal of a madman, but I'm just trying to answer your question.
Not to troll on behalf of the "Line 'em up and blast 'em" crowd, but what diplomacy are you proposing? I'm sort of a sanction-man myself, but don't really have an answer when hit with the 'sanctions - hurt' articles. What next?? Generalimo George is itching to battle, and Brother Blair's with him. How else do we effect change if we accept that the sanctions don't have their desired effect.
Okay, one last time, because I guess I've just not been very good at making my point, or maybe it only makes sense to me. Instead of George (who is now, sadly, loathed in so many nations around the world -- it's not fair, or good for the USA, actually) and his beeotch Blair, what if you had the full security council supporting a stance because the US had spent the last 2 years exercising sublime diplomacy. We'd still get to do what we want, but with multilateral support instead of something that will end up looking like a cowboy move, increase negative sentiments worldwide, create more breeding grounds for terror, etc, ad nauseum. That's just how I see it. And to those who would say "oh, but you'd never get unanimous support blah blah," I say well, we'll never know now. We've acted so arrogantly and our government has spoken so arrogantly, that you can argue my whole point is moot now. Sad.
Half a million children under five are dead and dying in Iraq Who is responsible? An Interview with Denis Halliday - Former Assistant Secretary-General of The United Nations ... The claims and counter-claims surrounding these facts are well-known: human rights groups, and even leading figures within the United Nations, insist that the sanctions regime imposed by the West, with food and vital medicines blocked by the UN Sanctions Committee, is a primary cause of this appalling rate of child mortality. In response, Western governments argue that it is Saddam who has been deliberately withholding food and medicines made available by the UN’s ‘oil for food’ programme, and therefore it is he that is responsible for the mass death of children, not Western leaders. With these claims in mind, I interviewed Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, who resigned after 34 years with the UN in September 1998. Halliday spoke to me over the phone from New York on 17 March 2000. Since his resignation as humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq, his successor, Hans von Sponeck, also resigned on February 13 of this year, asking, “How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?” Two days later, Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Programme in Iraq, also resigned, saying privately that what was being done to the people of Iraq was intolerable ... I suggested to Halliday that it must have been a huge wrench to resign from the United Nations after 34 years of work. I asked him what specifically it was that made him take such drastic nation? “I worked for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), I was involved in development activity, working closely with governments trying to address their issues of poverty and education and economic well being – all very positive; I’d do it all again tomorrow. Then I allowed myself to get sucked into the management in New York: I was Director of Personnel in UNDP for four years and Boutros-Ghali promoted me to Assistant Secretary-General and made me head of Human Resources for the UN itself. I volunteered to go to Baghdad and I set about trying to make it work, and of course found out very quickly that it does not work - it wasn’t designed to work; it’s not funded to work; it’s strangled by the Sanctions Committee of the Security Council - and in a matter of six weeks I was already trying to get the Security Council to assist me, but I got no support whatsoever from the United Nations in New York. So then I spoke to the French, Russian and Chinese ambassadors who are in Baghdad, with the help of the Unicef man, and we set about doubling the programme which we accomplished in fact in three or four months through the Security Council.” Did these changes happen solely on your initiative? “Absolutely, it would never have happened, believe me, if we hadn’t started that process in Baghdad. But to come back to your question of exactly why I resigned: after that development work, to preside over a programme which in a sense was designed to stop deterioration but in fact did no more than sustain an already unacceptable situation of high levels of child mortality, adult mortality and malnutrition, I found this was incompatible with my past, incompatible with my feelings about the United Nations, and incompatible with the very United Nations Charter itself and human rights themselves. There was no way I was going to be associated with this programme and manage this ghastly thing in Iraq, it was not a possibility for me. So I put in a year, I did my best, we doubled the programme, but the problems continued.” The British and US Governments claim that there are plenty of foodstuffs and medicines being delivered to Iraq, the problem is that they are being cynically withheld by the Iraqi regime. In a letter to the New Statesman recently, Peter Hain, Minister of State, wrote: “The ‘oil for food’ programme has been in place for three years and could have been operating since 1991 if Saddam had not blocked it. The Iraqi people have never seen the benefits they should have.” Is there any truth in that? “There’s no basis for that assertion at all. The Secretary-General has reported repeatedly that there is no evidence that food is being diverted by the government in Baghdad. We have 150 observers on the ground in Iraq. Say the wheat ship comes in from god knows where, in Basra, they follow the grain to some of the mills, they follow the flour to the 49,000 agents that the Iraqi government employs for this programme, then they follow the flour to the recipients and even interview some of the recipients – there is no evidence of diversion of foodstuffs whatever ever in the last two years. The Secretary-General would have reported that. What about medical supplies? In January 1999, George Robertson, then defence secretary, said, “Saddam Hussein has in warehouses $275 million worth of medicines and medical supplies which he refuses to distribute.” “We have had problems with medical drugs and supplies - there have been delays there. There are several good reasons for that. One, is that often the Iraqi government did some poor contracting; so they contracted huge orders - $5 million of aspirins or something – to some small company that simply couldn’t do the job and had to re-tool and wasted three, four, five months maybe. So that was the first round of mistakes. But secondly, the Sanctions Committee weighed in and they would look at a package of contracts, maybe ten items, and they would deliberately approve nine but block the tenth, knowing full well that without the tenth item the other nine were of no use. Those nine then go ahead – they’re ordered, they arrive - and are stored in warehouses; so naturally the warehouses have stores that cannot in fact be used because they’re waiting for other components that are blocked by the sanctions committee.” What was the motive behind blocking the one item out of ten? Because Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years - it’s a deliberate ploy. For the British Government to say that the quantities involved for vaccinating kids are going to produce weapons of mass destruction, this is just nonsense. That’s why I’ve been using the word ‘genocide’, because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I’m afraid I have no other view at this late stage. The British government claims that Saddam is using the money from the ‘oil for food’ programme for anything other than food. Peter Hain, for example, recently stated, 'Over $8 billion a year should be available to Iraq for the humanitarian programme - not only for foods and medicines, but also clean water, electricity and educational material. No one should starve.' 'Of the $20 billion that has been provided through the ‘oil for food’ programme, about a third, or $7 billion, has been spent on UN ’expenses’, reparations to Kuwait and assorted compensation claims. That leaves $13 billion available to the Iraqi government. If you divide that figure by the population of Iraq, which is 22 million, it leave some $190 per head of population per year over 3 years 'that is pitifully inadequate.' ... Who, in your view, is primarily responsible for the deaths of those 500,000 children under five? 'All the members of the Permanent Security Council, when they passed 1284, reconfirmed that economic sanctions had to be sustained, knowing the consequences. That constitutes ‘intent to kill’, because we know that sanctions are killing several thousand per month. Now, of the five permanent members, three abstained; but an abstention is no better than a vote for, in a sense. Britain and America of course voted for this continuation. The rest of them don’t count because they’re lackeys, or they’re paid off. The only country that stood up was Malaysia, and they also abstained. But you know, by abstaining instead of using your veto, when you are a permanent member you're guilty because you’re continuing something that has this deadly impact. However, I would normally point the finger at London and Washington, because they are the most active in sustaining sanctions: they are the ones who will not compromise. All the other members would back down if London and Washington would change their position. I think that’s quite clear. But unfortunately Blair and Clinton have an almost personal investment in demonising Saddam Hussein. That’s very hard to get out of, they have my sympathy, but they created their own problem. Once you’ve demonised somebody, it’s awfully difficult to turn around and say, ‘Well actually he’s not such a bad guy, he likes kids’. Under the Baath Party regime, they ran a social welfare system in Iraq that was so intense it was almost claustrophobic, and they made damn sure that the average Iraqi was well taken care of, and they did it deliberately to divert them from any political activity and to maintain stability and allow them (Baath Party) to run the country. [US Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright has also fallen into the demonisation hole: her whole career is linked to maintaining this policy, although she didn’t start it.' ...
Gotcha!! Should have diplomatically gained support of the Security Council before shouting from the roof-tops. That would have been my preference too, and I think it may have been viable with a better diplomate at the helm. Moot point. You mean your man George wasn't up for the task??? What about the VP?? (oh...sorry). So you would support the war if the security council figured it was ok. It's the going it alone bit; the with us or against us bit; the hey hey ho ho it's off to war we go bit, that you disagree with. Given the current situation, elected (yup, he got in, and Sacramento did not beat the Lakers last year) man in charge, and his gang of cohorts, are we better with continuing sanctions, or marching in??? And what about the Human Shields??? Any different then the chinese student sitting in front of a tank (per Chubbychubby's posts in another thread).
No Worries, Now that post is most interesting, and deserves attention and research. It appear to be a step above the normal he-said-she-said. Thanks for the article.
So a sample of 2 proves your point? Are there no differences between Iraq and NK/Cuba that could have resulted in a different outcome? Are there no examples where embargos were effective? I don't know. Do you know of any major cases of sanctions really achieving their aims in dictatorships? The biggest three examples of sanctions I can remember are Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq, and all have had virtually identical results - the population gets poorer and more isolated and the leadership's grip on power gets even stronger. Perhaps there are other examples that have worked and thus the sanctions were lifted -- I just can't think of any off hand. And FWIW, if you two are right, then the global community will never be able to use embargos on tyrants, and will be left with War as the only serious solution. There is a third option - engage them and incite change from within. Bring in investment money - few countries would resist - empower the people that way and foment revolution from within. Unfortunately, its a much longer-term strategy and not as politically popular. I have no doubts it would work in Cuba. It would get the blinders off the people in North Korea (they have shown signs of looking at foreign investment in recent years, I believe). I'm not sure how it would work in Iraq -- they probably would resist money from the U.S. but would be more than happy to take it in from Europe. Basically, westernize the country from within. This has the benefit of teaching the people about Democracy instead of imposing it on them and avoids the imperialism aspect of taking over a country. I'm not saying this should be used at this point in Iraq -- we're too far down a different road -- but its certainly workable in Cuba and other places.
Originally posted by Major ... Perhaps there are other examples that have worked and thus the sanctions were lifted -- I just can't think of any off hand. Me neither. Two lazy posters at work...ok...maybe 'busy'. There is a third option - engage them and incite change from within. Bring in investment money - few countries would resist - empower the people that way and foment revolution from within. Unfortunately, its a much longer-term strategy and not as politically popular. I have no doubts it would work in Cuba. It would get the blinders off the people in North Korea (they have shown signs of looking at foreign investment in recent years, I believe). I'm not sure how it would work in Iraq -- they probably would resist money from the U.S. but would be more than happy to take it in from Europe. Basically, westernize the country from within. This has the benefit of teaching the people about Democracy instead of imposing it on them and avoids the imperialism aspect of taking over a country. I'm not saying this should be used at this point in Iraq -- we're too far down a different road -- but its certainly workable in Cuba and other places. Is that realistic? Has it ever been accomplished with a despot? Wouldn't 'westernizing' free the people somewhat from their dependence on the tyrant, thus making it unlikely that he will go along with it? How many years would that take, and would that diminish the mistreatement of civilians until the end result? A lot of serious questions, IMO.
Would some of the "human shields" please bring cameras to record the suffering of the Iraqi people NOW that Saddam is and has been causing for years? So far, Bush hasn't done anything to hurt Iraqi citizens (except create some anxiety, perhaps). Also, you have no idea what the war plans are and won't know until they happen. If CBS news has a "copy" of the war plans it's probably mis-information.
The problem I still have with blaming the U.S. or the U.N. for the poverty in Iraq is that no one is taking into account the fact that Saddam could have the sanctions lifted by disarming and cooperating. And the ONLY reason he's being forced to disarm is because he invaded Kuwait and lost. The sanctions are not placed on Iraq to punish Iraq; the are there to get Saddam to do what he's supposed to do.
maybe we can have the opposite of human shields go to iraq. i vote we deputize the militias and send them over to counter the human shields.
During the cold war, the US successfully used a policy of containment against its nuclear-ized enemies, USSR and PRC. This policy could have been used against Saddam. Unfortunately we have gone too far down another road to switch policies at this point.
I made the same point yesterday, and ironically no one, except No Worries, countered it. We could end the suffering right quickly, by removing Sadam.
