What were the specific proposals for lifting sanctions, and which of those was US on board for? The US lied about Iraq as well, constantly exaggerating the threat.
The threat was hardly exaggerated, as weapons expert John Pike, leading Iraq analyst for the anti-war Federation of American Scientists (among dozens of other weapons and intelligence experts studying Iraq) corroborate when asked about a Clinton Administration report on Iraq's prohibited activities that it submitted to Congress in 1999:
"Weapons expert John Pike studies Iraq for the American Federation of Scientists, a non-government group. He says there is good reason for worry.
Pike: "I think the concern all along was that Iraq retained a chemical and biological weapons capability that the U-N was simply never able to find. It looks like they may be building on that pre-existing capability to expand it. So I think we have to assume that Iraq currently has useable amounts of chemical and biological weapons. And that the amount of those weapons may be growing."
"It is very difficult for the United States just to walk away from the Iraq problem because Iraq threatens its neighbors. The sanctions are not working to stop Saddam Hussein's military build-up."
Hell even old whacky Scott Ritter, a week after giving his resignation as Chief Weapons Inspector over discontent with US meddling in the United Nations, emphatically stated:
"Iraq, today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace. Those Americans who think that this is important and that something should be done about it have to be deeply disappointed in our leadership." - September 3, 1998, Joint Legislative Hearing of the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs.
Ritter punctuated the closing paragraphs of his testimony with a reference to the real threat this UNSCOM Weapons Inspector believed Iraq still posed in 1998:
"Only through the re-establishment of such a policy, clearly stated and resolutely acted upon, does the United States have a chance of resuming its leadership role in overseeing the effective and verifiable disarmament of Iraq, so that neither we nor Iraq's neighbors in the Middle East will be threatened by Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons."
In short, there was a broad consensus among people who make their living, not as talking heads and politicians, but studying the Iraqi situation, that the true danger was not what we knew about Iraq, but what we didn't know about Iraq, because Hussein had taken deception, manipulation, and obstruction to a new level.
The sanctions lost support because noone actually believed that Iraq was a credible threat, and the US was constantly blocking any relaxation of the sanctions.
First, the sanctions were enforced by unanimous vote of the UN Security Council for five years before the first voices of dissent appeared in the UN Security Council. By that time, the bulk of the suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people under the sanctions regime, including the Iraqi Ministry of Health's inflated 'infant mortality rates' and civilian deaths, had already been done. Never was it reasoned within the United Nations Security Council that the sanctions should be lifted because the Hussein regime is no longer a threat. The only stated justification offered for lifting the sanctions were the hardships endured by the Iraqi people and the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
Second, its clear that you misunderstand the stated purpose of the sanctions. Don't feel bad, though, with the media incessantly citing the purpose of the sanctions as being "punitive", to "punish" Iraq, a good many million people are equally as bamboozled.
The stated purpose of the sanctions was to contain the Hussein regime, by severely diminishing its ability to reconstitute its weapons programs, resume prohibited activities, rebuild its military, threaten its neighbors, and otherwise pressure the Hussein regime to fully comply with all its obligations.
If Iraq did not pose a credible threat, it was because containment worked. That was their purpose. So, your rationale is, let's now remove the very sanctions to which we owe the fact that Hussein was no longer a credible threat? Makes perfect sense.
- Sanctions imposed so Hussein can't become a threat
- Hussein isn't a threat 10 years later (sanctions worked)
- So let's lift the sanctions
Sorta like:
- Water softener installed so tap water won't be full of minerals
- Tap water now has only trace minerals (water softener worked)
- Success! We can remove the water softener now!
The sanctions lost support for two reasons:
1. Hussein was buying opposition to them
2. Hussein's masterful exploitation of the 'suffering of the Iraqi people' and the number of people willing to be dupes for Hussein propaganda - witting or otherwise
The following are excerpts from various articles and reports:
Iraq Promises Oil Contracts in Exchange For Support in UN, Associated Press, July 30, 2000:
Iraq will boost its trade and oil contracts with Russia in return for Moscow's support in the UN Security Council, Iraq's deputy oil minister said in comments published Saturday. "Owing to Russia's positive role in foiling the 'smart sanctions' proposal, Russian companies will be awarded contracts in the future in Iraq's oil, industrial and trade sectors," Deputy Oil Minister Faiz Shaheen told the Al-Ittihad weekly in an interview.
His comments show new warmth toward Russia on the part of the ministry. Previously it had criticized Russia for failing to implement contracts for the development of southern Iraqi oil fields. Russia threatened to use its veto early this month when the Security Council was considering a plan to overhaul the United Nations trade embargo on Iraq - the so-called "smart sanctions" proposal. Finally, U.S. and British diplomats dropped the plan, and the council renewed the standard oil-for-food program, as Iraq wanted, on July 3.
Iraq Uses Its Buying Power As Leverage, Colum Lynch, Washington Post, July 3, 2001:
For more than four years, France has been the world's largest beneficiary of trade with Iraq through a U.N.-sponsored humanitarian aid program, signing deals for more than $ 3 billion worth of Peugeot minibuses, Renault garbage trucks, Alcatel communications equipment and other French goods.
But in the past year, France's privileged status has begun to fade. Irritated by Paris's opposition to illegal surcharges on oil exports and its training of U.N. weapons inspectors, Baghdad has slashed trade with its most important European supplier nearly in half.
The change illustrates how Baghdad uses its buying power to reward international allies and punish opponents, complicating efforts by the United States to isolate Saddam Hussein's government and prevent him from rebuilding his military or developing weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq 'Smart Sanctions' Plan Dropped at UN, By Anne Penketh, Financial Times, July 3, 2001:
In a humiliating climbdown, Britain and America withdrew much-heralded plans in the UN Security Council to impose "smart sanctions" against the Iraqi government in the face of a Russian veto threat yesterday.
The 15-member Security Council instead agreed to extend for a further few months a UN humanitarian programme, enabling President Saddam Hussein to sell oil in return for food and medicine for his sanctions-hit population.
Russia had opposed the Anglo-American plan almost from the outset in May, arguing that it did not address the fundamental issue of lifting the 11-year-old sanctions. They can only be eased once Iraq allows the return of UN weapons inspectors, who have been barred from the country since December 1998.
Britain and America explained they wanted to adjust the sanctions to prevent President Saddam from exploiting loopholes to help him to rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, while freeing the flow of goods meant for ordinary Iraqis.
But Iraq, and its ally Russia, protested that the draft proposals would make the sanctions regime harsher.
Iraq carries out oil threat, CNN News, July 4, 2001:
Iraq has carried out its threat of halting most oil exports in retaliation for a change in the United Nation's oil-for-food programme.
Oil running through an Iraqi-Turkish pipeline to Turkey's Mediterranean port terminal at Ceyhan stopped at 8 a.m. local time (04.00 GMT), sources close to the Iraqi Oil Ministry said.
Exports through Iraq's southern al-Bakr oil terminal were also shut off, the source added, the Associated Press said.
CNN's James Martone said diplomats perceived the action as a "slap to the United States" -- the biggest importer of Iraqi oil.
Oil exports continued to be carried by road to Iraq's neighbours Jordan and Turkey.
Iraq imposed the indefinite halt on Monday in protest at the U.N.'s decision on Friday to extend by one month instead of the usual six months the programme under which Iraq can sell oil.
The extension is intended to allow the U.S. and Britain more time to secure Security Council backing for their so-called "smart sanctions" proposal which would allow civilian goods to flow freely into Iraq, except those that could be used for military purposes, and open up commercial and cargo flights.
Iraq wants all sanctions lifted.
Iraq Wins at U.N. but Loses Pair of Envoys, By Maggie Farley and Robin Wright, Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2001:
The threat of a Russian veto forced the U.S. and Britain to abandon a proposed overhaul of sanctions against Iraq and extend the current oil-for-food program Tuesday. While the delay was a victory for Iraq, the country faced its own problem--the defection of two senior diplomats.
The U.S. and Britain had won the support of 14 of the 15 Security Council members for their plan to ease commercial exports to Iraq while tightening controls on goods with potential military uses. But strong objections from Russia, Iraq's strongest ally and business partner on the council, sent the proposal back to the drawing board.
Russian Ambassador Sergei V. Lavrov said there were "too many unanswered questions" about what Iraq would have to do to win suspension of sanctions.
Iraq has refused to discuss anything short of total elimination of the sanctions, which were imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Sanctions on Iraq: Smart Exit, The Economist, July 5, 2001:
For once, Saddam Hussein can justly declare victory. His mortal foes, America and Britain, had been plotting to tighten the 11-year siege of his regime by making United Nations sanctions "smarter". But the threat of a Russian veto at the Security Council scuppered months of inter-continental haggling. This week, the old "dumb" sanctions were extended unchanged. The smart ones may now be sunk for good.
Iraq would, of course, prefer to see the sanctions lifted altogether. Mr Hussein?s hapless people remain stuck with the UN?s four-year-old oil-for-food programme (which allows Iraq to buy "humanitarian" goods with its oil money) as their only source of sustenance - plus a good bit extra, growing all the time, from government-controlled smuggling. This is not just depressing in economic terms, but morale-destroying to any Iraqi with dreams for the future. Even as his enemies were being forced into retreat, Mr Hussein?s victory was tarnished by reports of two of his senior envoys to the UN asking for asylum.
The turn of events also leaves Iraq with an ever heavier debt to Russia (it already owes it something like $8 billion, mainly for ancient arms deals). Iraq has long been wooing the Russians with promises of lucrative contracts and concessions in its oilfields. Now, as voting on smart sanctions neared, Iraq?s pledge soared close to $21 billion-worth of business, or so the Baghdad rumour-mill suggested. Whether or not that is anywhere near the truth, Russia will not have sold its veto cheap.
Iraq Gives Priority to Russia, Syria in Import Contracts, The Jordan Times, July 16, 2001:
Iraq will give priority to Russia and Syria in import contracts under the UN oil-for-food programme rather than France which has won the lion's share of deals since 1996, an Iraqi official said Sunday.
"Iraq will intensify (commercial) ties with friendly countries, notably Russia and Syria, for having supported Iraq" in opposing US and British proposals to impose "smart" sanctions on Baghdad, the official told AFP. The official, asking not to be named, said priority would in future also go to Jordan, Egypt and Malaysia.
On July 4, the UN Security Council extended the oil-for-food deal for five months after shelving plans to impose the revised sanctions proposed by Washington and London due to Russian opposition.
Iraq has been under embargo since it invaded Kuwait in 1990 but has been authorised since December 1996 to export oil under UN supervision to finance imports of essential goods for its 22 million population.
Before a vote on smart sanctions was postponed, Iraq warned France it would pay a heavy price for backing the proposals. France won a total of $3.5 billion worth of contracts with Iraq in the first eight phases of the UN humanitarian programme, which normally runs in six-monthly terms, according to official figures. It lost first place to Egypt in the last phase.
French companies, along with firms from Russia and China, have also been negotiating oil development projects in Iraq, which has the world's second largest reserves after Saudi Arabia.
Russia is now expected to win contracts to supply Iraq with oil maintenance equipment, said an Arab diplomat posted in Baghdad, which is authorised to import $600 million of oil spare parts every six months.
Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?, By Michael Rubin, Middle East Review of International Affairs, December 2001:
The claim that sanctions have caused upwards of one million deaths in Iraq has been so often repeated, it is now accepted as unquestioned truth. Perennial opponents of U.S. policy Noam Chomsky and Edward Said, among others, declare, "The sanctions [on Iraq] are weapons of mass destruction." The American Friends Service Committee has been very vocal in its opposition to U.S. sanctions policy, arguing that, "During the past ten years, sanctions have led to an almost complete breakdown in economic, medical, social, and educational structures." When resigning from his UN post, Denis Halliday, the former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, declared, "We are in the process of destroying an entire society."
Even some practitioners of U.S. foreign policy have questioned sanctions. Richard Haass, later appointed to head the State Department Policy Planning Staff, and Meghan O'Sullivan wrote in their comprehensive critique of sanctions, "Sanctions can be costly for innocent bystanders, particularly the poorest in the target country and American businesses and commercial interests. In addition, sanctions often evoke unintended consequences, such as the strengthening of obnoxious regimes."
But where does the claim of mass death or even genocide in Iraq originate?
In short, with the Iraqi government itself.
The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?, Matt Welch, Reason Magazine, March 2002:
Are "a million innocent children...dying at this time...in Iraq" because of U.S. sanctions, as Osama bin Laden claimed in his October 7 videotaped message to the world? Has the United Nations Children?s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) discovered that "at least 200 children are dying every day...as a direct result of sanctions," as advocacy journalist John Pilger maintains on his Web site? Is it official U.N. belief that 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 are dying each month due to its own policy, as writers of letters to virtually every U.S. newspaper have stated repeatedly during the past three years?
The short answer to all of these questions is no.
think the reason for that is that it knew that if it relaxed the sanctions, it would be the European companies who would benefit, not the US companies, which would be left out of the bidding.
Specifically, Russian and French companies would benefit and I mean handsomely. I'm sure that entered the minds of some US officials.
Facebook
Twitter