Justification for keeping UN sanctions and oil for food programs?

[AndrewR]

Maybe I missed something, but the UN sanctions and the oil for food programs were established to limit the actions of the government of Iraq after the first Gulf War, right? Therefore, with the removal of the government of Iraq, there is no need for those sanctions or the oil for food program under UN auspices.

I am really not arguing the point, I am just stating what I see as fact. Am I missing something that somehow justifies keeping these UN programs in place? What's the argument?

 

[sMiLeYz]

Justification for keeping UN sanctions and oil for food programs?

There is none, even the French agree with us on that.

 

[B00ne]

Well I would also say there is no justification, except that there is no government in Iraq but Chaos and Anarchy - so lifting the sanctions will probably do nothing for the populace but rather fill the pockets of some businessmen (shady or not). On the other hand lifting the sanctions is the only way for all these US companies waiting to enter iRAQ to start business and make profits...- i just wonder what benefit it will have for Iraqi people - but since they wont be able to decide their destiny anyway - the sanctions could as well be lifted so at least someone will make some dough

 

[Fencer128]

I agree that there is justification for continued sanctions on Iraq. To understand why there are objections as to removing them under the current proposals please see my quote below (It is from the Bush prods UN to lift sanctions thread). Sorry for the capitilising - I was responding to Alistar7's comment with mock immitation!

There are posts of mine preceeding this if you wish to read about my point further. They are from the same thread as this.

The ONLY (since you love your capitilising so much ) objection most people have to the lifting of sanctions is the fact that in doing so the US/UK will take absolute control of the countries revenues to do with as they see fit. The UN merely as an advisor. THAT is why people are protesting. It has NOTHING to do with denying the Iraqi people. If anything the US are playing a clever game of EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL to get their own way.

Have a LOOK at my above posts to see what I mean. I could turn the point around and say if the US CARED it would concede the contentious points in it's resolution so to let the sanctions be lifted QUICKLY. Is THAT a fair perspective?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Sorry - mispost! Wrong thread!

Andy

 

[Mookow]

Basically, Russia wants oil contracts

 

[dpm]

Basically, everyone wants oil contracts

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Oh no not the US. We want authority over all Iraqi affairs so we can help them . . . the Iraqi people are suffering right now b/c sanctions prevent the US from policing the streets, providing potable water, restoring electricity, resuming waste collection, and assisting the hospitals.

 

[Czar]

I think that under the original sanctions rules that for them to be stopped Iraq would have to be declared a WMD free country

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Oh no not the US. We want authority over all Iraqi affairs so we can help them . . . the Iraqi people are suffering right now b/c sanctions prevent the US from policing the streets, providing potable water, restoring electricity, resuming waste collection, and assisting the hospitals.

and all are being done, and in a fair and civilized manner, much different than before....

I guess it was better when Saddam controlled the infrastructure of Iraq and most of the public services failed from NEGLECT, 70's technology that barely worked if it all, what about his Police force, nothing like having a group of "peace officers" bust into your house, rape your wife while you watch and kill your children because you suggested Saddam might not be the most attractive man in Iraq, maybe if you lived you could go to a second tier hospital, your not in the Feyadeen ya know, no top notch treatment for you, oh, sorry, hospitals are all full of troops, guns, ammo, and WMD protective gear, maybe next time.

I will resist the urge to roll my eyes.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Maybe I missed something, but the UN sanctions and the oil for food programs were established to limit the actions of the government of Iraq after the first Gulf War, right? Therefore, with the removal of the government of Iraq, there is no need for those sanctions or the oil for food program under UN auspices.

I am really not arguing the point, I am just stating what I see as fact. Am I missing something that somehow justifies keeping these UN programs in place? What's the argument?

UN sanctions and the oil for food programs were established to limit the actions of the government of Iraq

Is that govt. still in place? Why did certain countries want to lift sanctions FOR that govt, but resist the urge once they are gone?

Emotional blackmail? Like the countries that opposed, who focused almost every aspect of their coverage on the negative aspects, the innocent civilian suffering (must have been alot of reruns considering the low amount, we could have done nothing and watched 7,000 to 10,000 die from sanctions that month instead of the 2,500). They cried about "occupation" and international law. Meanwhile, they were really only protecting their own financial interests and worse yet they used their power to subvert resolutions they themselves signed. They made every possible attempt to keep Saddam in power for their own gain at the expense of the people they claimed were their "major concern".

Nice to see their own citizens bought it hook, line, and sinker. Do I expect them to come out and admit they not only sold weapons in the past, but still did so under sanctions? The US has no probelm admitting their role in supporting or arming Saddam in the past?
What is wrong with the people that live there? I doubt you will find many Americans who are not cynical of their own govt. and will willingly admit their is much corruption and hypocrisy. We have 3,000+ newspapers alone that are based on editorial bias, every fact and issue is spun by both sides and thouroughly covered and investigated. Were there ANY French papers that outlined their history and present day activities in Iraq? Their financial interests were he to stay in power, their only real goal. I seriously doubt they did, but would love to be proven wrong.

I'm sorry the UN does not like our proposal, unfortunately they took themselves out of the ballgame by allowing a FEW members to subvert the just action that was taken. Too often in the past atrocities have happened because of the way even ONE member can derail the will of the rest of the body. Saddam and the Baath party are gone, to that effect there is nobody left that was required to provide the evidence required to end the sanctions, by holding on to the notion sanctions should not end until all conditions are met you are saying you NEVER think they should end. One of the conditions was the release or proof (bodies) of the 600+ pow's from Kuwait. Should we keep them in place if they are nebver found either?

Their position now is untennable as well. Do they honestly believe the people of Iraq would be better off had Saddam remained in power and had sanctions lifted early, or fully complied to have them lifted? You then have Saddam unchecked, that is better for the people of Iraq than governing themselves? Ask the people of Mosul who recently elected their own mayor and city council, or those that were able to complete the most holy pilgrimage in their religion. The way the US governs until power is fully restored to the people will be widely publicized and well scrutinzed, would you prefer the "black veil" and propoganda approach saddam was so fond of?

France has a 75 year history in Iraqi oil, in a few years when we are gone Iraqis can resume their business with anyone they please, it will be interesting to see who they favor.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Czar
I think that under the original sanctions rules that for them to be stopped Iraq would have to be declared a WMD free country

What does it matter if there are WMD present in the country and yet the country is controlled by the Coalition? The intent of the sanctions was to remove the threat of WMD from the hands of the Saddam regime. If the government of Saddam suddenly had morphed into the government of Switzerland, there would have been no need for sanctions to restrict WMD from a regime which had used them in the past.

The regime is gone. Plain and simple.

As for the idea that keeping the sanctions in place keeps the money away from the US and the UK, I can see how that would be the case. I would also mention that the UN is far from accountable for their actions under the oil for food program. My guess is that Annan is lining his pockets (or his office's) with "administrative costs" and doesn't want to see the cash cow disappear.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It is total BS to claim Iraq remotely resembles a civil society anymore. Saddam was a despotic POS but the people had food, potable water, and only feared the secret police. Chaos reigns supreme in Baghdad and other coalition strongholds while localities controlled by clerics appear to be in much better shape.

Regardless, the sanctions are not preventing the US from being a responsible Occupying Power.

Human Rights Watch
?The U.S. government has not acted on important information about mass graves in Iraq,? said Peter Bouckaert, senior emergencies researcher for Human Rights Watch. ?The result is desperate families trying to dig up the site themselves - disturbing the evidence for forensic experts who could professionally establish the identities of the victims.?

Bush's excuse is that he needs a do-over replacing Garner with Bremer
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday, "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pentup feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime." Secretary Rumsfeld has also said the U.S. forces will patrol Iraqi cities to prevent lawlessness, but reports from the field suggest that coalition forces are not doing enough to prevent disturbances.

U.S. Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said on April 10 that "Looting is a problem, but it is not a major threat. People are not being killed in looting. So that's something we have to do as we have the time and capability to do it."


Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, an occupying power has a duty to restore and ensure public order and safety in the territory under its authority. Military commanders on the spot must prevent and where necessary suppress serious violations involving the local population. Ensuring local security includes protecting people from reprisals and revenge attacks, such as those directed against members of minority populations or government officials. This may require that occupying forces be deployed to secure public order until the time police personnel, whether local or international, can be mobilized for such responsibilities.

"This lawlessness is something for which the coalition forces should have been prepared," Roth said.

An occupying power also has a duty under international law to ensure food and medical services to the population "to the fullest extent of the means available to it." Medical personnel, including recognized Red Cross/Red Crescent societies, should be allowed to carry out their duties. Should any part of the population of an occupied territory be inadequately supplied, the occupying power is obligated to facilitate relief by humanitarian agencies. However, the provision of assistance by humanitarian agencies does not relieve the occupying force of its responsibilities to meet the needs of the population.

To date, coaliton forces (read US/UK) have failed miserably at meeting the basic requirements of an occupying power. Of course maybe it doesn't matter b/c we denied being an occupying power until last week.

 

[AndrewR]

It is total BS to claim Iraq remotely resembles a civil society anymore. Saddam was a despotic POS but the people had food, potable water, and only feared the secret police. Chaos reigns supreme in Baghdad and other coalition strongholds while localities controlled by clerics appear to be in much better shape.

And I'm sure they all long for the "good ol' days" just like you imply. You do realize that those same secret police, which were all that they had to fear, created the mass graves we're reading about, right?

Regardless, the sanctions are not preventing the US from being a responsible Occupying Power.

Come on, let's all obfuscate! Try to stick to the issue instead of smearing the US. Hint: the title of the thread is usually a good indicator of the topic.

 

[etech]

The real reason France, Germany and Russia don't just want the sanctions droped?

US moves to tackle Iraq concerns

"The new draft concedes that once an internationally recognised government is established in Iraq, such funds could be open again to claims from nations or entities owed money as a result of contracts established before the war."

A little bit of greed seems to be raising it's ugly head again.

BBD,

Just for you.

"The southern town of Umm Qasr becomes the first town to be handed back to local people since the end of the US-led conflict"

Towns are already being turned back over to Iraqi control. It's not going as bad as you try to make it seem. Also remember that Saddam emptied the prisons before the war started. In with the political prisnors were also the thieves and rapists and other sorts. It will take time to round them back up again.

 

[Alistar7]

that town has power and water, the equiopment was not damaged by the war, it was 30+ years old and neglected, like most of Iraq's public services infrastructure.

Where do you get off claiming they had better services before Bali?????

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
that town has power and water, the equiopment was not damaged by the war, it was 30+ years old and neglected, like most of Iraq's public services infrastructure.

Where do you get off claiming they had better services before Bali?????

Facts, facts? What are those?

 

[SuperTool]

Yes, you missed something. The hypocrisy. There was no justification for sanctions against Iraqi civilian economy for the last 12 years. Why were we punishing them for Saddam's decisions when they had no way to effect those decisions?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, you missed something. The hypocrisy. There was no justification for sanctions against Iraqi civilian economy for the last 12 years. Why were we punishing them for Saddam's decisions when they had no way to effect those decisions?

it was not a free market, Saddam controlled everything, including the "civilian" economy you think existed. The sanctions were on his govt which had control overything.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, you missed something. The hypocrisy. There was no justification for sanctions against Iraqi civilian economy for the last 12 years. Why were we punishing them for Saddam's decisions when they had no way to effect those decisions?

it was not a free market, Saddam controlled everything, including the "civilian" economy you think existed. The sanctions were on his govt which had control overything.

Yes, but targeting oil exports and civilian goods destroyed the livelyhoods of Iraqi civilians none the less.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, you missed something. The hypocrisy. There was no justification for sanctions against Iraqi civilian economy for the last 12 years. Why were we punishing them for Saddam's decisions when they had no way to effect those decisions?

it was not a free market, Saddam controlled everything, including the "civilian" economy you think existed. The sanctions were on his govt which had control overything.

Yes, but targeting oil exports and civilian goods destroyed the livelyhoods of Iraqi civilians none the less.

So, you would have given Saddam unfettered access to oil money which he would have then used to purchase new weapons and parts for his current equipment? The fallacy is that more exports by Iraq would have somehow equaled more comforts for the people of Iraq.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, you missed something. The hypocrisy. There was no justification for sanctions against Iraqi civilian economy for the last 12 years. Why were we punishing them for Saddam's decisions when they had no way to effect those decisions?

it was not a free market, Saddam controlled everything, including the "civilian" economy you think existed. The sanctions were on his govt which had control overything.

Yes, but targeting oil exports and civilian goods destroyed the livelyhoods of Iraqi civilians none the less.

So, you would have given Saddam unfettered access to oil money which he would have then used to purchase new weapons and parts for his current equipment? The fallacy is that more exports by Iraq would have somehow equaled more comforts for the people of Iraq.

We could have kept the sanctions for military equipment sales, and lift the sanctions on the civilian goods and oil exports. And the quality of life of Iraqi people has gone down significantly with the sanctions, you just can't deny that.

 

[Alistar7]

Why have they gone down? Why was the food and medical supplies hoarded in military bunkers?

The Aid was enough for the people if Saddam had any intention of helping them, instead he kept most of everything for himself and his military.
The fault was not in sanctions that targeted a dictator, the fault was with a dictator who targeted civilians for abuse and neglect.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Why have they gone down? Why was the food and medical supplies hoarded in military bunkers?

The Aid was enough for the people if Saddam had any intention of helping them, instead he kept most of everything for himself and his military.
The fault was not in sanctions that targeted a dictator, the fault was with a dictator who targeted civilians for abuse and neglect.

Clearly if you restrict the flow of goods and money into a country, those who have the power will grab the limited supplies for themselves.