Should UN sanctions now be lifted against Iraq?

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
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.

Look at what you're saying Man...that the interim authority would be under heavy instruction to police whats going on....exactly the use of resources that I'm arguing is not ultimately beneficial at this point in time.

Indeed, even the mention of a functioning interim authority immediately puts the timeframe beyond the immediate...further lending weight to my "not now" stance.

Surely in those circumstances , whats coming in carries more importance in terms of reconstruction than what is going out?

Anything thats brought in will require its transport to leave again. Every transport will have to be searched on the way out as well to prevent smuggling. As I said....its a question of scale. If there is a small number of personnel-carrying vehicles a day crossing into Iraq, its relatively easy to have whatever policing you want...and anything off the beaten track is immediately suspicious.

If you have a much larger number of vehicles, from a wide variety of source-locations, coming and going into and out of the nation, carrying large amounts of varied goods.....then you have to police and control each of them. Not only does it take vastly more effort, but the logistics make it easier for something to be hidden.

Take the internet as a comparison. I remember the internet in the days before the web, and before the great influx of AOL users. There was light traffic. Even given the computing power of the day, it was feasible that something like echelon was in existence to track traffic and scan it for whatever.

To say that because such control existed in the late 80s and early 90s meant that such control would also exist once the AOL hordes were unleashed would have most IT-versant people rolling on the floor laughing. At the very least, it would require a massive upscaling of the monitoring procedures..and possibly an entire redesign of how they worked, as scaling has its limits.

I see the Iraqi problem as somewhat analagous. There are controls in place right now, which are hopefully doing their job. However, these controls are almost unquestionably unsuitable for dealing with a massive increase in traffic and inspections without an appropriate increase in scale...if they can practically scale to the degree required.

My argument is that someone should show that these fears are unfounded (i.e. that the scale doesnt need to change or that there is no risk), or explain why the benefits (still unspecified as everything speficially mentioned to date is still available through OFP and/or humanitarian aid) outweigh these risks.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by 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?

Maybe, but most of such issues are already covered by the humanitarian aid and so on. One could argue that more could be spent on these, but the OFP has a large cash reserve, so the cash is available should it be needed - it does not necessarily require the easing of sanctions.

Having said that...we havent really been discussing some sanctions. We have been discussing the removal of sanctions in their totality. If someone wants to explain why some sanctions should be lifted, but others are necessary to remain, I'm more than willing to listen to their breakdown of what should be done and what should be left in place - most notably, I'm interested in their reasoning behind why some sanctions are ok to lift now that Saddam is gone, but others are still necessary.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Having said that...we havent really been discussing some sanctions.

Indeed, lifting all sanctions means allowing Iraq buy WMD, doesn't it?

Originally posted by bonkey
Look at what you're saying Man...that the interim authority would be under heavy instruction to police whats going on....exactly the use of resources that I'm arguing is not ultimately beneficial at this point in time.

Indeed, even the mention of a functioning interim authority immediately puts the timeframe beyond the immediate...further lending weight to my "not now" stance.

But I would be thinking, that, at present, trade would not or could not be huge,and assume that it would be in the interests of the U.S to facilitate and encourage the policing of whatever trade might be deemed necessary and not covered by the offp.
In the mean time, the U.S and the U.K are watching, it beggars belief that they would want sanctions ended without weighing up the pro's and con's of the risks it would pose in terms of WMD smuggling,given the campaign that they have just ran.
Even if we assume that everything needed for reconstruction, is covered by the offp, then , we are talking , masses, of materials, requiring , the same resources to be policed anyway.
Smuggling is still going to go on regardless to the extent that it can.
mm

Sparks

Well, I said I wouldn't be surprised. Unfortunately I'm not
US considers ignoring UN over Iraq sanctions

So tell me, if the US couldn't be arsed obeying laws, why the fcuk should anyone else?

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
US considers ignoring UN over Iraq sanctions

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is studying whether to lift US sanctions on Iraq unilaterally - a move likely to put it on a new collision course with France, Russia and other members of the United Nations Security Council.

Interesting faux-pas.

I don't think anyone has any problems with the US lifting US sanctions, the US breaching UN sanctions is another matter.

Idiots.

Sparks

Interesting faux-pas.

No, it's not. UNSC resolution 661 says "Decides that all States shall prevent:" and then lists the sanctioned items. In other words, the UN calls for sanctions - individual member states then implement them. The UN cannot implement sanctions itself, not being a governmental body...

So if the US lifts US sanctions, it will be doing so in violation of UNSC resolution 661.

(Didn't Iraq just get bombed for alleged violation of that resolution? And now the US wants to violate it in full view of the world. Pah. :rolleyes: )

Idiots.

Who are you referring to?

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
In the mean time, the U.S and the U.K are watching, it beggars belief that they would want sanctions ended without weighing up the pro's and con's of the risks it would pose in terms of WMD smuggling,given the campaign that they have just ran.

Well, you see, my belief is that their estimation of the likelihood of WMDs existing in Iraq is actually far below what they make out to the public.

I also believe that the US calls for sanction-lifting are to give it complete control over what is allowed in and out, rather than the UN. In other words, it will allow the US to sell what it likes to the Iraqis, getting oil or promises of oil in return...while the rest of the world will be told to go stuff itself for "security reasons".

In effect, it would give the US the same complete control it will obtain by ignoring the UN and deciding not to impose the sanctions itself any more...but would be less of an issue to sell to the public.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
In effect, it would give the US the same complete control it will obtain by ignoring the UN and deciding not to impose the sanctions itself any more...but would be less of an issue to sell to the public.
jc

Ah, before you posted, I was already surmising that , that is what you might say, and what is in the mind of those countries that oppose the immediate lifting of sanctions.
It occurrs to me that the U.S are perfectly capable of , starting the process of reconstructing Iraq and continuing it untill there is a democratically elected government there, without the lifting of sanctions.
Continuing sanctions is actually playing into the hands of the U.S as regardless, they are the king makers in Iraq now untill a democratic government is elected.
It's playing into their hands, because it's giving them ammunition to fire at the U.N as they will say it is an awkward body, while at the same time the remaining sanctions will probably not hinder U.S influence in Iraq in any meaningfull way.
So it makes no difference.
Supplies of what ever is needed can be flown into Baghdad Airport, in the same way as they were flown into West Berlin.
mm

Sparks

It occurrs to me that the U.S are perfectly capable of , starting the process of reconstructing Iraq and continuing it untill there is a democratically elected government there, without the lifting of sanctions.

Technically correct, though given the US track record on nation-building, I'm skeptical of their ability to get the job done.

It's playing into their hands, because it's giving them ammunition to fire at the U.N as they will say it is an awkward body, while at the same time the remaining sanctions will probably not hinder U.S influence in Iraq in any meaningfull way.

This is indeed true - though if the UN bent over backwards to assist the US, they'd then come under fire for doing the same. Which is why the decision cannot be made on PR grounds.

Supplies of what ever is needed can be flown into Baghdad Airport, in the same way as they were flown into West Berlin.

Supplies flown into west berlin were not flown in in flagrant disregard of a UN sanctions resolution.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Lifted fully? Yeah, we trust Rumsfeld & co. to trade honourably with Iraq bearing in mind it's a fledgling market right? Well, given his track record (selling weapons to Iraq, Iran, lining Saddam's pockets) I'm rather less inclined to trust him than some are.

Tweak the sanctions? About damn time...no small number of people have been clamouring for independent monitoring of imports/exports. Why independent monitors you might ask? Simple. Soldiers will do as they're told, and American military history tells us that often such misplaced loyalty in the good intentions of one's superiors can go all the way to the top. Col. Oliver North played like a concert pianist upon this blind spot of common sense that pervades the Pentagon. It's not even *State* that's in charge of the reconstruction, but the Pentagon. Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but the Pentagon has 0 track record for this sort of thing. Even the Marshall plan after WWII was only *implemented* by the Pentagon, they still had to respond to civil adminstrators on the ground. Except this time, that administrator is appointed by...the Pentagon! A military body accountable only to itself, spearheaded by a man that's sold weapons to Iraq and sent our young men everywhere except Timbuctoo to die on his behalf. Yeah it's that Donald Rumsfeld guy again isn't it.

Bottom line- there is no credibile government, no credible administrative authority (either coalition *or* Iraqi) and no economic base to speak of. And some of you want to lift sanctions. Were you sick the day supply & demand was taught in basic Econ? I mean really...how do you expect an economy to engage in credible trade with Arab neighbours, when said economy's boundaries are controlled by coalition forces, coalition companies and coalition interests? Yes they're rebuilding Iraq, but what happened to the free market? Put it this way- if a foreign power were in charge of a neighbouring nation's contract awards in *your* region, would you trade freely with that country? Probably not.

Protectionism of the most extreme kind is semi-ironic when pursued by a Republican administration eager for free open and fair competition at any price. Even better is the fact that they've promised investors that the taxpayer will bail them out if these foreign investments should founder at any stage. This is unprecedented intervention by a major financial power on the stage of international trade. Bailing out American Airlines on home soil is one thing, promising *profits* at the taxpayers expense? And there was me thinking my tax dollars went to help the disadvantaged in our society. Guess the new social contract likes investors more than the homeless, great plan there.

In the US or indeed anywhere, anti-trust laws would choke any similar move to death before it began. Nepotism on that sort of scale would cost any democratic lawful government trillions in damages. In lawless Iraq, no one bats an eyelid as the Pentagon hands out contracts to Haliburton industries (still under investigation following financial irregularites emanating from former CEO Dick Cheney). Not to mention Beltech industries, former cash cow of Condoleeza Rice being awarded power generation and defence contracts worth 59 billion dollars. An investment you're guaranteed the contract for, and tax-payer's guarantee of a profit? Sign me up for the *New New* Deal right away! Not FDR's plan to restart the economy by creating jobs, but by artificially awarding contracts and guaranteeing taxpayer equity profits to generate a false sense of market confidence. We're waaay beyond smoke and mirrors now. Yellow alerts, mystical terrorist threats looming in every nation with a healthy amount of sand in it- and a small whimper...the death of an American Dream gone wrong. I just hope we wake up and see what's happening before it all comes crashing down around our ears.

Originally posted by Sparks
This is indeed true - though if the UN bent over backwards to assist the US, they'd then come under fire for doing the same. Which is why the decision cannot be made on PR grounds.

isn't it also true though that Mr Putin would be in favour of lifting sanctions immediately if his countries old contracts with Sadam were honoured?
And considering they are a permanent member of the UNSC, isn't that also making a mockery of the morality of the U.N position?
mm

Sparks

isn't it also true though that Mr Putin would be in favour of lifting sanctions immediately if his countries old contracts with Sadam were honoured?

I don't know - though I wouldn't be overwhelmed by surprise, but then, that's because I'm a cynical codger.

And considering they are a permanent member of the UNSC, isn't that also making a mockery of the morality of the U.N position?

If true, then yes - to the same extent (if in fact not a lot less than) as the US has been making a mockery of the UN's moral position.

Victor

Originally posted by Victor
Idiots.

Originally posted by Sparks
Who are you referring to?

The paper / journalists.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
And there was me thinking my tax dollars went to help the disadvantaged in our society. Guess the new social contract likes investors more than the homeless, great plan there.

But if all the poor invested in the stock market .... :rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
[BBut if all the poor invested in.... [/B]

Cause as we all know, the poor are - in fact - just hoarding money they dont want to spend or invest, and thats why they are considered poor...


jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Cause as we all know, the poor are - in fact - just hoarding money they dont want to spend or invest, and thats why they are considered poor...

You forgot the :rolleyes:

bonkey

Nah - I just couldnt resist lumping on a bit more sarcasm

jc

Sparks

Seems the US has now lifted US sanctions on Iraq.

Éomer of Rohan

The US unilaterally lifted sanctions?!?

Sparks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3009331.stm

Seems so.
Though I'm wondering why the US had sanctions above and beyond that called for by the UN in the first place...

Restrictions the US has eased include:

rules which will allow the thousands of Iraqis resident in the US to send up to $500 a month to family and friends in Iraq.
allowing humanitarian aid supplies to be sent to Iraq
authorising any activity paid for by the US Government, including reconstruction moves by contractors
permitting privately-funded humanitarian activities by US-based organisations.

Only one of those (authorising any activity paid for by the US Government) was banned by UN sanctions in 661.

Éomer of Rohan

So, working on the assumption that the US just broke UNSC resolution 661, because I imagine the facts are probably tetchy at best, the whole justification for the Gulf War I just vanished - or at the least the 'official justification' for GW1, the justification for war in Korea ('50-3) and so on. I am actually quite shocked. The US just definitively violated the UN charter and broke International Law again. How can anyone trust the US after this? Sparks, do you know if the UK followed suit?

Sparks

Well technically GW1 broke the UN charter, the Hague and the Geneva conventions explicitly at the end when the US massacred Iraqi forces who had been ordered to stand down, so I'm not terribly shocked right now.

I haven't heard anything from the UK or anywhere else on a response to the US action.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/691963?view=Eircomnet

US oil subsidiary to operate Iraqi fields
US: The US army has revealed for the first time that a government contract given to the giant oil company, Halliburton, will allow a Halliburton subsidiary to operate the Iraqi oil fields for a time and distribute the petroleum, rather than just extinguish oil well fires and carry out repairs as initially reported.