Replies to post #1539 on Nothing But Politics

[stack]

You know that there were many propositions for getting rid of the sanctions or to double the amount of oil exported for food. But all those propositions were blocked by the US/UK inside the UN, including many demands for medicin, medical devices and civil infrastructure during the years. If you say the UN has failed, then only because of the lobbying interest of the US.

"I have met personally with all my colleagues in the security council in a very complex process to guarantee the majority through flattery, persuasion, pressure und occasional voting bribery" - former foreign minister James Baker "The politics of Diplomacy", Washington, D.C., 1995


"This was the most expensive "No" vote you have ever given" US ambassador to the UN Thomas Pickering to the jemenitic ambassador Abdallah Saleh al-Ashtal, after his No vote to UN resolution 678
Two days later Bush sen. administration cut 70 Mio. US in aid to Jemen.
Phyllis Bennis, "Calling the shots - How Washington Dominates Today's UN", New York 1996


Q.: "If the death of more than half a million children would be the price we have to pay..."
Madeleine Albright.: "We think the price is worth it"
"60 minutes", NBC, Mai 1996

[sylvester80]

I disagree. The real crime is what the same criminals who are in the white house now did back then.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=918117

[Amaunet]

While sanctions did not achieve much they did contribute to the widespread suffering of the Iraqi people in so much as they were manipulated by the Iraqi regime’s own policies as well as because of the method they were implemented by the West.


Stackelbergfuehrer is correct in saying that the UN failed in its sanction efforts only because of the lobbying interest of the US/UK.

The US is at the very least partially to blame for the death of Iraqis due to sanctions.


Therefore one would have to add the more than half a million children killed by sanctions to the total number killed by our bombs, plus the many more deaths past and to come by a variety of means, - there are no reliable figures for the numbers killed, orphaned or maimed. Thousands will have been affected by contaminated water as the power supplies in cities such as Basra and Baghdad were bombed, - to the thousands, and this is probably the largest number, of Iraqis yet to die over the next 20 to 30 years due to our use of WMD or depleted uranium weapons.

You are correct the UN is a useless organization except for humanitarian aid. It was necessary for the United States to undermine the effectiveness of the UN in order to pursue their own ambitions. Annan’s candidacy for the post of Secretary General was championed by the United States and its then Ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, really for only one reason - he was not Boutros Boutros Ghali, his Egyptian predecessor who had been expecting to serve a second five-year term. With his sometimes haughty and lecturing manner, Boutros Ghali had over time fallen far out of favour with Washington, never more so than when he chastised Western capitals for investing too much energy in the "rich man's" war in Bosnia while ignoring conflicts in more remote corners, notably in Africa. Against fierce opposition from France, Albright fought for Annan because he appeared suited to effecting a low-profile stewardship of the UN organisation; someone, above all, who would work better as a manager of the institution and not a maker of diplomatic waves. The United States wanted an efficient chief executive whose first task would be to instill some order into the morass of UN bodies and agencies and bring about the reforms that Boutros Ghali had been so reluctant to carry through, or a puppet. It is within this framework of an organization whose leadership we have purposely chosen to undermine that we choose to obey the rules that suit us or discard those that do not fit our needs further serving to degrade the effectiveness of the body.

The system is and always should be more important than the man. For those who are proponents of Bush there will come a time when they will find themselves in disagreement with a future president or predecessor and there will be no agency strong enough to counteract the despised future president’s programs. This world needs a strong UN. It is unfortunate the United States has chosen to dilute its authority as the office of President of the United States is fleeting. If you like Bush you may not like the next guy. And if he is of one mind with Congress who will be left to stop him?

Reference:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3671/iraq11.htm

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=884244

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=918064

On 2 August 1990 the Iraqi army invaded its southern neighbour, Kuwait. Four days later the United Nations responded by imposing a complete trade embargo on Iraq. In the ten years since Iraq has continued to be the subject of sanctions that affect almost every aspect of life for the average woman, man and child.
With imports of food and medicine severely restricted, malnutrition and disease is now endemic in what was once one of the healthiest countries in the world. A 1999 Unicef report calculated that more than half a million children had died as a direct result of sanctions. On average 200 hundred Iraqi children are dying every day.
In September 1998, Denis Halliday head of the UN humanitarian programme in Iraq resigned claiming he could no longer administer 'an immoral and illegal' policy. His successor, Hans von Sponeck also later resigned, along with the head of the World Food Programme.
Meanwhile US and UK politicians insist that the sanctions regime is necessary to contain the threat of Saddam Hussein. When asked on US television whether the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of sanctions was justified Madelaine Albright replied 'I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it. - Pilger