To: Lane3 who wrote (98822 ) 2/5/2005 8:25:23 PM From: KLP Read Replies (1) | Respond to Maybe the WaPo Editorial was pointing the finger at the Clinton Adm....as well as all of the other governments in control in the 1990's.........The question now is what, if anything, these findings say about the United Nations itself. Congressional critics who see something unique or unusual in this report of U.N. corruption should look harder at the behavior of American, British and other companies in Iraq during that period: The vast majority of the oil smuggling had nothing to do with the United Nations and everything to do with the Western companies and governments that were benefiting, one way or another, from the Iraqi sanctions. ... globalpolicy.org The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament and other goals. The sanctions remained in place thereafter, despite a harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and an evident lack of pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued. The US and UK governments always made it clear that they would block any lifting or serious reforming of sanctions as long as Hussein remained in power. After more than twelve years of sanctions had passed, the US and the UK made war on Iraq again in March, 2003, sweeping away Hussein's government. Soon after, Washington called for and obtained the lifting of sanctions, a step that gave the US occupation authority full control over Iraq's oil sales and oil industry. This section covers a wide range of sanction issues, including the humanitarian impact, the Oil-for-Food Programme, criticisms of the sanctions and the debate that took place about their termination.
