I.  Sanctions
Updated 04/27/2006
Return to FAQ
UN ends 13 years of sanctions, May 22, 2003...

1.  What are UN sanctions? How do they work?  What is “oil for food”?  This is complex. In general, the sanctions were restrictions on what Iraq could import, imposed by the U.S. and the UK.  The sanctions lasted from after the first Gulf War (1991) until 2003.  Despite sanctions, Hussein stayed in power, but they  probably reduced his military power, but led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Sanctions were renewed in December 2002 and ended after the war of 2003.  Please see below and the web sites and articles link.  See UN report on Sanctions. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

Return to Top

2.   What are the new “smart sanctions”? What is a "goods review list?"    
On December 30, under pressure from the U.S., the UN passed even tighter sanction against Iraq.  Possible "dual use" items such as the heart drug Cipro, tires, and fast boats are now on the list.  France, Russia, and Syria objected but only Russia and Syria abstained from the 13-0 vote. The Tribune commented (12/31) that "it remains to be seen whether Washington has handed Baghdad a fresh propaganda weapons..." The U.S. had previously approved the sale of Atropine on many occasions. 

UN resolution 1409, "New" sanctions, was approved by the UN Security Council on May 14, despite Russian and Syrian hesitation. The new sanctions "establishing a unified 'Goods Review List' (GRL) intended to block military goods, control the transfer of dual-use technology, and facilitate a free flow of consumer goods to Iraq's isolated population...In practice, the GRL runs the risk of being a 'Goods Rejection List.'" The Syrian Ambassador to the UN said it was "high time" to lift the sanctions entirely while the Russian Ambassador  said, "It is only through the lifting of the sanctions that Iraq can rebuild its economy." Interestingly, the Kuwaiti minister of state for foreign affairs called the vote "a very important development."  Yet, if these new sanctions are so smart, what were the sanctions for the previous 11 years?  

Bush had called the old policy "a sanctions policy that resembled Swiss Cheese." (State Department Report). The administration claims that "smart sanctions" are a belated attempt to deny Hussein the claim that "the sanctions were causing civilian suffering."   Powell claims the UN is determined "to meet the needs of the Iraqi people" and The New York Times editorializes that under the "new" sanctions "Washington is now in a better position to lead the international debate on the future of the Iraqi regime without the distraction of accusations over humanitarian concerns."  British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw concurred: "It removes Saddam's spurious excuses for the suffering he inflicts on the Iraqi people and puts more pressure on the regime." Sanctions have only increased Hussein's power, turning "ordinary Iraqis into vassals of the government" (The Reckoning, 371).Yet, The Economist argues that "the proposal for 'smart sanctions' offers an aspirin where surgery is called for." (2/24/01).

The "goods review list" is a 300-page list of items that have dual military and civilian use. Held contracts would be resolved in 30 days and normally approved by the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). One wonders if this list will really get humanitarian supplies to those who desperately need them.   Blocked contracts will continue.  However, smart sanctions are like smart bombs:  "they are nearly ineffective at minimizing civilian damage, but they do deflect huge amounts of PR flak...[and are designed to] build support for the coming war." (Voices in the Wilderness). The sanctions change in May 2002 is symbolic rather than substantive. They also don't allow for foreign investment or rehabilitation. (Hans Von Sponeck, UN). Benon Sevan, current head of the UN oil-for-food humanitarian program feels the new sanctions "will do little to ease the Iraqi humanitarian situation" unless oil pricing changes. Other recent and detailed criticism is from MERIP, who argue that "Instead of questioning whether Resolution 1409 will reduce suffering, the mainstream media appears far more interested in whether the new sanctions will make it easier for the Bush administration to launch a war against Iraq."

Return to Top

3. Have sanctions been "successful"?
In 1988 when Iraq was using chemical weapons partly supplied by the U.S., The Washington Post quotes Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy as writing, "We believe the economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis" (12/30/02).  Of course, three years later, sanctions were deemed a useful policy after Iraq had invaded Kuwait.

Critics of sanctions point out that the standards the U.S. set keep changing.  "We keep moving back the goalposts," says Dennis Halliday, former UN assistant Secretary-General, in charge of UN Humanitarian program in Iraq. In March, 2003, George Will realized that horrible effect of sanctions on the Iraqi people; his views are commented on by Matthew Rothschild in The Progressive. Bush and Clinton have both stated that sanctions, begun in 1990 after the Kuwait invasion, will remain as long as Hussein is in power, which is a policy contrary to past and most recent UN resolutions.

The Washington Post reports that a former U.S. official said, "The hawks' nightmare is that inspectors will be admitted...and economic sanctions would be eased." As the US plans in November for war,  it is clear that sanctions have failed to eliminate Hussein as a threat.  The November UN resolution calls for a lifting of sanctions if weapons inspectors "succeed", but for years the U.S. has consistently said that sanctions will not be lifted while Hussein is in power.

4.  How effective have the sanctions been?  Have sanctions been successful in Cuba over the past 40 years?  
Hussein is still in power, as is Castro.  Castro uses the U.S. as a scapegoat.  In Iraq, innocent civilians are dying.  

Sandra Mackey comments in The Reckoning: ""With single minded determination, disarmament took precedence over humanitarianism" (365). The Gulf War "has failed to achieve real victory in either a political or a humanitarian sense" (27). In addition, Hussein legitimately uses sanctions as an excuse for the poor conditions of his people.  Mackey comments, "The sanctions have come to isolate the US far more than Saddam Hussein." The sanctions have clearly failed to achieve their goals on multiple levels.

Return to Top

5.  How have sanctions affected health care and education in Iraq?
In the 1980s, despite their brutal war with Iran, Iraq's health care and education were "first world" and one of the best in the Middle East.  Education was provided for women and there was a large middle class.  Women enjoyed tremendous freedoms compared to neighbors in such places as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.  They worked as "doctors, lawyers, engineers, and teachers; they drive cars and dress and gather freely" (Time, 3/10). 

"The World Bank classified Iraq at the same level of economic and social development as Greece" (Out of the Ashes, 115). Before 1980 and the war with Iran, Hussein spent a greater portion of oil revenue on social programs than any other Arab leader (WashPost, 10/1/02). In 1987, Iraq was awarded an international prize by UNESCO for reducing illiteracy, which rose to nearly 80%. 

 However, since Hussein's 1990  invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing Gulf War, ongoing sanctions, and the oil-for-food program, the economy is in a severe depression, in addition to hyperinflation and lack of infrastructure. Americans who travel to Iraq report that "it is a refugee camp" and  that Iraqi doctors feel "Like a soldier at the front without a weapon."  The U.S. "breaks their legs [through sanctions] and then gives them crutches." (Kathy Kelly of Voices in the Wilderness).  Commented Sean Penn in December, "I don't think it's a political statement to acknowledge that sanctions have been devastating." (For more on Penn, please see "Should We Go To War" FAQ section). The Washington Post detailed the dire situation in  late December, commenting that "Because ciprofloxacin (cipro; a common hospital drug for heart and other patients) can be used to counter anthrax exposure, the U.S. government wants to keep [Iraq] from stockpiling it, fearing such a supply would make it easier for him to launch a biological attack while protecting his own troops.  Responding to a ban on tire imports, farmer Jasim Sadiq asks, "Why do they focus on tires...Do they think they're weapons?" The Post continues, "At a moment of confrontation with the U.S., the proposed changes [in sanctions] strike many as even more punitive.  Beyond the antibiotics and tires are a host of other products that would be restricted, including atropine...pesticides, activated charcoal, large hydraulic lifts...satellite dishes...and even speedboats." 

In 2003, the world was still not convinced that sanctions hurt Iraqi civilians, as evidenced by this comment by the Chicago Tribune (12/31/02): "Foreign politicians, peace groups, and humanitarian delegations" have been making "a last-ditch effort to try to prove" that sanctions are "harming innocent Iraqi civilians, particularly children."  To the author of this web site, it is clear that sanctions have killed hundreds of thousands of children.  Admittedly, Hussein lives in luxury and doesn't care much about his people. Arguments continued up to the war as to what extent Hussein is to blame for the horrible condition of his people. 

Child mortality rates have more than doubled during the past 10 years. UNICEF reported that after one year, the program had not yet made a measurable difference to the young children of Iraq and after two years half of all Iraqi children are malnourished.  But in November 2002 UNICEF reported that chronic malnutrition fell fro 32% in 1996 to 23% in 2002.

Yet nearly one million children still suffer from chronic malnutrition. UNICEF calls this "unacceptable" (Wash Post, 11/22/02).  GDP has dropped 3-fold since 1991 and diseases like cholera, polio, and diphtheria, once eradicated, are returning (BBC, April 24, 2002), with vaccines not available. Raw sewage flows into streets, homes, and the Tigris River. Current UN Humanitarian Coordinator, Tun Myat, agrees that the biggest killer is "waterborne diseases" and Iraq will not have a "functioning economy" under these new sanctions. 40% of Iraq has no access to clean drinking water (Chicago Tribune, 11/9/02). The sanctions are "like punishing a people to get at their ruler"...We are "undermining the moral credibility of the UN" (Dennis Halliday).  

Andrew and Patrick Cockburn conclude Out of the Ashes with:  "Saddam himself had survived unscathed.  But the biggest mistake of all was to make the Iraqi people pay the price...One day, the bill will come due" (290). Much of this damage began during the Gulf War when "smart" bombs actually hit their intended target, such as water-treatment centers and other infrastructure, in attempts to make sanctions more damaging. (New England Journal of Medicine, 4/24/97 and Washington Post, 6/23/91).  In late 2000 UNICEF reported decreasing child malnutrition, but 1/4 of children under 5 still suffer from malnutrition (one million children) .Teachers are paid $5/month. Other effects on the people and the economy are distressing, as detailed in Out of the Ashes, Chapter 5 and Mackey's Chapter "The War of Containment."

Even the Wall Street Journal's James Tarnanto admits that sanctions "actually have the effect of impoverishing the people of Iraq" but it is Hussein's fault because for the anti-war side, he alleges, "of course in their view anti-American dictators can do no wrong, so Iraqis suffering is entirely America's fault" (1/27/03). 

After the war began, we learned that the UN might have skimmed about $5 billion off the oil-for-food program.  Some reports suggest that France and Russia were primary collaborators, but that the U.S. was aware of the missing funds. Into April of 2004, Kofi Annan was investigating, with American Paul Volker leader the group. The reputation of the UN was at stake.  

Return to Top

6.  Did thousands of Iraqi children really die due to UN sanctions?

Yet, requests by Iraq for humanitarian imports under the UN "oil for food" begun in April 1995 under Resolution 986 are routinely "on hold" or vetoed by the U.S. or U.K. in the 661 sanctions committee.  These denied or delayed supposedly "dual use" requests include pencils, computer equipment, spare parts, agricultural fertilizer, chlorine to purify water, tires, scientific journals, and air-conditioned trucks needed for transporting medical supplies. Many of these are "complementary issue" which the Cockburns explain in Out of the Ashes as "items approved for purchase may be useless with other items that had been disapproved" (289). For example, dentist chairs don't work without compressors and so just sit in warehouses.  Hans Von Sponeck, former UN official, asks, "How many pencils do you need to make a bomb?" Over 2000 "holds" have totaled about $5 billion (Wall Street Journal, 5/2/02), of which $4.6 billion are humanitarian supplies. The UN reported these "holds" in contacts for humanitarian supplies were half of what was requested. In November 2002, UN documents showed that Iraq had contracts approved by the UN to buy nearly $3 billion worth of humanitarian supplies that it cannot pay for (WashPost, 11/21/02).  Could the UN set the price higher for Iraqi oil? 

However, CIA director Tenet claims that there is not much difference between making pesticides and making chemical weapons.  The BBC describes how "Iraq's children suffer as war looms":  "The 1991 Gulf War has never really ended for most Iraqis, as the threat of another confrontation looms.  According to UNICEF, one in eight Iraqi children still do not make it to the age of five." Malnutrition and food distribution will cause further suffering in a war. Congressman Tony Hall (D-Ohio), who visited Iraq, realizes that these holds "are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death" (6/28/00).  Hall also quoted a clergyman who summed up the situation: "The children no longer know how to dream."   

Voices in the Wilderness delivered medical supplies to Iraq through much of the 1990s. The U.S. Treasury Department fined the group $20,000 for violating sanctions.  In December 2002, Voices refused to pay the fine.

Still, mandated war reparations, mostly to Kuwait, automatically consume 25-30% of Iraqi oil export revenue, held in escrow by the UN in New York.  Iraq has no input on these reparation rulings.  Also see "Oil for Food:  The True Story." The Geneva Convention prohibits "the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare."  Could history repeat itself, as Iraq plays the role of the Weimar Republic, during the harsh reparations by the British and French during the 1920s?   Sanctions can be as deadly as guns. Thousands of articles have been written about sanctions and Iraqi children. Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, ponders:  "In 50 years, the next generation will ask: 'What were you doing when the children of Iraq were dying?'" In short, sanctions are immoral, illegal, and impractical.

Return to Top

7.  Is the price worth it?

Former Secretary of State Albright said of the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by sanctions as of 1996, "We think the price is worth it" (60 Minutes, 5/12/96).  In reality, in aiming at the hostage taker, the U.S. "and its remaining allies were killing the hostages" (Out of the Ashes, 139). As early as 1992 Bush's deputy National Security adviser Robert Gates declared, "sanctions would remain as long as Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq and...in the meantime, 'Iraqis will pay the price'" (Ashes, 263-4).

Concerned that the price is too high, Dennis Kucinich said, "the time has come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as their leader" (The Progressive, 11/02). 

8.  What has the Pope said about sanctions? Do other religious leaders agree with the Pope?

In January 1996 the Pope issued this statement:  "As we prepare for a new round of bombings, we cry out in anguish over...sanctions against the Iraqi people...During the Gulf War, US-led coalition forces deliberately targeted Iraqi infrastructure, destroying its ability to provide food...and sanitation...UNICEF reports that 4500 children are dying each month.  As people of faith, we are ashamed that the actions of the UN, whose mission is to foster peace, can so deliberately directed toward the sustained slaughter of innocent civilians" (Ashes, 275). British Anglican leaders are also against the war. Also please see "Should We Go To War" FAQ section.

9.  What are some other effects of the continuing sanctions?

The UN's Dennis Halliday, in his Harvard speech, details the negative effect on women and the fact that "the great majority of people today do not have access to international television or even overseas reading material....with a younger generation of Iraqis finding a situation that they deem to be impossible and discriminatory, one can only visualize the formation of a radical movement to reverse the conditions imposed by sanctions which utilizes the despair and discontent existing among the younger generation as a basis of support."  The educated middle class is disappearing.  Overeating had been a major pre-war pediatric problem.  Halliday wonders if the disaffected younger generation could turn out like the orphans of the Afghanistan war who became Taliban.

Oil-for-food now provides the 22 million Iraqi people an average of $119.70/year, for food, medicine, water, sanitation, agriculture, electricity, and education.  This leads former-UN aid coordinator Hans Von Sponeck to call it "the $119.70 scandal"  ("Who is Speaking for Iraq's Children?")

Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the Iraq Oil Programme, though concerned about Iraqi civilians, reported in February that the conditions are much improved from 1997.  The Washington Post reports that according to the CIA World Factbook, per capita income has improved to $2,500, double that of Egypt and GDP rose 15% in 2000.  But Julia Preston of the New York Times reports in January 2003 that the per capita income is only $700. Sevan has 900 UN international personnel working in Iraq and paid by Iraq. The Washington Post reported in November that average monthly salaries have dropped from $500 to just $10.

Another effect of sanctions is the ability of Hussein to blame the U.S. for their conditions. For example, on the one year anniversary of 9/11, Iraq newspaper headlines read, "God's Punishment" for the attacks. 

Return to Top

10.  Doesn't Hussein take his oil money and spend it on lavish palaces while his people starve?

Yes, he lives well, has full use of 20 palaces, and smuggles oil to Jordan and Turkey, U.S. allies, as well as oil to Syria.  However, the UN supervises mandated food deliveries to his people. A U.S. doctor traveling in Iraq, responds to this FAQ as follows: "What the American people are not aware of is that before sanctions, Iraq was highly successful.  It had free health care, education was universally available.  They had reduced the infant mortality rate." The Wall Street Journal describes how the regime makes profits from illegal oil sales, which the State Department estimates at $2.5 billion (5/2/02). The Congress' GAO estimates the smuggling at $6 billion over four years. "Saddam Hussein's Billions" (Susan Blaustein, Washington Post, 8/4/02) argues, "The UN oil-for-food program costs $6 billion a year...Barring robust enforcement, the program is simply a charade and should be scrapped."

After the war, the New York Times revealed the oil-for-food corruption in more detail.  In a lengthy February 29, 20904 analysis, the paper reported that Iraq tried to keep the price low so bribes could be added.  Said an Iraqi official, "We were instructed by the government to get the lowest price."

11.  How do sanctions effect U.S. war plans? How could sanctions be lifted?
The new UN resolution, passed on November 8, allows for the ending of sanctions if Iraq cooperates fully with the weapons inspectors.  This provision was not suggested by the U.S., but was insisted on by France. Brzezinski, President Carter's NSA Chief, realizes "the widespread view abroad that US-sponsored sanctions have already badly and unfairly hurt the Iraqi people."

12.  Does the U.S. allow its vast chemical weapons to be inspected by a UN organization?
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had its leader (Jose Bustani) "fired" by the U.S. (which controls 22% of the budget) in April  in a "Chemical coup d'etat" partly because, "the U.S. refuses to accept chemical weapons inspectors [on U.S. soil] from countries it regards as hostile and refuses unannounced inspections [of U.S. chemical weapons]." Bustani  was supposedly undermining the Bush Administration.