From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 05 2002 - 15:05:02 MST
[Bodie 1] The sanctions imposed on Iraq allow for less than $100 per person
per year, and thats(sic) if the money is devided(sic) equally, as we know
it's not, with the lion(sic) share going to build Sadams(sic) castles, so
the actual figure is probably far less than half that.
[Richard Ridge 1] Of course, the problem with that argument is that it holds
the US responsible for the fact that Saddam is not distributing those funds
equally - and suggests that if sanctions were withdrawn then the presence of
a dictatorial regime would be of no consequence. Which is the entire
problem with this debate; namely, that it is essentially circular. One side
correctly observes that the sanctions have not proved themselves to be
effective and correctly notes that they have caused enormous misery for the
population of Iraq. The other side correctly replies that this argument
essentially absolves Saddam Hussein from any responsibility (and thereby
comfortably justifies dictatorship and oppression) since he has been using
said funds to renew his arsenal and could well have developed far greater
capabilities had the sanctions been lifted. Whether or not current revenue
is adequate for Iraq (probably not) this does not make the United States
responsible for the policy of the Iraqi regime on construction and military
expenditure.
[Hermit 1] Actually, the money is for external, not internal payments and is
never "distributed" as money, so it can't be "distributed unfairly" or even
spent "incorrectly". This idea betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the
"Oil for Food" program and the swallowing of the idea that Saddam has
"diverted funds" - which would imply that he is responsible for this
process. This is just plain wrong. Refer
[url]http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/[/url]. Citing resolution 986, "To finance
the export to Iraq, in accordance with the procedures of the Committee
established by resolution 661 (1990), of medicine, health supplies,
foodstuffs, and materials and supplies for essential civilian needs, as
referred to in paragraph 20 of resolution 687 (1991)..." and the
distribution is certified by the "United Nations Inter-Agency Humanitarian
Programme." Thus the distribution policy is determined by the UN Security
Council, not by Iraq.
[Hermit 1] What is desperately needed is the delivery of appropriate
chemicals and equipment to get the water purification and sewage processing
infrastructure working again (and as they are partially reliant on PEM
technology, getting at least enough of the power infrastructure working to
operate the pumps and processing equipment. The reasoning behind the denial
of access is pure "slippery slope" taking to extremes. While there is a
"possibility" that some of the needed supplies or equipment could be
diverted to "dual-use" the probability is close to non-existent. Chemical
weapons are not particularly effective at the best of times, and without a
means to deliver them in vast quantities, any damage they do would be
symbolic. Denying access to water purification and sewage treatment is
causing vast number of deaths - no "slippery slope" about it, and impossible
to transfer the responsibility to a third party - not even to such a
convenient "evil" scapegoat as Saddam.
[Richard Ridge 1] Given that (as far as I can tell) there seems little
prospect of the sanctions impinging sufficiently on the Iraqi regime to lead
to its downfall before years more misery lie in store for the population, it
would seem to me that there are only two options.
[Hermit 1] Perhaps you meant "3 options"? I'd suggest that there are more.
[Richard Ridge 1] 1). Lift the sanctions. The US has done deals with morally
repugnant regimes before; I have little doubt that they are perfectly
capable of doing so again.
[Hermit 1] According to the UN Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme the
sanctions imposed by the Security council has killed far more people (over 1
million to date) than anything done by Saddam Hussein and the moral
responsibility is ours, not theirs. It is my considered opinion that the
sanctions will never cause his overthrow, and that recent actions taken to
pursue other heads of state after they have left office will ensure that he
will never willingly relinquish power without some quite exceptional
guarantees of immunity. Then too, not only has the US dealt with - and is
dealing with "morally repugnant regimes", it might well be argued that our
actions in respect of Iraq and the Kurds have made us a "morally repugnant
regime". Moral issues should not enter into the affairs of nations as morals
are essentially locally defined and are not recognized in International law.
[Richard Ridge 1] Or 2) depose the Iraqi regime by a military invasion and
then create a structural repair programme to ensure that the population have
access to purified water.
[Hermit 1] Requiring some other nation or nations to put their soldiers at
risk and undoubtedly causing the deaths of more civilians. At the end of the
day there is no structure to form a legitimate government and any government
formed would need to have its integrity guaranteed by some other party - for
which no mechanism exists in current International law, making it almost
certain that the law of unexpected consequences would intervene (e.g. Iran
would almost certainly invade, and at this point the country would probably
switch to Sharia due to the loss in literacy - caused by our actions).
Certainly the history of interventions in the past quarter century has not
been a happy one.
[Richard Ridge 1] Option 3), carry on prevaricating for another decade by
virtue of being insufficiently decisive to choose either of the previous two
options (and thereby perpetuating this debate), seems somewhat less than
acceptable.
[Hermit 1] Agreed. There are perhaps other options available however, if the
International community were able to resolve its own problems*. Not the
least of which is working on how to restore a country which we have
deliberately destabilized and "sent back to the stone age", when we know
that progress, industrialization and a strong middle class go hand in hand;
and that stone-age cultures result in stone-age brutality. This almost
certainly means working with Saddam Hussein and in the long term, almost
certainly having to provide him and his near associates with guarantees of
immunity. Personally, I would advocate that this route be explored. Of
course, having demonized Saddam Hussein for over a decade, this might seem a
little less than likely. I find it difficult to conceive of either of the
two Bs having the imagination, or their citizens providing much in the way
of support. Strange in a way, since we have had the benefits of Niccolo
Machiavelli's thinking on Princes and Powers for over 500 years (but I doubt
that he is Blair's favorite author, and we know that Bush is not much of a
reader).
Regards
Hermit
[Hermit 1] I suspect that while an international body with appropriate
technological and financial capability, together with effective teeth, could
transform the world in under 40 years, I don't see the vision or the
political will to form such a body coming from existing politicians or their
UTic populations.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT