The Iraqi Elections

sabro said:
I can't follow the logic that something was illegal because it violates somebody's self imposed moral standard. Laws don't work that way.
...
The specific laws the UN violated would be...?
...
Is there a widespread opinion in the world community that the sanctions against Iraq were illegal? Enlighten me please.
Click to expand...

The sanctions are clearly against the Geneva conventions, among many others, as stated in the UNHCHR report I posted:
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/AllSymbols/C56876817262A5B2C125695E0050656E/$File/G0014092.pdf?OpenElement

Quoting the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva conventions:

Article 54: "Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited."

Article 70: "The Parties to the conflict and each High Contracting Party shall allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel provided in accordance with this Section, even if such assistance is destined for the civilian population of the adverse Party."

Article 70: "The Parties to the conflict ... Shall, in no way whatsoever, divert relief consignments from the purpose for which they are intended nor delay their forwarding, except in cases of urgent necessity in the interest of the civilian population concerned."

Article 70: "The Parties to the conflict shall protect relief consignments and facilitate their rapid distribution."

Quoting the UNHCHR report:

'The outcry against the sanctions on Iraq has come from all sides. From within the United Nations, the Secretary-General himself has been at the forefront of the criticism, levelling serious charges against the sanctions regime ...
The sanctions have led to the resignation of three United Nations officials, two this year alone. First, Denis Halliday, former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, resigned in September 1998, declaring: ?gWe are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral.?h '

Am I right or am I wrong in saying you did not know that the sanctions were contested as grossly illegal among wide circles within the UN, before this debate?

>The US does not own or control the UN. Neither does the UK.

Actually, both of them have vetoes in the security council. The other permanent members wanted to at least lighten up the sanctions, but could not do so because of the US and UK vetoes.
 
Was the United Nations at WAR with Iraq? The Geneva coventions apply to the UN and to UN sanctions? Is there any consensus that these articles apply in this situation? You have me a bit confused here. Did Hussein ask for consingnments of relief supplies? If he did was it denied?

I checked pages 15-19 of the report you cited. (Didn't read the entire thing.) Mr. Marc Bossuyt concludes that the sanctions are illegal, the Geneva Conventions apply, and that the result was a grave situation and an erosion of human rights. (pp 18-19) He does cite several countries and the Secretary General who are alarmed by the situation. On page 15 which list the sanctions- they exclude humanitarian and medical supplies. The oil for food program provided that $1.6 Billion in oil would be sold every 6 months. These measures were inadequate to prevent half a million to one and a half million Iraqi deaths. The report gives specific recommendations for limits on sanctions and other measures. He also concludes that US sanctions against Cuba are also illegal.

As far as I know the sanctions may or may have not been widely contested as grossly illegal. The articles you cited show that several countries and at least 3 UN officials were unhappy with the sanctions including the Secretary General. And that two may have considered them illegal. So Kofi and these guys asked for sanctions to be lifted? I missed this. How many times did the general assembly vote to lift the sanctions? How many times did either the US or UK thwart these efforts?

Are Mr. Marc Bossuyt's conclusions the determining factor of what is legal? Does this report carry any weight? The report does not say what remedy should be sought. (The US is spending $180 billion rebuilding) And what ramifications does this have in regard to Iraq today?
 
sabro said:
If the UN wanted to remove sanctions they could have at any time.......
The US does not own or control the UN. Neither does the UK. .
Click to expand...

When it comes to sanctions, this isn't accurate. The US, as a veto weilding member of the security council could prevent any efforts to end the sanctions at any time, even if every other country in the world was against them. Its something of a structural weakness of the UN that the 5 permanent security council members can effectively scuttle any resolution they don't happen to agree with.

sabro said:
Is there a widespread opinion in the world community that the sanctions against Iraq were illegal? Enlighten me please.
Click to expand...

I believe there is a pretty strong case to be made that the they were. The UN's own estimates put the number of civilians killed by the sanctions in the hundred's of thousands, most of them children who died of malnutrition or water borne diseases. This, I believe, would put the sanctions into violation of numerous laws for readily obvious reasons.
 
Read the UN report cited by Sr Pasta. Very detailed. Made me think.

Note that the sanctions were not unilateral US actions. Nor was the gulf war. Does Saddam bear no responsibilty for what has happened to his people?

Also noted that the core of the sanctions were Security Council actions and not from the General Assembly.
 
The only thing that bothers me about the "sanctions are illegal" mindset is that it takes away the only action short of war that the UN has to force an agressive or dangerous nation to comply with directives. Certainly if they are ineffective (as in this case) or if they only hurt civillians (as in this case) another option must be found.

It also seems to excuse the abuses of the Iraqi regime, and absolve Saddam of any responsibility.

Disclosed this morning on radio: millions of dollars siphoned from oil for food program by UN official in charge of program. Millions more went into Saddam's pockets. I didn't catch all the details.

Need information: were the sanctions alone responsible for the deaths of 1/2 a million to 1.5 million Iraqis? Is it possible that the humanitarian disaster was not caused just by the sanctions, but by the Iraqi government as well? Was the $1.6 billion every 6 months provided by the food for oil program insufficient to meet the needs of the Iraqi people? Was there problems with the production and delivery of oil? (as there seems to be now.) How many Iraqis were killed by the government during the same time period? What was the absolute best way to stop the dying?
 
Sr Pasta said:
Quoting the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva conventions:

Article 54: "Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited."
Click to expand...
The sanctions were not designed to starve civilians. Just the opposite: The food and medicine were intended to keep the poor in Iraq alive and healthy. It was Saddam Hussein who hijacked those provisions to buy influence and favor. The same thing happened with the Oil-for-Food program.

Sr Pasta said:
Article 70: "The Parties to the conflict and each High Contracting Party shall allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel provided in accordance with this Section, even if such assistance is destined for the civilian population of the adverse Party."
Click to expand...
I'm waiting for you to blame Hussein for his role....

Sr Pasta said:
Article 70: "The Parties to the conflict ... Shall, in no way whatsoever, divert relief consignments from the purpose for which they are intended nor delay their forwarding, except in cases of urgent necessity in the interest of the civilian population concerned."
Click to expand...
Still waiting...

Poor innocent li'l Saddam, never did nuthin' to hurt nobody....

The man was called "The Butcher of Baghdad" for good reason. Crying about the legality of sanctions or his toppling after the fact accomplishes what, exactly?
 
When von Sponeck resigned, he was confronted with the argument that the corruption of the Saddam regime was to blame, not sanctions. His response then was that while he monitored the oil for food program, at least 88 per cent of the shipments were distributed where they should. I couldn't find this statement in any english text, but I did find this in a letter he wrote later, countering the arguments of Britain's minister with responsibility for Iraq, Peter Hain:

Hain/von Sponeck said:
# "With this large amount of revenue available, one cannot help but ask why we still see pictures of malnourished and sick children?"
My first reaction to this tendentious statement is to ask whether your officials ever show you UN documents? Unicef has repeatedly pointed out that this reality is only going to change when the sanctions regime is once again replaced by a normally functioning economy. Let me add that more often than not, it is the blocking of contracts by the US/UK which has created immense problems in implementing the oil-for-food programme. The present volume of blocked items amounts to $2.3bn the highest ever.

# "It is an outrage that the Iraqi government wilfully denies food and medicine...".
Please forgive me if I say that it is an outrage that against your better knowledge you repeat again and again truly fabricated and self-serving disinformation. Why do you ignore UN stock reports which give you the monthly distribution situation and which, verified by UN observers, show for food, medicines and other humanitarian supplies an average of over 90% distributed per month?"
Click to expand...
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/turnpoint/010103.htm

In another interview:

"I think that the Government of Iraq could have done better in prioritizing. But whatever formula you identify, ultimately you are dealing with an overall aggregate amount of resources that is inadequate, that is not enough. So whatever decision you make, you are benefiting one, you are victimizing another, you can?ft get it right across the board."
http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles4/brg.html

Actually, for a corrupt regime like the iraqi one, they seem to get relatively positive comments on handling the crisis in the UN reports I've seen. For example, the ration system implemented right after the sanctions are often said to have been an important measure to counter the catastrophy. (It was efficient as a political weapon too though: the regime sometimes denied people their rations if they were suspected to be in opposition to the government.)

What does talking about the sanctions accomplish today? Well,

a) gaining an understanding of why the western troops aren't very welcome in Iraq
b) gaining an understanding of the hypocracy of western governments talking about "human rights" and "international law"
c) making the argument that the world, now as always, is better off the more we can force the powerful governments to stop trying to control other countries
 
sabro said:
Great. Lets all go home.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should go back to discussing the Iraqi elections (See: Thread title) and have Sr Pasta start another thread for discussing sanctions.
 
The interesting thing is that I learned a bunch (more than I care to) and I got roped into defending not only US policy, but UN policy too. Makes me wonder...
 
Interesting development: thousands of Iraqi's are signing up for the security forces and gaining some measure of credibility among their countrymen and our troops. The main reason cited: The Elections. Entire areas are now secure due to US trained Iraqi troops and police. (Incredibly brave men who risk death just for filling out the application.) A lot of these guys are the same ones who worked for Saddam, the same guys we fought against. (They seem to have a bit of a problem slapping people around but we're working on it.) Shiites and Suni's....

I wouldn't have thought that this would happen.
 
Yeah, who'da thunk it? And what were the chances this could've happened under Saddam?
 
Censport said:
Yeah, who'da thunk it? And what were the chances this could've happened under Saddam?
Click to expand...

Er...do you mean elections or people signing up for security forces? Free elections would never happen under Saddam of course but as far as building a secure country they are right now just trying to return things to some semblance of what they were under Saddam.
 
Seems like a good start. The situation still could go either way. The security forces are uneven...some seem great, some are a bit "iffy." Some are holding their own, some still could turn and run or worse- turn and fire. Check that Iraq soldier's site. The US MP's stood around and watched their trainees patrol. Had to stop them from slapping young men around twice, and had to tell them not to bunch up constantly.
 
Xkavar said:
My congratulations to the Iraqis for voting in the first time since... 50 years?

Wow.

Now that the results have all been counted, who won?
Click to expand...

The Iraqis won, no matter who comes out on top. Now, if we can just get the situation stabalized enough to send the "army of occupation" home.

What Iraq needs is the NYPD. What we sent them was 2nd Marine Division. Duhhhhh! Combat units do not keep the peace and catch felons, they kill people and break things. Of course, my guys will try to complete any mission that you give them, but they just are not the right tools for the box.

Deserta faciunt et pacem appelant
 
I noticed that during the coverage of the latest, bloodiest bombings in Iraq that the anger seems less focussed on the US, and more on the insurgents. It could be that the only English speaking Iraqis reporters can find are more sympathetic to the occupation, or that the press avoids interviewing pro-insurgent Iraqis. I don't know, this is only my impression, but didn't it seem like before the elections, the US got blamed every time a police station was blown up by insurgents?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 3276 times.

Back
Top