The sanctions are the result of the government of Iraq's refusal to follow his post war agreements. Like it or not, his dictatorship is the legitimate government of Iraq.
The sanctions are the result of American-led
policy - whether they're the proximate result
of the uncooperative behaviour on the part of
the Iraqi government is a question that lends
itself to asking, "who defines 'cooperative'?"
Obviously the imperialistic organ in the crowd
does; if the US said Iraq is not following
some agreements, that's the law. That in itself
is hardly unusual, except that Saddam was
deeply in the US's embrace just a few years before?...
Nobody forced Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. Without any war, you have no post war agreements to break.
I agree, although the circumstances that led to
the invasion of Kuwait and Iraq's internal
justification for doing so are both things that
should not be overlooked.
However, saying that these post-war agreements,
and ostensibly sanctions, are the natural and
self-evident product of war with Kuwait is a bit
off IMO. It is a course implemented by the US
with a specific purpose in mind.
Nobody forced Saddam Hussein to continue development of weapons of mass destruction
I'm sure that the situation isn't so simple.
Iraq's pursuit of a weapons programme may be explained by its strategic isolation,
but its strategic isolation may be explained
by other points in its history in which the US
had a role in making it that way. It's circular
logic- a self fulfilling prophecy. A more convenient example is how
the US discourages any convergence between the
interests of Russia and the European Union by
playing the old, "aw, come on, it's Russia, all
they do is deal with central Asians, bandits,
Chechens, etc, they're all corrupt mafia bosses,
why would you want to invest there?!" game.
This may not be true in a time when there is
progress in Russia (not saying there is right now), but ultimately if Russia is ostracised
this way, that will become the truth because it will be isolated and left to interact
politically only with those in its traditional
vicinity. From examination of the Iraq-Iran war, I am firmly convinced that such
circular logic is also at work in getting Iraq
toward its present situation, and while Saddam
may have a primary role in it, he's not the only
but Russia balked because Iraq is a lucrative buyer of Russian weapons and wants the sanctions dropped entirely. You would prefer a world where Saddam is free to pursue weapons of mass destruction and whose military is rebuilt with Russian hardware? I sure don't.
Good argument, except that to state it you've
internalised all the parameters of the official
western propaganda about it. For one, there is
no indication that if Iraq had any ostensible
way out (other than permitting the violation of
its sovereignty by UN weapons inspectors, which
is a loss of face as much as anything), it wouldn't necessarily take it. Unfortunately, it's
left isolated even in the Arab world and the
government sees no plausable pursuit save the
accumulation of arms. It's true that this is
mostly Saddam's fault, and that this policy
existed in the Ba'ath government long before
1990, but I still think it's partially a product
of Iraq's unique environment.
As for arms sales, the reason that the US is so
conscious of this arms trade relationship between
Iraq and Russia is because the US would rather
have everyone's business in its own military-industrial complex. Everyone knows that,
unless you believe the official tripe of course.
According to statistics that came out toward the
end of the last decade (1990-2000), the US generated more than half of all global arms
exports, and exported them to hundreds of
countries indiscriminate of whether they're
"democracies", "human rights violators", etc. If
Iraq were only a little more accomodating toward
American interests in the region, the US wouldn't
be so "concerned" with the domestic tyrrany of its
regime. Such goals are colourfully illustrated
in the history of American foreign policy - the
sanctioning of the Turkish genocidal campaign
against Kurds (and the arming of Turkey, a vital
NATO partner - with some of the arms used in this
campaign) and the invasion of Cyprus, the
American approval of Suharto's 1975 invasion of
East Timor (in which ~200 000 East Timoreans
perished), the propping up of South Korean dictator Syngman Rhee (responsible for quite a
few massacres of tens of thousands), and ad nauseum.
"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]