The Sanctions Regime against Iraq (1990-2003): Policymaking and Values

Abstract

From 1990 to 2003, US/UK policymakers insisted that the UN sanctions regime against Iraq was worth the cost, which, by 1999, amounted to half a million child deaths in Iraq. US policymakers emphasized that the ends (saving the world from Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program) justified the means (the adverse humanitarian consequences of the dismantling of Iraq’s economy). The draconian blockade was especially disastrous for the women and children of Iraq. This paper explores the ethical dimensions of the sanctions while presenting an unorthodox view of foreign policy administration and generating new ideas for improving it. I argue that pro-sanctions policy managers had to defend a “Sophie’s Choice:” killing children to save other children. I argue that this was a false dichotomy operating in the US policy towards Iraq since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and that it served as a cover-up for a hidden agenda related to US hegemony in the Middle East region.T1 Interviews in 1999 with three pro-sanctions diplomats reveal the personal moral dilemma of defending a policy of infanticide while appearing virtuous in doing so. I suggest an alternative paradigm and a number of strategies that would ask policymakers whether they speaking truth to power.