At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >> It depends on how you define imminent. Sanctions were in imminent >> danger of being lifted > >If sanctions were in imminent "danger" of being lifted, how did we manage to >start a whole war there? Seems to me that it's a given that we had the >capability to keep the sanctions in place even without international >cooperation, since we managed to go much, much further than just sanctions. > >Isn't this a bit ridiculous as an argument for war or imminent danger? We had >to take extreme measures because the less-extreme measures that *we* had in >place were in "danger" of ending? If we could go to war without U.N. >approval, we sure as heck could keep sanctions in place without U.N. approval. > All this argues for is keeping the sanctions going, to prevent the danger >from Iraq from *becoming* immiment.
I am pretty sure that this is not true. What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral sanctions on Iraq. The UN Security Council did so. During the late 90's and early '00s there was a *serious* movement led by France, China, and Russia in the UNSC to lift sanctions. This led up to Colin Powell proposing "smarter sanctions" at the UNSC in 2001. Moreover, I believe that these sanctions required periodic renewal...... if in fact periodic renewal was required, then France, China, or Russia could have vetoed the extension of the sanctions. At any rate, even if periodic renewal was not required, France, China, or Russia were more than free to unilaterally decide to abrogate the sanctions, and could use their veto on the UNSC to avoid any consequences for this. You may recall an incident in the early part of this century when China was caught violating the sanctions by selling anti-aircraft equipment to Iraq. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
