Should UN sanctions now be lifted against Iraq?

Sparks

You forgot the fact that Iraq is a much richer and more educated country than Afghanistan. Iraq has a large middle class, unlike Afghanistan. Iraq has several hundred thousand well-educated emigrants in the EU and US, again unlike Afghanistan.

Iraq was a much richer country than Iraq. It isn't at present.
It is more educated, that's true. It no longer has a large middle class. And those emigrants are unlikely to wish to leave the EU or US to return to Iraq at present.

Lifting sanctions means that Iraqis will have more control (and the US will have less control) over their own economy. They'll be able to sell to who they want, without US warships patrolling the Gulf to stop them.

This pretty much ignores the fact that the one resource the Iraqis currently have to sell is firmly in the hands of US troops.

For years, people like you were accusing the US of mass murder due to the suffering caused by the Iraq sanctions. Now that the US wants the sanctions lifted, you change your mind and want them to stay? To me, this looks like a case of "anything the US does is wrong".

If by "people like you" you mean members of the human race, well, that's true. If you mean me specifically, you're flat-out wrong. I haven't been calling for sanctions to be lifted for years.

In summary, sanctions were put in place in an attempt to limit Hussein. They were reasonably effective, but were having too great an adverse effect on the Iraqi population so the Oil-for-food program was created. However, the UN made the mistake of leaving the Iraqi government handle the last stage in food distribution, which led to large-scale corruption in southern Iraq and significant problems for Iraqi people. This corruption was the sole responsibility of the Ba'ath party. Logically, at that time, lifting sanctions would have been a reasonable idea - but a better one would have been restructuring the distribution mechanism.
RIGHT NOW, however, the Ba'ath party is smashed. The situation is therefore closer to that of Northern Iraq, where the OfF program was not so heavily corrupted - and where general healthcare was not badly affected.
Therefore, lifting sanctions would not be of any great help to the immediate and necessary problem of humanitarian aid. I quote from the UN resolution that imposed the sanctions, 661 :

3. Decides that all States shall prevent:
(c) The sale or supply by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels of any commodities or products, including weapons or any other military equipment, whether or not originating in their territories but not including supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs, to any person or body in Iraq or Kuwait or to any person or body for the purposes of any business carried on in or operated from Iraq or Kuwait, and any activities by their nationals or in their territories which promote or are calculated to promote such sale or supply of such commodities or products;

In other words, humanitarian aid can be shipped in by the truckload without sanctions being lifted;

4. Decides that all States shall not make available to the Government of Iraq or to any commercial, industrial or public utility undertaking in Iraq or Kuwait, any funds or any other financial or economic resources and shall prevent their nationals and any persons within their territories from removing from their territories or otherwise making available to that Government or to any such undertaking any such funds or resources and from remitting any other funds to persons or bodies within Iraq or Kuwait, except payments exclusively for strictly medical or humanitarian purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs;

In other words, funding humanitarian aid isn't affeced by sanctions.

So why does the humanitarian program now needed in Iraq need sanctions to be lifted?

Yeah, don't trust CNN or the BBC, trust this crackpot website that you've never heard of before! I wouldn't place any more trust in informationclearinghouse than I would in Fox News.

The photo is not a fake, unlike some we've seen in mainstream news over the last few days. And the report on Jessica Lynch is from a mainstream source. And while I trust the BBC more than most, I wouldn't waste my time watching Fox or CNN anymore. Investigative reporting and critical analysis seem to have died a death in the US media right now

Meh

Iraq was a much richer country than Iraq. It isn't at present.

I presume you mean Afghanistan instead of the second Iraq there.
Per-capita GDP of Afghanistan: $800 (2000 est, source)
Per-capita GDP of Iraq: $2500 (2001, source)
So even making the completely unrealistic assumptions that the Iraqi war halved the GDP of Iraq, and that the Afghanistan war didn't affect Afghan GDP at all, Iraq is still significantly richer than Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Sparks
So why does the humanitarian program now needed in Iraq need sanctions to be lifted?

Burden of proof. If you want sanctions to remain in place when the original reason they were imposed has disappeared, it's up to you to justify it.

The photo is not a fake, unlike some we've seen in mainstream news over the last few days.

There's nothing in that article or about that photograph that says what time it was taken at. It's not even possible to see if the status is still upright. Most likely it was shot a few hours after the toppling, unless you want to invent some vast shadowy conspiracy involving hundreds of journalists from different countries all of whom are lying to us...

Investigative reporting and critical analysis seem to have died a death in the US media right now

Especially on TV, yes. But the fact the the mainstream US media lacks credibility doesn't mean that we should automatically believe anyone who disgrees with them.

Sparks

Meh,
Those statistics are far too far out of date to be useful, given the wars that have taken place. Remember, the GDP figures for Iraq will be distorted by sanctions as well.

If you want sanctions to remain in place when the original reason they were imposed has disappeared, it's up to you to justify it.

Since they have no effect on current operations, I don't see the need to remove them. When that need is present, then lift them. Pretty simple really. That's my case. Now please present yours - why should sanctions be lifted before an offical Iraq government is in place? Remember, the UN has to inform the offical Iraqi government that sanctions are lifted ....

There's nothing in that article or about that photograph that says what time it was taken at. It's not even possible to see if the status is still upright. Most likely it was shot a few hours after the toppling, unless you want to invent some vast shadowy conspiracy involving hundreds of journalists from different countries all of whom are lying to us...

Hundreds? Nope. Less than five? For a "great story"? At a time when the US desperately needed good PR? Little bit more believable, isn't it?

But the fact the the mainstream US media lacks credibility doesn't mean that we should automatically believe anyone who disgrees with them.

Not what I was saying at all. As you well know. :rolleyes:

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Those statistics are far too far out of date to be useful, given the wars that have taken place.

I made (very generous) allowances for the wars when I quoted those statistics and guess what? Iraq is still richer than Afghanistan no matter how you look at it.

Since they have no effect on current operations, I don't see the need to remove them. When that need is present, then lift them. Pretty simple really. That's my case.

You still haven't presented any reason whatsoever as to why we still need sanctions on Iraq. "There's no need to remove them" is not a justification.

Now please present yours - why should sanctions be lifted before an offical Iraq government is in place?

Because the original reason for the sanctions no longer exists.

Éomer of Rohan

I made (very generous) allowances for the wars when I quoted those statistics and guess what? Iraq is still richer than Afghanistan no matter how you look at it.

It doesn't matter how rich these countries supposedly are or aren't - the fact is that both were invaded by the richest country in the world who should have had no problem undoing the damage they did in the first but didn't bother, the second we have yet to see but given the withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia, I daresay it will be put back together as a military base.

1You still haven't presented any reason whatsoever as to why we still need sanctions on Iraq. "There's no need to remove them" is not a justification.

The US imposed sanctions in agreement with the UN - the US now controls the country that sanctions were imposed on - of course the US wants the sanctions to be lifted in order to restart free trade which, within such a weakened nation could be catastrophic for the population but since the US is interested in having a strong and certainly a capitalist-beholden friendly government in Iraq, they aren't interested. There is no reason for sanctions to be lifted (especially given the massive humanitarian program presently under way, which with, since Saddam has been toppled, there will be no interference say the US gov't) hence until the Iraqi government is fully in control of economic affairs and the US presence has been withdrawn then the sanctions should remain in place.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
Burden of proof. If you want sanctions to remain in place when the original reason they were imposed has disappeared, it's up to you to justify it.

I'm pretty sure it's up to the US to prove why an occupying army should take control of the oil revenues of another country, revenues which have been paying for the humanitarian aid that the country now needs more than ever. There is no guarantee that the US wouldn't divert some of the funds to pay for more 'reconstruction services' from its own companies that it can't be bothered paying for itself.

If and when there is an Iraqi authority that has been recognised by the UN and which has produced detailed proposals for how it intends to use oil revenues that adequately reflect the real needs of the Iraqi people and when it is clear that this regime has the capacity to distribute aid on this scale, the UN should begin considering lifting the sanctions and ending the Oil for Food programme. Until then, it would be extremely irresponsible to end the programme.

The important thing is the continuation of the Oil for Food programme for now. If that means keeping sanctions in place, and bearing in mind that the only thing Iraq has to sell that anyone wants to buy is oil, then so be it.

Originally posted by Sparks In summary, sanctions were put in place in an attempt to limit Hussein. They were reasonably effective, but were having too great an adverse effect on the Iraqi population so the Oil-for-food program was created. However, the UN made the mistake of leaving the Iraqi government handle the last stage in food distribution, which led to large-scale corruption in southern Iraq and significant problems for Iraqi people.

Well, the Iraqi regime was keeping 16 million people alive with its food distribution system, and since Iraq received no cash through the Oil for Food programme I'm not sure it allowed for that much corruption. There was a sizable oil smuggling operation which would have brought in lots of funds for corruption, massive palaces and the like, though.

I thought the biggest problem with the sanctions (after the Oil for Food programme was introduced) was that the monitoring committee kept blocking all sorts of useful medical supplies on the grounds that they were 'dual use'.

Sparks

Iraq is still richer than Afghanistan no matter how you look at it.

Except in terms of actual cash in the pockets of the majority of ordinary iraqis...

You still haven't presented any reason whatsoever as to why we still need sanctions on Iraq.

Need? I never said we needed them at present. (I highlight at present because they were needed in the past and I don't want to confuse you).
However what I'm saying is:
1) It would take effort, time and resources to repeal 661.
2) Repealing 661 would end the OFF program, thus materially harming humanitarian programs at a time when the UN and UNICEF are highlighting that there is an imminent humanitarian crisis in Iraq.
3) Humanitarian aid can only be put in second place right now by those with highly questionable priorities. Since removing sanctions would not help humanitarian aid programs and would hinder them, leave them in place until such problems can be handled is self-evidently the best solution.
4) There is no offically recognised Iraqi government. Until there is one, the UN cannot morally make any decisions regarding the foreign trade of a nation. You can argue that they're irrelevant if you wish - the fact is that they morally cannot take this course of action. Besides, if the UN is irrelevant, why worry about the sanctions?

Sparks

Well, the Iraqi regime was keeping 16 million people alive with its food distribution system, and since Iraq received no cash through the Oil for Food programme I'm not sure it allowed for that much corruption. There was a sizable oil smuggling operation which would have brought in lots of funds for corruption, massive palaces and the like, though.

The smuggling program was corruption, plain and simple - but the OFF program was manipulated by ensuring Ba'ath sympathisers were well-fed while others were not. (That comes from people with family in Iraq at the time).

I thought the biggest problem with the sanctions (after the Oil for Food programme was introduced) was that the monitoring committee kept blocking all sorts of useful medical supplies on the grounds that they were 'dual use'.

Yes. Oddly enough, the US and UK had representatives on that committee and we never heard a peep when they were blocking medical equipment as dual-use...

Meh

I am honestly amazed that all the people who complained about the sanctions while Saddam was in power are now calling for them to be kept in place. A classic example of doublethink.

Originally posted by shotamoose:
I'm pretty sure it's up to the US to prove why an occupying army should take control of the oil revenues of another country, revenues which have been paying for the humanitarian aid that the country now needs more than ever.

I'm pretty sure it's up to you to prove that that's what would happen. If sanctions were ended, the US would have much less control over Iraqi oil exports, since the Iraqis would be able to sell them to whoever they wanted.

Originally posted by Sparks:
Except in terms of actual cash in the pockets of the majority of ordinary iraqis...

Do you even know what the term "GDP purchasing power parity" means?

1) It would take effort, time and resources to repeal 661.

It would require twelve men in a room in New York to say "Yes/Oui/Da". Nothing more.

2) Repealing 661 would end the OFF program, thus materially harming humanitarian programs at a time when the UN and UNICEF are highlighting that there is an imminent humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

Circular logic. There wouldn't be any need for the OFP if sanctions were lifted. The OFP is only needed because of the sanctions.

4) There is no offically recognised Iraqi government. Until there is one, the UN cannot morally make any decisions regarding the foreign trade of a nation.

Please quote the part of the UN charter where it says this.

Éomer of Rohan

I am honestly amazed that all the people who complained about the sanctions while Saddam was in power are now calling for them to be kept in place. A classic example of doublethink.

Will you please stop saying this on almost every reply you make to this thread?
Also, please see my earlier post for some clarification of what you call double think.

Do you even know what the term "GDP purchasing power parity" means?

Yes yes, we know that civilians in Iraq are richer per head than civilians in Afghanistan - enough already!

4) There is no offically recognised Iraqi government. Until there is one, the UN cannot morally make any decisions regarding the foreign trade of a nation.

---

Please quote the part of the UN charter where it says this.

There is no area in the charter of the UN which even attempts to cover this situation but surely you can all see that the UN making any such far reaching decision would acknowledge the invasion, if you like, giving a tacit nod to the illegal use of force (and whether you agree with it in this instance or not, it does establish a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, it would be wrong of the UN to make any such gesture until the Iraqi democracy is up and running and fully autonomous.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
I'm pretty sure it's up to you to prove that that's what would happen.

Since the only authority in Iraq at the moment is an occupying army, it would be naive in the extreme to believe that anything else would happen. As I have already said, once an Iraqi regime that can satisfy the necessary conditions is in place, the UN should hand over control of the OFF programme to that regime. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to change the present arrangements before that time.

Sparks

am honestly amazed that all the people who complained about the sanctions while Saddam was in power are now calling for them to be kept in place. A classic example of doublethink.

What about those of us that complained about specific problems with the OFF program that were being caused by Saddam? Are we now guilty of doublethink because we don't support lifting sanctions until the time is right?

If sanctions were ended, the US would have much less control over Iraqi oil exports, since the Iraqis would be able to sell them to whoever they want.

Which Iraqis would be able to sell oil? Who will decide which Iraqis have the right to sell that oil, which even dubya has been saying is the property of all the iraqi people?

Yes yes, we know that civilians in Iraq are richer per head than civilians in Afghanistan - enough already!

Actually we don't. Remember, thanks to the corruption of the OFF program, many ordinary iraqis have had 12 years of having their resources depelted buying food and medicial supplies that they should have been provided with from the OFF program. If there is a difference between the resources of the average Iraqi and the average Afghan, it's going to be small.

Do you even know what the term "GDP purchasing power parity" means?

Yes, I took (and passed with honours) formal economics course. That's why I said what I said. GDP figures are mangled by sanctions.

It would require twelve men in a room in New York to say "Yes/Oui/Da". Nothing more.

Nope. 15 people in the UNSC. 9 must agree to pass a resolution, including the 5 permanent members.
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

Circular logic. There wouldn't be any need for the OFP if sanctions were lifted. The OFP is only needed because of the sanctions.

Not circular logic. The OFP is required because scrapping it now would lead to a period while foreign trade re-establishes itself and some altruist donates the funds to humanitarian aid, where there was no funding for humanitarian aid in a country that desperately needs it. That in itself is sufficent reason to delay lifting sanctions.

Please quote the part of the UN charter where it says this.

Article 2, section 7 : " Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. "
In other words, the UN can't decide which group of Iraqi citizens gets to be treated as the Iraqi government. Dropping sanctions would be a de facto decision as to who the Iraqi government are over the heads of the Iraqi people.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Yes, I took (and passed with honours) formal economics course.

Not circular logic. The OFP is required because scrapping it now would lead to a period while foreign trade re-establishes itself and some altruist donates the funds to humanitarian aid, where there was no funding for humanitarian aid in a country that desperately needs it. That in itself is sufficent reason to delay lifting sanctions.

The OFP is foreign trade. It's an exception to the sanctions under which the Iraqis can sell a certain amount of oil on the world market under the supervision of the UN. If sanctions were lifted, the Iraqis would be able to sell as much oil as they wanted and the UN wouldn't take a cut as "administration expenses". Also, the problems mentioned above about the sanctions committee banning medical equipment would go away.

Article 2, section 7 : " Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. "
In other words, the UN can't decide which group of Iraqi citizens gets to be treated as the Iraqi government. Dropping sanctions would be a de facto decision as to who the Iraqi government are over the heads of the Iraqi people.

Please explain your reasoning behind this statement. Why does the UN have to recognize one particular group as the government of Iraq in order to drop sanctions? Why can't it simply repeal its earlier resolution imposing the sanctions?

Sparks

The OFP is foreign trade.

The OFF program is UN-supervised and UN-monitored foreign trade, conducted in an artifical manner. The one and ONLY part of the entire process of the trade that the Iraqi government had control of was the final distribution of foodstuffs and medical supplies. The rest was handled by the UN.
Last I checked, that wasn't the same as foreign trade.

Also, the problems mentioned above about the sanctions committee banning medical equipment would go away.

Or the US and UK could stop raising objections in committee over such medical equipment. Simpler solution that, isn't it?

Please explain your reasoning behind this statement.

How come only those disagreeing with you are being asked to explain their reasoning and complying?

Why does the UN have to recognize one particular group as the government of Iraq in order to drop sanctions? Why can't it simply repeal its earlier resolution imposing the sanctions?

Because Iraq doesn't have a government and therefore has no representation in the UN, the UN cannot amend treaties or resolutions having to do with Iraq. Doing otherwise would be a de facto nomination by the UN of the group requesting that sanctions be dropped as the Iraqi government.


Now, your turn. Answer the questions that have been asked. WHY DO THE SANCTIONS HAVE TO BE DROPPED BEFORE THE NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT IS CREATED?

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
How come only those disagreeing with you are being asked to explain their reasoning and complying?

Because the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the sanctions even though Saddam is gone. As I have explained.

Because Iraq doesn't have a government and therefore has no representation in the UN, the UN cannot amend treaties or resolutions having to do with Iraq.

I have no idea where you got this idea, but it's utterly and completely wrong. The UN Security Council can amend and rescind any resolution it wants, regardless of whether the countries they involve is currently represented at the UN.

Doing otherwise would be a de facto nomination by the UN of the group requesting that sanctions be dropped as the Iraqi government.

Wrong. All the Security Council has to do is to recognize that the situation that justified the sanctions no longer exists. They don't need to be formally petitioned by the Iraqi government or anyone claiming to be the Iraqi government.

Now, your turn. Answer the questions that have been asked. WHY DO THE SANCTIONS HAVE TO BE DROPPED BEFORE THE NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT IS CREATED?

They don't -- it would be possible to set up a new government with the sanctions still in place. But it will be several months before a new Iraqi government is functioning, and I would like to see the Iraqi economy up and running sooner rather than later.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
I am honestly amazed that all the people who complained about the sanctions while Saddam was in power are now calling for them to be kept in place. A classic example of doublethink.

Well, when you choose to select a single individual fact in isolation from all others, its easy to construe pretty-much whatever "classic example" you like.

Have you any concept of the infrastructure which is needed in order to police and control international trade within a nation? Where do you propose this come from?

Lifting the sanctions would have a number of effects :

1) It would allow the US to sell oil to itself at really cheap prices in the name of supplying funds to Iraq for its rebuilding efforts. Depending on what you believe in, this is a good thing, or a bad thing hiding behind the cover of what appears to be a good thing.

2) It will also allow a massive amount of uncontrolled international trade to and from Iraq. Such trade will most likely be shunned by the international community at large (possibly by the WTO as well, if its not entirely in the US' pockets) and will be highly questionable in nature.

3) If you subscribe to the belief that there may still be WMDs in Iraq, then legitimising international trade without being able to put the proper controls in place almost guarnatees that the invasion and subsequent actions will have precipitated exactly the nightmare "propagation scenario" that they set out to prevent.

Now consider that Iraq is not even stable enough to be able to bring in all the humanitarian aid that just yet....explain to me why opening up the borders for uncontrolled trade is a good thing, or why diverting troops from making life safe for humanitarian intervenation in order to police and control the newly legalised trade is a good idea.

Because lets face it....one of the two is inevitable if you lift the sanctions at this point in time.

jc

Sparks

Because the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the sanctions even though Saddam is gone. As I have explained.

You didn't explain it to my satisfaction. However, just for the sake of this argument, assume both sides are required to justify their position. I've justified mine - let's hear your argument.

I have no idea where you got this idea, but it's utterly and completely wrong. The UN Security Council can amend and rescind any resolution it wants, regardless of whether the countries they involve is currently represented at the UN.

Incorrect. In order to rescind 661, Iraq would have to signal it's intention to address 661's complaints. Only the Iraq government can legally do that.

Wrong. All the Security Council has to do is to recognize that the situation that justified the sanctions no longer exists. They don't need to be formally petitioned by the Iraqi government or anyone claiming to be the Iraqi government.

The "situation" involved the future intentions of the Iraqi government - therefore a statement from them is required.

They don't -- it would be possible to set up a new government with the sanctions still in place. But it will be several months before a new Iraqi government is functioning, and I would like to see the Iraqi economy up and running sooner rather than later.

Well, I think you won't find many people that would want the Iraqi economy to remain in it's current nearly non-existant state. Thing is, lots of us would place a higher priority on avoiding famine, cholera, typhoid, dysentry, treating wounded from the war who are in dire need of medical supplies and reestablishing electrical power and a few other basic necessities first. That's at least a few months of work - once that's been stabilised, yes, there will be enough breathing room to replace the OFF program and then we can debate raising sanctions - but to do so before then puts money ahead of people's lives. I'm not willing to support that.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Incorrect. In order to rescind 661, Iraq would have to signal it's intention to address 661's complaints.

Once again, the UNSC can amend or rescind whatever resolutions it wants. There is no action from any Iraqi government required for this to be possible. The SC is allowed to change its mind, and it does not need the Iraqi government's "permission" to do so.

The "situation" involved the future intentions of the Iraqi government - therefore a statement from them is required.

That Iraqi government no longer exists. And it's pretty clear that, whoever is the next government of Iraq, they won't be building any WMDs.

Well, I think you won't find many people that would want the Iraqi economy to remain in it's current nearly non-existant state. Thing is, lots of us would place a higher priority on avoiding famine, cholera, typhoid, dysentry, treating wounded from the war who are in dire need of medical supplies and reestablishing electrical power and a few other basic necessities first. That's at least a few months of work - once that's been stabilised, yes, there will be enough breathing room to replace the OFF program and then we can debate raising sanctions - but to do so before then puts money ahead of people's lives. I'm not willing to support that.

Wow, looks like you're taking us on a guided tour of all the logical fallacies tonight. That's false dilemma, to add to the circular logic and burden of proof in your earlier posts. How did you come to the conclusion that allowing Iraqis to trade freely will somehow magically stop the flow of humanitarian aid?

Originally posted by bonkey:
explain to me why opening up the borders for uncontrolled trade is a good thing, or why diverting troops from making life safe for humanitarian intervenation in order to police and control the newly legalised trade is a good idea.

Neither of these is a necessary consequence of lifting sanctions. Nobody's talking about a free-for-all here; all that is being suggested is that the Iraqis be allowed import food, medicine and other goods again.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Or maybe Jessica Lynch's rescue?
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1051643375850

Personally, I don’t believe anyone, but it does make for some very imaginative entertainment at times...

Sources Say Jessica Lynch Has Amnesia

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
How did you come to the conclusion that allowing Iraqis to trade freely will somehow magically stop the flow of humanitarian aid?

Did you read my post? No-one suggested it would stop the humanitarian flow...it was suggested that it would divert some resources which are needed more urgently for humanitarian aid. In plainer english, it will slow the humanitarian relief program down.

You have been offered reasons why lifting the sanctions is a bad idea. You havent addressed most of them other than to say "nah, thats wrong", and yet somehow trying to argue that it is Sparks' and my position which is the one lacking in substance??????

Neither of these is a necessary consequence of lifting sanctions. Nobody's talking about a free-for-all here;

See what I mean about substance. I offered a reasoned chain of where the problem lies, and you're simply offering "nah, that wont happen".

And do you really believe that?

Once the sanctions are lifted, exactly how do you prevent someone in Iraq from engaging in international trade if they so wish, if not through policing?

Given that the nation is still in a highly volatile condition, this is not a job which can be handled by the non-existant police-force, so exactly who is going to prevent it becoming a free-for-all, and how? Remember - you are the one believing that it wont impact the humanitarian aid, so no military assets here please, unless they're manned by people who are somehow incapable of helping the humanitarian relief.

all that is being suggested is that the Iraqis be allowed import vfood, medicine and other goods again.

Errr...excuse me, that is not what is being suggested. You are suggesting that the sanctions be lifted. Not eased, not relaxed in a controlled manner, not modified slightly to make the necessities easier to get, but lifted.

The sanctions do not just cover "medicine, food and other goods" - the type of stuff which the OFF program typically supplied in the first place, and also they type of stuff seen as the responsibility of the victor to provide - but all forms of international trade.

So either you're not talking about lifting sanctions any more, or you never were in the first place. You are clearly talking about some different solution, and just misnaming it.

So maybe you'd like to clarify exactly what your solution is, so that we can understand it is what you're trying to suggest, as its clearly not what you're calling it.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
Did you read my post? No-one suggested it would stop the humanitarian flow...it was suggested that it would divert some resources which are needed more urgently for humanitarian aid. In plainer english, it will slow the humanitarian relief program down.

You have been offered reasons why lifting the sanctions is a bad idea. You havent addressed most of them other than to say "nah, thats wrong", and yet somehow trying to argue that it is Sparks' and my position which is the one lacking in substance?
See what I mean about substance. I offered a reasoned chain of where the problem lies, and you're simply offering "nah, that wont happen".

Except you haven't offered a reasoned chain. You have yet to give a plausible reason as to how allowing trade will slow down humanitarian aid, given that large amounts of money and resources are already being wasted in enforcing the sanctions. You're complaining about the effort required to regulate trade, while completely ignoring the wasted effort required to enforce the now useless sanctions.

Once the sanctions are lifted, exactly how do you prevent someone in Iraq from engaging in international trade if they so wish, if not through policing?

And if the sanctions aren't lifted, exactly how do you prevent someone in Iraq from engaging in international trade if they so wish, if not through policing? This is a non-argument.

The sanctions do not just cover "medicine, food and other goods" - the type of stuff which the OFF program typically supplied in the first place, and also they type of stuff seen as the responsibility of the victor to provide - but all forms of international trade.

I believe that would fall under "other goods".

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
Except you haven't offered a reasoned chain. You have yet to give a plausible reason as to how allowing trade will slow down humanitarian aid, given that large amounts of money and resources are already being wasted in enforcing the sanctions.

Well again Meh, the only reason you seem to have why its wrong is your insistance that its wrong. For someone who's being digging up all of the logical fallacy terminology to throw at Sparks, I would have thought youd avoid such circular logic.

You're complaining about the effort required to regulate trade, while completely ignoring the wasted effort required to enforce the now useless sanctions.

I'm not ignoring it. This is the first time anyone has bothered mentioning it.

I hadnt done so because I thought it was glaringly obvious that it is far easier (and cheaper) to ensure that ships do not dock in a nation than it is to find out what was loaded/unloaded from those ships in that nation.

What I have been trying to show is that international trade requires internal policing in Iraq in the form of customs etc.

Therefore, removing the sanctions either invbolves leaving the trade unpoliced withing Iraq, or diverting resources to police it.

And if the sanctions aren't lifted, exactly how do you prevent someone in Iraq from engaging in international trade if they so wish, if not through policing?

Again, because it is easy to ensure that unauthorised ships/planes simply do not land - which is a basic requirement for securing the nation in the first place.

Lets take a nice simple example : the US still have ships floating off the coast of Iraq. Those ships require a minimum crew, and will remain in situ. These resources, therefore, are entirely unavailable to humanitarian aid regardless of how you wish to look at it. This also includes aircraft carriers, which will always have a minimum crew of pilots available...again resources which are not available to humanitarian aid.

If someone were to try landing a ship or a plane in Iraq right now, the US ships/planes would ensure that this didnt happen. This is not diverting any resources from Humanitarian aid.

If, on the other hand, the sanctions were lifted, those same people would remain doing their same job...only now it would be more complicated as it would be a case of "which ships/planes are allowed through", as opposed to "no ships/planes are allowed through". But hey...I'm feeling generous...lets assume their workload is still the same.

So...with sanctions lifted, we have - so far - no impact on humanitarian aid.

Now, despite it not being a "free for all", it is completely unrestricted trade, because you've just clarified that "other goods" does mean everything thats not food/medicine.

So...you can buy/sell whatever you like, but its not a free-for-all.

So, it must be reasonable to assume that it will be policed...that import/export control will be put in place in iraq in the form of customs or other equivalent policing.

Now where is this coming from? I've shown that the resources which enforce the sanctions are not relevant to the humanitarian aid...but I cant come up with any way of figuring out how you can have people working on customs in Iraq who couldnt be working on humanitarian relief instead.

This is a non-argument.

Meh - you can throw your "non-argument", "logical fallacy" and whatever other fancy terms around all you like...it adds nothing to your argument. You might even try explaining why its a non-argument, especially since you've gone from saying that lifting international trade is not about unrestricted trade (my description which you reworded to "free for all"), its about allowing them to buy food, medicine, and anything thats not food or medicine.

In otherwords, unrestricted trade is not going to happen, because what you're proposing is unrestricted trade .

And you tell me I have a non-argument?

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
Well again Meh, the only reason you seem to have why its wrong is your insistance that its wrong. For someone who's being digging up all of the logical fallacy terminology to throw at Sparks, I would have thought youd avoid such circular logic.

Do you understand what "burden of proof" means? If you want the sanctions to remain even though the reason for them has disappeared, it's up to you to justify it.

Again, because it is easy to ensure that unauthorised ships/planes simply do not land - which is a basic requirement for securing the nation in the first place.

If someone were to try landing a ship or a plane in Iraq right now, the US ships/planes would ensure that this didnt happen. This is not diverting any resources from Humanitarian aid.

If, on the other hand, the sanctions were lifted, those same people would remain doing their same job...only now it would be more complicated as it would be a case of "which ships/planes are allowed through", as opposed to "no ships/planes are allowed through".

But ships and planes (and trucks -- don't forget Iraq's land borders) are being allowed through. The coalition still has to enforce customs controls to make sure that those crates from the Red Crescent marked "baby milk" don't contain AK-47's instead.

Now, despite it not being a "free for all", it is completely unrestricted trade, because you've just clarified that "other goods" does mean everything thats not food/medicine.

Oh for heaven's sake. Of course that's not what I meant, and you know it -- no country in the world has completely unrestricted trade.

So, it must be reasonable to assume that it will be policed...that import/export control will be put in place in iraq in the form of customs or other equivalent policing.

Precisely. Just as the sanctions and humanitarian imports have to be policed, not only by US Navy warships, but by customs officers on Iraq's land borders.

Now where is this coming from? I've shown that the resources which enforce the sanctions are not relevant to the humanitarian aid...but I cant come up with any way of figuring out how you can have people working on customs in Iraq who couldnt be working on humanitarian relief instead.

Iraq needs customs officers and border controls regardless of whether sanctions are lifted or not, to control smuggling and make sure weapons aren't smuggled in as humanitarian aid. So if you're going to have to regulate cross-border traffic anyway, why not let the Iraqis start rebuilding their foreign trade as soon as possible?

Sparks

Do you understand what "burden of proof" means? If you want the sanctions to remain even though the reason for them has disappeared, it's up to you to justify it.

Actually, you're calling for a change in policy, so you need to show why it should be changed.

all that is being suggested is that the Iraqis be allowed import vfood, medicine and other goods again.

Actually, they are not only allowed to import those items already, but they have never been prevented from importing those items.

Oh for heaven's sake. Of course that's not what I meant, and you know it -- no country in the world has completely unrestricted trade.

Except ones where the government has broken down or been broken down - like afghanistan, iraq, the DRC....

Iraq needs customs officers and border controls regardless of whether sanctions are lifted or not, to control smuggling and make sure weapons aren't smuggled in as humanitarian aid. So if you're going to have to regulate cross-border traffic anyway, why not let the Iraqis start rebuilding their foreign trade as soon as possible?

Because, for the Nth time, shutting down the OFF program now would be a humanitarian disaster in the making.

Once again, the UNSC can amend or rescind whatever resolutions it wants.

No, it cannot. There are strict guidelines as to what the UNSC can and cannot do.
It's not a world dictatorship, remember...

That Iraqi government no longer exists. And it's pretty clear that, whoever is the next government of Iraq, they won't be building any WMDs

Really? And you know this how? And is your word good enough for the world community to hold Iraq to in a treaty?

Wow, looks like you're taking us on a guided tour of all the logical fallacies tonight.

I've been accused of a lot in my life, but this is a new one - being accused of logical fallacies by someone with a non-existant argument.

That's false dilemma, to add to the circular logic and burden of proof in your earlier posts. How did you come to the conclusion that allowing Iraqis to trade freely will somehow magically stop the flow of humanitarian aid?

How is humanitarian aid funded? The OFF program. What happens if the sanctions are lifted? The OFF program is discontinued. Now who sells the oil? Who monitors it? And leaving all that aside, who takes that money and ensures it's used for humanitarian aid?

Simple fact is, the current situation with respect to sanctions is the best possible under the circumstances. When that changes and not before, sanctions should be reviewed.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, you're calling for a change in policy, so you need to show why it should be changed.

No, the sanctions were imposed on the understanding that they would be lifted if the Iraqi WMD program was stopped. The Iraqi WMD program has been stopped, but you want the sanctions to remain. So it's you who wants the change in policy.

No, it cannot. There are strict guidelines as to what the UNSC can and cannot do.
It's not a world dictatorship, remember...

And the UNSC can pass or rescind whatever resolutions it wants, within those guidelines. I challenge you to find a guidleine that says the UNSC needs the permission of the Iraqi government before it can rescind one of its own resolutions.

Really? And you know this how? And is your word good enough for the world community to hold Iraq to in a treaty?

Are you trying to say that the new Iraqi government will continue with Saddam's WMD program? If so, I'd like to introduce you to something called reality. There's no way in hell the Americans will let that happen. You're just scraping the bottom of the barrel with this argument.

How is humanitarian aid funded? The OFF program. What happens if the sanctions are lifted? The OFF program is discontinued. Now who sells the oil? Who monitors it? And leaving all that aside, who takes that money and ensures it's used for humanitarian aid?

Why not 1) lift the sanctions and 2) either leave the OFP in place or replace it with a proper humanitarian aid program administered by the UN? Is there some reason I'm missing as to why this is impossible? Or are you just making up spurious obstacles?

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
Do you understand what "burden of proof" means?

Yes - it means that there is a requirement to prove that your suggestion has merit - something you have decided is only a one-sided requirement.

Myself and Sparks are arguing that - on balance - it is a bad idea to lift the sanctions now. In other words, we are putting the case that the risks presented by the proposal outweigh potential benefits - benefits which you havent really bothered outlining other than some nebulous statements that "it will help".

Surely, at this stage, you should be trying to argue that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks...rather than that the drawbacks dont exist....because quite frankly your entire argument seems to be that everything is in place for trade to recommence and I can't understand how that can be true when the nation isnt even secure enough to allow humanitarian aid to get to everywhere its needed. Again...surely there's a burden of proof to show that these controls are still in place of a scale large enough to deal with unsanctioned trade

If you want the sanctions to remain even though the reason for them has disappeared, it's up to you to justify it.

I have offered justification in terms of the use of resources, as well as the potential for unmonitored / insufficiently monitored exports leading to the possible removal of WMDs and/or WMD research being removed from the nation.

I would also ask on what basis we can say that the need for the sanctions has been removed. Their ultimate purpose was to prevent the proliferation of WMDs. I would argue that openiong the border for trade increases the risk of the alleged WMDs being smuggled out of the country.

Its a question of scale. There are resources in place to maintain what is effectively a trade embargo. Currently, this is the most efficient use of resources, and all spare capacity should be put into humanitarian concerns. The more open you make the system, the more resources you have to put in place to control that openness. The more resources you dedicate to this, the less you have to dedicate to other matters like humanitarian assistance.

No-one has suggested that the sanctions should not be lifted...they have suggested that they should not be lifted now. The only real argument I can see against that is that "not yet" doesnt suit the US' plans for spending Iraqi money.

Answer me this....who should gain control of the OFF cash reserves when the sanctions are lifted? They are, after all, inextricably linked. Lifting the sanctions will also involve terminating the OFF program, so who gets control of that cash? Remember also that because it is the UN relinquishing control of the cash, ît can only give it to a government that it recognises.

Are you suggesting that it hand the Iraqi monies to the US? After all, there is no government in place in Iraq to be given control of the resources.

The coalition still has to enforce customs controls to make sure that those crates from the Red Crescent marked "baby milk" don't contain AK-47's instead.

As should be apparent, the vast majority of humanitarian aid is verified at its point of origin. It has been designed a a system which can operate in the absence of proper controls. How else do you think the humanitarian aid could have been sitting on the border waiting for the US military to give it the all clear when things had calmed down enough?

Even if it weren't. would you not agree that the scale of any such border policing operation would have to increase to cater for an increase in the traffic? If so, then where will these increases in resources come from?

jc

bonkey

Just as some more food for thought regarding the wisdom of lifting sanctions....

One should consider the US' own logic as to why it will restrict the vast majority of the rebuilding conracts to US firms....it is for reasons of security.

Now, if the occupying force is saying that it cannot ensure security if non-US firms are allowed into Iraq for rebuilding, it is hard to see how they could possibly argue in favour of lifting sanctions....as that would again give non-US firms the access the US is seeking to deny them.

Note - the US is talking about the timeframe far further than the immediate for these restructions, so surely it must follow that either the US is being dishonest in its assessment of why it has to restrict access to US companies only, or the US is being honest, there is a security risk, and consequently it follows that the sanctions cannot be safely lifted.

Either option is - for me - a perfectly valid reason to leave the sanctions in place.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
If sanctions were lifted, the Iraqis would be able to sell as much oil as they wanted and the UN wouldn't take a cut as "administration expenses".

The OFP changed a few years ago to allow Iraq sell as much oil as it wanted.

Originally posted by bonkey



I have offered justification in terms of the use of resources, as well as the potential for unmonitored / insufficiently monitored exports leading to the possible removal of WMDs and/or WMD research being removed from the nation.

I would also ask on what basis we can say that the need for the sanctions has been removed. Their ultimate purpose was to prevent the proliferation of WMDs. I would argue that openiong the border for trade increases the risk of the alleged WMDs being smuggled out of the country.

jc [/B]

Bonkey, surely smuggling is exactly that smuggling?
I find it hard to believe, that with the current high profile U.S presence in Iraq that it could be made any more difficult for the illegal movement of WMD's.
It's not like theres a huge amount of exports going to be sent out from Iraq in the next six months making it logistically impossible for an interim authoruty under heavy instruction from the U.S to have in place procedures to monitor whats going out.
Surely in those circumstances , whats coming in carries more importance in terms of reconstruction than what is going out?

mm

Gordon

But if some sanctions were lifted would it not speed up the process of fixing the immediate problems also such as water and food routes and telco for example?