Efficacy of Iraqi Sanctions Essay

Justification of the War in Iraq Despite contrary belief, the Iraq War can certainly be justified. This war began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by U.S troops under the command of former president, George W. Bush. This invasion can be vindicated for several reasons. The greatest is that Iraq was a severe menace to its own people due to a corrupt and distorted government, spearheaded by the dictator, Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Iraq was a substantial threat to other nations in the world, including the United States of America because of its previous possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties with terrorist groups. It would be misleading to not mention the economic gains that motivated the American government to occupy Iraq.

At the end of the 1990-91 Gulf War, the Security Council passed Resolution 687, which set out the terms that Iraq’s leader Suddam Hussein was to comply with. The resolution required the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons, and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and required Iraq to submit to a rigorous UN inspection system. Inspections were conducted by United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and later the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) throughout the 1990s to the US-led invasion 2003. The UNSC has proved to be an effective legal response to monitoring conflict and maintaining world order as no ‘weapons of mass destruction’ were found after the American invasion in 2003.

Currently, numerous sanctions target the Iranian economy. These sanctions are implemented and enforced by the United States of America, The European Union, and several other United Nation members to include; Japan, the Republic of Korea, Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzer. Fathollah-nejad, A. (2013). These measures are necessary to enforce international laws through means other than war.

United States policy towards the Iran-Iraq war was interesting to say the least. While the United States claimed to be a neutral party, they supported Iraq for the majority of the war, supported Iran for a brief period, then went back to only supporting Iraq. Both sides committed numerous atrocities and war crimes, and for the most part received little to no American condemnation. Through this essay, I will explore the reasons for the US involvement, and their responses to a number of war crimes, particularly Iraq’s use of chemical weapons throughout the war.

The Containment Policy established by George W. Bush after the Gulf War is the most viable option for the United States. The Containment Policy strictly sustains the status quo, and is inexpensive in terms of blood, money, and political capital.The Containment Policy will halter the making of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and will ensure free oil flow from the Gulf, while preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors. For this reason, a political strategy of containment is comparatively advantageous to the alternative. This essay will begin by examining the effect of no-fly zones on the Iraqi discussing the strategic viability of sanctions and their effect on the Iraqi economy, finally explaining the importance of oil in Iraq 's economy.

resolutions aimed to strength Iraq’s disarmament and end his abuse and domination of the of the Iraqi people, Bush stressed that the compliance of this resolutions were crucial to avoid an armed conflict. “The president of the U.S. declared in his speech that if this continued action will be inevitable, Saddam Hussein has “display its hostility toward America,” “supports terror," and break its international agreements” (Polk, 2005). President Bush was determined that Saddam Hussein and his government would comply with the United Nations resolutions otherwise, He would take care of the matter. Finally when he addressed the American community he reinforced that his administration was going to work with the coalition of the U. N to ensure that Iraq would not produce harmful material and conclude that if some other country support Iraq in the building, manufacturing or financial support would pay the consequences of their actions. According to Jacobson and Colon (2008) the President stated, “I will not delay on events while risks increase. I will not stand by as danger draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive

In the days surrounding president George W. Bush’s address to the United Nations regarding the political climate in Iraq, Washington had become a whirlpool of two different approaches: unilateralism and multilateralism. After an attempt to appeal to both sides in Washington with his initial address to the UN, George Bush’s action of waging an arguably unjustified war against Iraq without assistance from the United Nations can ultimately be explained using realist theory.

The United States sought to convey their commitment to toppling Saddam through many avenues. President Bush created severe audience costs for himself. By denouncing Iraq on the world stage and committing to certain demands, Bush effectively tied his hands and backing down would have been politically costly for him (FLS 2016, 115). Bush also used crisis bargaining, defined by Frieden, Lake, and Schultz as threatening the use of force if demands are not met, and coercive diplomacy, defined Frieden, Lake, and Schultz as using threats to influence

Secondly, through the research shows that United States in order to take the military sanctions to against Iraq, Washington 's own one-side to take-no-fly zones in the northern and the southern of Iraq. At the same time, the research states that after the first Gulf War, the President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton signed an agreement which is a legally effective power of attorney in order to overthrow and dismantle Saddam Hussein 's regime and preventing Saddam 's military coup. Not only does it prevent Saddam 's military coup, but also it can take effective means for the Iraqi military.

Britain and America claim to have gone to war with Iraq as they believed they held weapons of mass destruction and also because they wanted to rid the country of it’s “evil dictator” (who was in power for over twenty years before these two leaders decided to do anything about it). However, during Iraq’s war with Iran during 1980-1988, we gave this “evil dictator” weapons to use and when Iraq used chemical weapons in 1988 against their own people, no one opposed it. Britain and America also claimed that Iraq had broken several resolutions set by the UN (as have many other countries all over the world). However, by invading Iraq, Britain and America defied the UN and International Law themselves, as they went to war without the backing of the UN.

SOCIALLY, following the war with Iran in 1988, Iraq was ranked 50 in the 1990 UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national success in education, GDP, and health. Iraq was nearing the top of the middle range of countries in regard to the implementation of basic social services and infrastructure. However, under Saddam’s rule, the prosecution of Shiites and Kuwaitis was a normal occurrence. Called by some a genocide, the period of murder, terror, and persecution faced by these groups was the foundation for a long-lasting unrest within the hearts and minds of Iraqi citizens. The rest of the Iraqi citizens, however, lived normal, comfortable lives. In the late 20th century, many traveled from afar to utilize and learn from Iraq’s intricate network of hospitals and social centers regarded as the best in the region. (CIA 2) However, constant war drained Iraq’s wealth and decimated its people. In the Iraq-Iran War, Saddam Hussein unwillingly forced Iraq into a disastrous attempt to overthrow the Islamist government in Iran. When the dust settled, over 200,000 Iraqis were dead, and more than twice this number were wounded. Iraq’s increasing debt, nearing about 75 Billion, soon had the Arab

While the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980's may have permanently altered the course of progress in Iran and Iraq, the war also altered the resulting permanent involvement of the rest of the world in the middle-east. The rich and complicated history in Iraq has established numerous cultural and ethnic traditions that all play a part in where the country is today. The Iran-Iraq War brought into focus some of those traditions and how they conflicted, while also bringing Iraq and its economic situation into the spotlight. Being on top of some of the most mineral rich soil in the world makes Iraq a major contributor to the world's economy through petroleum and crude oil exports. This, among other reasons, ties nations

Thus, in this context of a unipolar system dominated by U.S., it is highly unlikely that a great power like U.S., motivated by its relentless pursuit of power and security, would allow itself to be deterred by U.N. resolutions that do not comply with its own interests. This also reflects the realist interpretation of international system which is characterized by anarchy and therefore, it is not considered prudent for a State to entrust its safety and survival on another actor or international institutions such as United Nations.

World leaders often decide that the most obvious alternatives to sanctions are no good – military action would be too strong and diplomatic protests too weak. Sanctions can provide a satisfying dramatic display, but avoid the high costs of war.(Library of Economics) This isn’t to say that sanctions don’t cost a thing, just that they’re often less costly than the alternatives.

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will