« "Heart of Darkness": Prescient Masterpiece of World Literature, Or Airy-Fairy Egghead Nonsense Like All Books Everywhere? | Main | Dear Afshari Family: If There's Anything Else We Can Help With, Just Let Us Know! Signed, The US Government »
December 12, 2004
Sanctions Apologists Vs. Math
(This entry posted by Jonathan Schwarz)
If you believe there's anything significantly wrong here, please comment below or write me at tinyrevolution*at*yahoo*com.
Supporters of the sanctions on Iraq will never admit the sanctions should, according to international law, have been lifted years ago. In fact, as I said earlier, they will never even notice this is an issue.
BUT -- they have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to admitting the sanctions had a horrific effect on Iraqis. (By conservative estimate, 350,000 children died.) Fortunately, they have a fallback position. I'll give you one guess what it is.
Well, you guessed right. IT WAS ALL SADDAM'S FAULT. It's amazing the things that are all Saddam's fault. He's probably also responsible for global warming and the cruel cancellation of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Here's a representative sample of this perspective:
Saddam Hussein's regime always had enough resources to provide the Iraqi population with adequate food, medical care, and other necessities -- and this was especially true after the Iraqi regime finally agreed to institute the UN-run oil-for-food program after 1997. It simply chose to divert these resources to other uses...
Theoretically, this could be so. But let's leave the realm of theory and enter reality.
According to the CIA's final WMD report, the Iraqi regime received -- via smuggling, manipulation of the Oil for Food program, etc. -- $10.9 billion in illicit oil revenue from 1990 to 2003. The Senate Governmental Affairs investigations subcommittee calculated it differently, at $21.3 billion.
Let's assume this money provided no benefit to Iraqis generally. Saddam just took the money and ate it. (In fact, this isn't true -- even Saddam constructing monstrous edifices to his own ego would put money in the pockets of any Iraqis doing the monstrous-edifice construction.)
We'll also assume this money would otherwise have been used for the well being of Iraqis. (Again, not so: under properly functioning sanctions, this money would mostly not have gone to Iraq AT ALL.)
Now let's do some calculations, using figures from the CIA World Factbook. These numbers aren't exact for many reasons, but it gives us an idea of the scale of the situation.
AMOUNT STOLEN
CIA: $10.9 billion
Senate: $21.3 billion
YEARS UNDER SANCTIONS (mid-1990 to mid-2003)
13
IRAQ POPULATION
25.4 million
IRAQ PER CAPITA INCOME (2004)
$1,500
$10,900,000,000 divided by 13 divided by 25,400,000 equals:
$33.01 EXTRA PER IRAQI PER YEAR
$21,300,000,000 divided by 13 divided by 25,400,000 equals:
$64.51 EXTRA PER IRAQI PER YEAR
Thus, Iraqi per capita income would have increased by either:
33.01 divided by 1500 equals 2.2 percent; or
64.51 divided by 1500 equals 4.3 percent
So, that's the argument by sanctions apologists. That's the difference between 350,000 children living and dying.
Iraqi per capita income is $1533/1565 = 350,000 children alive, every single one
Iraqi per capita income is $1500 = all 350,000 children dead
You can judge for yourself how likely this is. For my part, I'll just say: thank god we put those sanctions on. If Iraqi income had been much higher, there'd be so many Iraqi children we wouldn't have space on earth to put 'em all.
Posted by jonathan at December 12, 2004 06:28 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.underthesamesun.org/mt-tb.cgi/338
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sanctions Apologists Vs. Math:
» מנגנון לניאגרה from מנגנון לניאגרה
Thank you for your interest in מנגנון לניאגרה. We are sorry to inform you that our website (Thank you for your interest in מנגנון לניאגרה. We are sorry to inform you that our website ([Read More]
Tracked on July 8, 2005 11:42 AM
Comments
"If you look at what actually was made available on a per capita basis for Iraq under the oil-for-food program, in the first year and a half--from 1996 to early 1998--then you will get the sobering figure of $113 per person per year. $113 per person per year--now how can that possibly be adequate?
Now at the same time, even though there was this severely restricted amount available, the UN decided to take out of every dollar of oil permitted at that time--there was still a ceiling--30 cents to go into what is called the UN Compensation Commission." [1]
This quote is from Hans Von Sponeck, who resigned in disgust as head of the oil-for-food-program. I think his numbers suggest you are being too kind.
The UN Compensation Commission diverted funds to Kuwait for "reparartions" (rebuilding oil refineries in many cases). I am always struck by how the diversion of funds to Kuwait was never considered a scandal. Kuwait, not to mention the US and EU countries, should have compensated legitimate victims of the Iraqi invasion. That would have been fair given the way they supported Saddam while he committed his worst crimes.
Here's a quote from the piece by Jeff Weintraub that you cited in your post:
"Over the course of the 1990s, one of the factors that rendered the containment of Saddam Hussein's Iraq increasingly unsustainable was a highly effective propaganda campaign.."
I checked the date on the essay when I read this. I had to verify it was from 2004. The idea that Saddam was a threat that needed to be "contained" was always absurd. By 2004 it becomes downright ludicrous. The "effective propaganda campaign" we should marvel at is the one that produces essays like Weintraub's.
Posted by: Joe Emersberger at December 12, 2004 08:47 PM
Joe,
I definitely AM being too kind, for the reasons you cite and many others. But I just wanted to present the argument of sanctions apologists in the very best light, and show that even then, it's obvious nonsense.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at December 12, 2004 10:25 PM
I hear ya. Really enjoyed your piece about the fall back positions.
Posted by: joe emersberger at December 13, 2004 12:08 AM
The only people sanctions really hurt were ordinary Iraqi citizens and this illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq is now killing many of the survivors of the sanctions and harming untold millions.
Posted by: Lani at December 13, 2004 03:13 AM
I agree with you and have done my share of online ranting about the savagery of the sanctions, but good luck trying to convince most Americans of this. I've had arguments with friends about this and the "It's all Saddam's fault" argumentcomes drooling out of their mouths like saliva from one of Pavlov's dogs. The conditioning we get to believe that our crimes are someone else's fault is just too deep to be shaken by a mere recitation of fact.
Posted by: Donald Johnson at December 13, 2004 03:24 PM
Playing devil's advocate, I'm not sure a "per-capita" argument is really appropriate, since, for example, centrally-directed infrastructure projects could have much more far-reaching effects than individual families having $33 more each, i.e., the rationale for taxation in the first place. Of course, the idiots who make these sort of arguments are probably the same idiots who want to eliminate taxation.
Posted by: saurabh at December 13, 2004 06:00 PM
As Mohandas K. Gandhi said:
"Poverty is the worst form of violence."
Consider the following:
Annual Defense spending:
• $401 billion: U.S. Defense Budget
• $165 billlion: U.S. Defense Contracts.
• $22 billion: Lockheed Martin's DoD contracts.
Figures are from the Pentagon.
Annual Amount Needed to Solve The World's Top Global Issues:
• $19 billion: Eliminate Starvation and Malnutrition
• $21 billion: Provide Shelter
• $30 billion: Retire Developing Nations Debt
• $10 billion: Provide Clean, Safe Water
• $21 billion: Provide Health Care and AIDS Control
• $4 billion: Remove Landmines
• $7 billion: Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
• $5 billion: Refugee Relief
• $5 billion: Eliminate Illiteracy
Figures are from the World Game Institute, based on an annual budget with a 10 - year period needed to achieve complete success.
We currently spend the following:
$1,202 U.S. per capita expenditure on the defense budget.
$33 U.S. per capita expenditures on international aid (dead last among industrial nations).
$2.2 billion:
The cost of one B-2 Bomber.
$1.7 billion:
The annual budget for the World Food Program to assist 77 million starving and malnourished
people in 82 countries.
No single issue is more important to
U.S. domestic and international
objectives than addressing poverty.
2,700:
Number of employees working for the WFP, the largest relief agency in the world.
Funded by 191 nations.
120,000:
Number of employees working for Northrup Grumman, a leading defense contractor primarily
funded by the U.S.
In what can only be described as the most opportune time in history: The United States can
end hunger worldwide and still have by far the most expensive military on earth.
see:
the Borgen Project's site at
http://borgenproject.org/
and at
http://proji.org/
Posted by: Lani at December 14, 2004 04:29 AM
it's one of those things that leaves you wondering what is there to say...
Posted by: zeynep at December 16, 2004 11:54 AM
Total Oil-For-Food "scandal" (and, have you seen any proof? one shred?) couldn't have amounted to more than 1 billion.
The main source for the figure is a US Energy Information Agency (post-Bush election) study that estimates Iraqi production, estimates Iraqi consumption, subtracts out OFF contracts, subtracts out known Jordanian sales, subtracts out estimated Syrian pipeline sales, and comes to the conclusion that every single remaining drop was sold under the table.
It's a fucking lie.
It's going to take an intelligent President years to undupe the Americans.
Posted by: Josh Narins at December 24, 2004 03:02 PM