During the interim period between the Persian Gulf War and the recent war against Iraq, a number of people, including certain posters on this board, blamed the US for UN sanctions on Iraq that they said killed thousands of innocent children. I personally always found it interesting that when given the choice between blaming the US and blaming Saddam Hussien that they chose the former. Unfortunately for them, the truth is now coming out: http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6600315%5E25717,00.html Dr Amer Abdul a-Jalil, the deputy resident at Baghdad's Ibn al-Baladi Hospital, has told the London Telegraph that "sanctions did not kill these children -- Saddam killed them". "Over the past 10 years, the government in Iraq poured money into the military and the construction of palaces for Saddam to the detriment of the health sector," he said. "Those babies or small children who died because they could not access the right drugs, died because Saddam's government failed to distribute the drugs." As the hospital's chief resident, Dr Hussein Shihab, confirmed to Newsday: "We had the ability to get all the drugs we needed. Instead of that, Saddam Hussein spent all the money on his military force and put all the fault on the USA. I am one of the doctors who was forced to tell something wrong -- that these children died from the fault of the UN." Dr Azhar Abdul Khadem, a resident at Baghdad's Al-Alwiya maternity hospital agreed: "Saddam Hussein, he's the murderer, not the UN." In fact, Dr Oasem al-Taye, who now runs the Baghdad Children's Hospital, said last week that after Saddam's fall he'd found plenty of medical supplies and equipment at a hospital once reserved for leaders of Saddam's regime. "They were willing to sacrifice the children for the sake of propaganda," he said bitterly. Disgusting.
Totally usuless post IMO. I never questioned Saddam was the one who could have made the difference but didn't. But none of this answers the question if the situation would have been different if there weren't any sanctions. What I mean is: Would there have been more medical care available (to Saddam for all I care) if these sanctions wouldn't have been in place? If so, this tells nothing we didn't all know before.
What AFCA said. Did Saddam have total disregard for the Iraqi people in his attempt to hold power? Yes. Did the UN Security Council have near-total disregard for the Iraqi people in their attempt to punish Saddam through economic sanctions? Yes. Just because Saddam was evil doesn't make economic sanctions against Iraq helpful. Economic sanctions against developing countries are a stupid idea in almost all circumstances because they don't hurt the power structure but potentially harm the general population AND they give the power structure propaganda against the US / UN / whoever.
Fair enough. However, I'm a bit curious how many posters who opposed sanctions on Iraq also opposed sanctions on South Africa or are opposed to sanctions against Burma/Myanmar.
Sanctions against South Africa were different in that SA (at least the white part of it) was not a developing country. Burma should not have full-scale economic sanctions against it in the way that Iraq did, but governments and citizens should try to dissuade companies from doing business directly with SLORC -- the state-run factories have been proven to use slave labor.
I read an argument way back then as to why the SA sanctions were effective. Your typical white South African perceived himself as in the "club" with middle class people in Osaka, Brussels, and Phoenix. Sanctions were a way to put apartheid front and center in that typical burgher's mind. They were a constant reminder that, no, the rest of the world thought the SA regime to be criminal. I don't know enough about '80's SA to judge that thesis independently. But I will say it makes alot of sense.