Full Version: Ending Iraqi Sanctions
Row brewing over Iraqi sanctions
So... should the UN immediately lift sanctions as the U.S. wishes or wait for the evidence of the elusive WMDs American claimed Iraq has to turn up? Please explain your position.
While I support lifting the sanctions, and have prior to this time, I find it rather hypocritical that we refused proposals to lift the sanctions before, yet would like to do so now, without yet locating any of the WMDs used in justifying them. This seems to be merely another indicator that WMDs and other issues had less to do with this war than regime change.
Beyond this, the U.S. tried in the past to justify sanctions as being a necessary evil to drive Saddam from power. In doing this, the U.S. often understated or ignored the plight of the Iraqi people living under the sanctions. Yet it was war that drove Saddam from power and only now, when we want the sanctions lifted, we suddenly admit just how crippling they are to Iraqi society.
I'm curious, and perhaps somebody can help me out here... as I understand things, lifting the sanctions will supposedly provide support for the Iraqi economy to revive and flourish. The above report hints as much. Given the dealing of contracts to American companies for the restructuring of Iraq, is it not possible that a lifting of the sanctions (with or without finding WMDs) will almost certainly benefit those American companies being sold contracts to rebuild the country?
QUOTE
A new dispute looms between Washington and the United Nations over a role for the international community in rebuilding post-war Iraq, as the United States presses for an end to crippling UN sanctions against Baghdad.
A call by US President George W Bush to lift the sanctions, which have been in place for 12 years, is widely viewed as a direct challenge to the Security Council to set aside its objections to the US-led war and help the shattered Iraqi economy recover.
...UN sanctions banning most trade were imposed in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait and the sanctions are tied to Iraq being declared free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
..."For the Security Council to take this decision, we need to be certain whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said.
A call by US President George W Bush to lift the sanctions, which have been in place for 12 years, is widely viewed as a direct challenge to the Security Council to set aside its objections to the US-led war and help the shattered Iraqi economy recover.
...UN sanctions banning most trade were imposed in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait and the sanctions are tied to Iraq being declared free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
..."For the Security Council to take this decision, we need to be certain whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said.
So... should the UN immediately lift sanctions as the U.S. wishes or wait for the evidence of the elusive WMDs American claimed Iraq has to turn up? Please explain your position.
While I support lifting the sanctions, and have prior to this time, I find it rather hypocritical that we refused proposals to lift the sanctions before, yet would like to do so now, without yet locating any of the WMDs used in justifying them. This seems to be merely another indicator that WMDs and other issues had less to do with this war than regime change.
Beyond this, the U.S. tried in the past to justify sanctions as being a necessary evil to drive Saddam from power. In doing this, the U.S. often understated or ignored the plight of the Iraqi people living under the sanctions. Yet it was war that drove Saddam from power and only now, when we want the sanctions lifted, we suddenly admit just how crippling they are to Iraqi society.
I'm curious, and perhaps somebody can help me out here... as I understand things, lifting the sanctions will supposedly provide support for the Iraqi economy to revive and flourish. The above report hints as much. Given the dealing of contracts to American companies for the restructuring of Iraq, is it not possible that a lifting of the sanctions (with or without finding WMDs) will almost certainly benefit those American companies being sold contracts to rebuild the country?
what's funny about the sanctions is that they likely helped saddam maitain power. after th first gulf war he grip on power was tenuous at best. the sanctions made it so he and his regime had to be relied upon for food and such. they also prevented the Iraqi people from ever having any possibilty of overthrowing him on their own, as most were hungary, diseased or dehydrated, due to the strict sanctions (the most strict in history) they relied on him for food, medicine and water. they weren't about to "bite the hand that fed them"
I kind of agree with the french and russian position that sanctions should only be lifted as long as the inspectors are allowed to return and they look for the supposed WMD.
american companies would benefit greatly if the sanctions were lifted. companies like halliburton could pump out all the oil they wanted, but could only sell so much of it in any period of time. they intend to make as much profit as possible off Iraqi oil even though it is the "iraqis" oil.
I kind of agree with the french and russian position that sanctions should only be lifted as long as the inspectors are allowed to return and they look for the supposed WMD.
american companies would benefit greatly if the sanctions were lifted. companies like halliburton could pump out all the oil they wanted, but could only sell so much of it in any period of time. they intend to make as much profit as possible off Iraqi oil even though it is the "iraqis" oil.
Yes, of course it's time to lift the sanctions. They were aimed at Saddam, and he's not in power anymore, if he's even still alive. It was the combination of Saddam and the WMDs that was a threat, not WMDs in a vacuum, but if the WMDs are there, it is now virtually certain they will be found and destroyed. There is no reason to keep the sanctions except the political one on the part of certain Security Council members of wanting to thwart the U.S. at every opportunity. That they persist in this behavior even after the war is over and Saddam is gone makes me question whether staying in the U.N. at all is a good idea.
Lifting the sanctions at this point isn't all that important. Restoring the oil for food program is. There were substantial amounts of food and medical supplies coming through under sanctions. The problem was that they weren't being distributed for various reasons (by both Iraq and UN countries).
The UN stance here is ludicrous. Are the WMDs expected to rise up and fire themselves? The sanctions were imposed because of Hussein's regime. Hussein's regime is no longer in power. Remove the sanctions and get out of the way.
The UN is only providing further evidence that will lead to its demise. It is willing to forestall aid for Iraq solely for its own political purpose. They are no better than Saddam himself in that regard.
The UN is only providing further evidence that will lead to its demise. It is willing to forestall aid for Iraq solely for its own political purpose. They are no better than Saddam himself in that regard.
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 18 2003, 08:15 AM)
The UN stance here is ludicrous. Are the WMDs expected to rise up and fire themselves? The sanctions were imposed because of Hussein's regime. Hussein's regime is no longer in power. Remove the sanctions and get out of the way.
The UN is only providing further evidence that will lead to its demise. It is willing to forestall aid for Iraq solely for its own political purpose. They are no better than Saddam himself in that regard.
The UN is only providing further evidence that will lead to its demise. It is willing to forestall aid for Iraq solely for its own political purpose. They are no better than Saddam himself in that regard.
All I can say is "ditto".
I have to agree with the conservatives on this one. By not lifting the sanctions, the UN is causing more damage than good. Iraq was crippled by sanctions before, and they are crippled by them now. If Iraq is to be rebuilt, it needs to be able to create a stable economy. Inaction by the UN doesn't punish the United States. It punishes the Iraqi people. 
QUOTE(Passion51 @ Apr 18 2003, 09:15 AM)
The UN stance here is ludicrous. Are the WMDs expected to rise up and fire themselves? The sanctions were imposed because of Hussein's regime. Hussein's regime is no longer in power. Remove the sanctions and get out of the way.
The UN is only providing further evidence that will lead to its demise. It is willing to forestall aid for Iraq solely for its own political purpose. They are no better than Saddam himself in that regard.
The UN is only providing further evidence that will lead to its demise. It is willing to forestall aid for Iraq solely for its own political purpose. They are no better than Saddam himself in that regard.
Passion
There are economics involved here.
Russia doesn't want the sanctions dropped because it has an oil deal with Iraq & if the sanctions go away, the grubbing for contracts will be a free-for-all. They are worried about losing their deal.
I would like to see the sanctions ended, but I can understand why those in the UN would be relunctant to do so.
The U.S. charged into Iraq and tried to rally the world with the cry of WMDs and threat to international security, did it not? Now, as the rebuilding process begins, contracts for the project are being offered only to American companies. Not even the British or Australians, who committed soldiers alongside our men and women, are being invited to bid on these contracts.
As nice and popular as liberation is to everybody here in the states, the international community will take a dim view of our action in Iraq if WMDs are not discovered. It isn't that the international community isn't pleased to see the Iraqi people liberated, but they don't want the U.S., or any other nation, waging war on false pretenses (WMDs).
I don't think there is any doubt that the sanctions were put in because Saddam Hussein was in power. But just as the U.S. claimed Saddam would benefit from lifting of the sanctions, the UN Security Council members are perhaps examining the added benefits to America if the sanctions are lifted. With the contracts being given solely to private American companies, the conquest of Iraq leaves America a great deal of leverage not only on the Middle Eastern stage, but also that of the world.
The United States hasn't fully justified the war without the discovery of WMDs. That's a fact. The United States sought to discredit allies over their opposing position with the argument of WMDs and those nation's seemingly indifference to the "threat" posed by such WMDs. And now, with the war at an end, the U.S. is sitting atop the second largest proven oil reserves in the world. If I were an international diplomat I would certainly want to see the Iraqi people freed of the burden imposed by sanctions. However, I would also not want to see Coalition forces privatize Iraqi industry and have Americans benefit considerably more than the very Iraqi people they are claiming to liberate.
I support the lifting of sanctions, but I'd like to either see WMD evidence provided or at least have the Coalition forces allow the UN and other international groups take part in the rebuilding of Iraq -- not simply humanitarian roles (food and medicine).
The U.S. charged into Iraq and tried to rally the world with the cry of WMDs and threat to international security, did it not? Now, as the rebuilding process begins, contracts for the project are being offered only to American companies. Not even the British or Australians, who committed soldiers alongside our men and women, are being invited to bid on these contracts.
As nice and popular as liberation is to everybody here in the states, the international community will take a dim view of our action in Iraq if WMDs are not discovered. It isn't that the international community isn't pleased to see the Iraqi people liberated, but they don't want the U.S., or any other nation, waging war on false pretenses (WMDs).
I don't think there is any doubt that the sanctions were put in because Saddam Hussein was in power. But just as the U.S. claimed Saddam would benefit from lifting of the sanctions, the UN Security Council members are perhaps examining the added benefits to America if the sanctions are lifted. With the contracts being given solely to private American companies, the conquest of Iraq leaves America a great deal of leverage not only on the Middle Eastern stage, but also that of the world.
The United States hasn't fully justified the war without the discovery of WMDs. That's a fact. The United States sought to discredit allies over their opposing position with the argument of WMDs and those nation's seemingly indifference to the "threat" posed by such WMDs. And now, with the war at an end, the U.S. is sitting atop the second largest proven oil reserves in the world. If I were an international diplomat I would certainly want to see the Iraqi people freed of the burden imposed by sanctions. However, I would also not want to see Coalition forces privatize Iraqi industry and have Americans benefit considerably more than the very Iraqi people they are claiming to liberate.
I support the lifting of sanctions, but I'd like to either see WMD evidence provided or at least have the Coalition forces allow the UN and other international groups take part in the rebuilding of Iraq -- not simply humanitarian roles (food and medicine).
Seems like keeping sanctions in place just makes it easier for the US to exclude all but US companies in rebuilding. I'm not sure what else the UN can do though. Trying to impose sanctions on the US would be more entertaining than effective, I think.
The sanctions have nothing to do with offering contracts for rebuilding Iraq. If they did, American companies couldn't take part either -- much like American companies were prosectued, and continue to be prosecuted, for dealing with Iraq under sanctions during Saddam's regime.
I'm sure the British and Australian corporations being shafted could explain it even further. I remember an article from the BBC in which the British government was not happy with the distribution of contracts... especially since the U.S. gave some Steve Doering group the contract to Umm Qasr, where British troops were charged with defending the position.
U.S. officials are also contemplating giving a security contract to DynCorp, which would place foreign police agents throughout Baghdad and Iraq. The company is so sure of this contract that they are already recruiting nation-wide from their headquarters in Texas. This instead of inviting a neutral, UN based security force to work alongside Coalition forces inside the country.
I'm sure the British and Australian corporations being shafted could explain it even further. I remember an article from the BBC in which the British government was not happy with the distribution of contracts... especially since the U.S. gave some Steve Doering group the contract to Umm Qasr, where British troops were charged with defending the position.
U.S. officials are also contemplating giving a security contract to DynCorp, which would place foreign police agents throughout Baghdad and Iraq. The company is so sure of this contract that they are already recruiting nation-wide from their headquarters in Texas. This instead of inviting a neutral, UN based security force to work alongside Coalition forces inside the country.
QUOTE(goamerica @ Apr 18 2003, 03:18 PM)
Russia doesn't want the sanctions dropped because it has an oil deal with Iraq & if the sanctions go away, the grubbing for contracts will be a free-for-all. They are worried about losing their deal.
goamerica,
Russian has been trying to get those sanctions lifted since 2000 without UN inspectors first confirming no WMD in country .
The Iraqi news agency said that the Russian President Vladimir Putin promised in a message he addressed to the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to work on lifting the imposed sanctions on Iraq - saying that Putin assured that his country will continue its efforts against the sanctions on Iraq according to principles and charters of the international law.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...2000060323.html
Now Russia is objecting to the US proposal for lifting UN sanctions against Iraq unless UN inspectors first confirm no WMD in country.
We must ask, why?
The UN sanctions against Iraq were put in to place because the regime at that time would not (and did not EVER!) comply fully with any and all of the sanctions put against it. The sanctions are not intended to be put into place because there where WMD, they where put into place because the government would not cooperate with the UN. To say now you want to keep the sanctions there because so far the allied forces have not uncovered any sort of WMD is ludicrous at best, hypocritical at least. Those that want to so badly accuse the US for an illegitimate war because there has not been any WMDs found need to be a bit more patient than a month or so since this all started. There is a lot more things that need to be done which are a priority than going off and searching for those. The country needs to be secured not only in its infrastructure but its boarders as well to make sure those who do know where the WMD are do not leave and are hidden.
If you think that the other nations involved (the ones who actually helped, ie Brittan, Spain and the rest) will not get there share of the “loot”, I would suggest you hold your tongue until this is all over with. The comments about all the US companies getting to bid for and getting projects are out there for one reason, we (the US) led this campaign (even the British have agreed to this fact) and so we are leading the campaign to re-build.
The keeping of the sanctions is by far the worse thing the UN, Russia, or any other country can do for the Iraqi people as well as for their own countries interests. You keep the sanctions you inhibit the progress of the Iraqi nation to the point where we (the US and its allies) to stay there longer than we have to. And for those who did not want us there in the first place, it comes to a surprise to me that you are now seemingly willing to keep us there longer than needed or intended.
If you think that the other nations involved (the ones who actually helped, ie Brittan, Spain and the rest) will not get there share of the “loot”, I would suggest you hold your tongue until this is all over with. The comments about all the US companies getting to bid for and getting projects are out there for one reason, we (the US) led this campaign (even the British have agreed to this fact) and so we are leading the campaign to re-build.
The keeping of the sanctions is by far the worse thing the UN, Russia, or any other country can do for the Iraqi people as well as for their own countries interests. You keep the sanctions you inhibit the progress of the Iraqi nation to the point where we (the US and its allies) to stay there longer than we have to. And for those who did not want us there in the first place, it comes to a surprise to me that you are now seemingly willing to keep us there longer than needed or intended.
QUOTE
To say now you want to keep the sanctions there because so far the allied forces have not uncovered any sort of WMD is ludicrous at best, hypocritical at least.
If there aren't any WMDs in Iraq then the war, no matter how noble the liberation of the Iraqi people, will have been fought on false pretenses. It wouldn't have been fully justified.
There's still a good deal of international concern that the U.S. simply wanted control over the oil in Iraq. That looting and anarchy was allowed while the Ministry of Oil was protected didn't help dispel this notion. If no WMDs are found, a shadow will be cast over the image of the U.S. by the international community. What little trust there is will wane and criticism will abound. And as long as the U.S. is doing nothing to assure the international community -- indeed, our actions seem only to continue inflaming the situation -- the UN and members of the Security Council will be wary to drop sanctions allowing for more U.S. control over the region and resources.
Simply put: they don't trust us.
Until we give them some good reason to trust us and show them our intentions in Iraq are truly noble -- not merely the illusion of such -- they are going to be very critical of lifting the sanctions and appeasing the United States.
Agreed. Saddam is gone. Lift the sanctions. Lifting sanctions won't ONLY benefit the US, but will benefit Iraq, and other countries with companies who get contracts.
--cheers
--cheers
QUOTE
Simply put: they don't trust us.
Since when have they?
America made a huge show over WMD for a decade. I see nothing wrong with the rest of the world rubbing our noses in it if it turns out there are no WMD in Iraq. Just human nature and im sure the US would do the same if the situation was reversed.
Once the russians and germans have had their chuckle im sure sanctions will go.
Once the russians and germans have had their chuckle im sure sanctions will go.
QUOTE(santasdad @ Apr 19 2003, 11:54 AM)
America made a huge show over WMD for a decade. I see nothing wrong with the rest of the world rubbing our noses in it if it turns out there are no WMD in Iraq. Just human nature and im sure the US would do the same if the situation was reversed.
Once the russians and germans have had their chuckle im sure sanctions will go.
Once the russians and germans have had their chuckle im sure sanctions will go.
Hopefully they will quickly get their chuckle, for the sake of the Iraqi people.
Looks like it's time to move this one to Old News:
End of sanctions, end of Iraq's misery - Middle East Online
US, UK in charge as Iraq sanctions end - icWales
End of sanctions, end of Iraq's misery - Middle East Online
US, UK in charge as Iraq sanctions end - icWales
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.