The United Nations sanction program against Iraq was designed to
impact the economy, thereby limiting the actions of the countries leader and
creating an atmosphere to direct change (Gordon 18). While there is
considerable research that suggests that the economic impacts of these
sanctions have hurt the general population more than the leadership, there
are a number of solid arguments in support for continued U.N.-directed
sanctions and military support for these sanctions by the United States.
The arguments against sanctions in Iraq are not based in the military issues
or the problems of peacekeeping, but instead in claims that the continued
actions in Iraq violate humanitarian principles (Gordon 18). In the Spring
of 1999, the continued U.S. bombings in Iraq drew attention away from
existing debates about the nature of U.N directed sanctions and their impact
on the Iraqi populous as a whole (Gordon 18). The imposing of economic
sanctions against Iraq under the directives of Articles 41 and 42 of the U.
N. Charter was based in the commitment to peacekeeping efforts and were
based in the belief that by crippling the economy of Iraq, it would be
possible to bring Saddam Hussein into complicity with U. N. directives
(Gordon 18).
The criticisms of the sanctions stem not from the belief that the United
Nations should not have intervened or even from claims against the
directives of the U.S. military, but instead as an extension of the United
Nations commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other
documents created to determine the basic rights of all people to health,
food, water, shelter and safety (Gordon 18). Opponents have argued that the
humanitarian directives of the United Nations should determine the
opposition to the sanctions that have left many women, children, poor,
elderly and sick without basic needs and has resulted in considerably human
suffering (Gordon 18). The following is one perspective on this view:
Although there is controversy over the precise extent of human damage, all
sources agree that it is severe. Voices in the Wilderness, an antisanctions
activist group based in Chicago, has used the figure of 1 million children
dead from the sanctions; the Iraqi government claims 4,000-5,000 deaths per
month of children under 5. Even US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
does not contest how great the human damage has been, but has said, “It’s
worth the price.” Richard Garfield, an epidemiologist at Columbia University
who analyzes the health consequences of economic embargoes, calculates that
225,000 Iraqi children under 5 have died since 1990 because of these
policies-a figure based on the best data available from UN agencies and
other international sources (Gordon 19).
Further, studies by the Food and Agricultural Organization in 1997 suggest
that chronic malnutrition in the population of Iraqi citizens is high, with
some 27 percent of the population experiencing illness related to a lack of
food (Gordon 19).
In addition, opposition to the sanctions has also stemmed from the fact that
the United Nations has only imposed sanctions twice between 1945 and 1990,
but since the Gulf War, has extended sanctions some 11 times (Gordon 19).
Further, the United States has also become a key player in attempts at
unilateral actions that have taken place in response to opposition to
economic sanctions (Gordon 19). “In 1990, sanctions appeared to be a nearly
ideal device for international governance. They seemed to entail
inconvenience and some political disruption but not casualties…Because
sanctions seemed to incur less human damage than bombing campaigns, peace
and human rights movements found them attractive as well. Indeed, many of
those opposing the Gulf War in 1990 urged the use of sanctions instead”
(Gordon 19). The call for the lifting of economic sanctions has been a
significant factor has been defined by ethical and social issues, rather
than by the necessity for military presence and actions against Saddam
Hussein (Lopez 10).
“For” Sanctions
The supporters of continued military presence and the application of
sanctions against Saddam Hussein have argued that Iraq continues to be a
hostile country that currently controls a significant body of oil wealth and
natural resources that define it as a formidable enemy (Ya’ari 68).
Countries like Israel currently recognize the potential menace of Saddam
Hussein and as a result, concerns have been raised about the overall
security of the Middle East relative to the actions of Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately for many of the opponents of sanctions, the memories of the
Gulf War of 1991 have faded and the perceived threat posed by Saddam Hussein
has also diminished with time (Ya’ari 68). The support for military
interventions as well as economic sanctions stem from a preventative thread
based in the desire reduce the leaders capacity to do harm, either in the
form of the use of nuclear weapons or through actions that would result in
diminishing availability and free trade of oil products between the
countries of the Middle East and the countries of the European community and
the United States (Ya’ari 68). It has been recognized that even after
continual destruction of much of the Iraqi military and even after the
implementation of an over eight-year embargo, Iraq is still able to invade
countries like Jordan, in relatively short spans of time (Ya’ari 68).
At the same time, economic interventions have only led to a dichotomous view
of the society of Iraq; the poor appear to be getting poorer, while there
has been little true knowledge of the changing roles within a culture or the
long-term implications. “Iraq despite its present predicament is considered
potentially the single most powerful Arab state, the only one that combines
enormous oil wealth, freshwater and land sufficient for cultivation with
skillful manpower, an almost uninterrupted track record of military
endeavors, and a fierce ambition to achieve regional hegemony (Ya’ari 69).
The level of control currently being exerted by Saddam Hussein may be a
costly factor to address, but also may resolve itself under the heavy wait
of his own knowledge.
The scenarios do not boad well for the removal of United Nations sanctions
in the foreseeable future, based on the supposition that Saddam has
reemerged as a regional player with considerable military support, and the
lifting of United Nations sanction, which is based on an element of control,
would have negative implications. Further, the resuming of United States
military actions in the region have also defined a presence that supports
continued sanctions. Though the economic issues and the humanitarian
opposition to the application of sanctions is a recognizable view point, it
should also be noted that the control of Saddam Hussein should not be
underestimated and the challenges against the United States less than 10
years ago initiated the American involvement in the Gulf War. Supporters of
sanctions hope that the application of sanctions will reduce the chance of
another military interaction.
Economic sanctions without military support appear to be purely punitive in
nature, and if this were the case, it would be more than possible to argue
the ethical issues regarding the nature of current U.N. sanctions and their
implications for the citizenry. At the same time, it is impossible to assess
the level of suffering that has occurred or the current situations in this
region without considerable military presence, and the necessity for
American action, either in intervention or in direct support, has been
viewed as a component of the necessary process in this region.
Conclusions
Like the issues in other countries through out the world, the reemergence of
challenges by Salaam Hussein in recent months has determined a call for a
reassessment of the legal directives defined by the UN Security Council’s
resolutions. The UN Security Council initiated some 12 resolutions adopted
prior to the onset of the Gulf War and a number of subsequent resolutions
that occurred after US and UN involvement following the invasion of Kuwait
(The Markland Group, 1990). At the same time, economic issues have also been
played out in the current literature,
The sanctions that were imposed on Iraq have resulted in what some political
analysts believe has been a relative level of control over the actions of
Saddam Hussein, and this cannot be ignored. Though the United Nations has a
directive for preserving human rights, this would not be possible if the
United Nations did not also have a military presence to support their
decisions, and this shapes the view of the American military as the
foundation for the application of U.N. sanctions.
There are viable explanations for both sides of this argument, and it can be
argued effectively that the outcomes of economic sanctions have little
impact on Saddam Hussein himself, and as a result, only impact the people of
the Iraqi community. At the same time, the world appears to wait and listen
to the reactions to continued United Nations sanctions which were going to
be relatively short-lived. Until another more effective option can be
defined in the containment efforts of Saddam Hussein, it is plausible that
this area of economic development will continue to separate those who have
from those whom do not.