The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988

In 1988, after Saddam Hussein gassed those Kurds, Liberal Democratic Senator Claborne Pell and Conservative Republican Senator Jesse Helms cosponsored "The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988". To punish Iraq, the act would've embargoed all dual-use technological exports, stop all Export-Import bank credits, ban US imports of Iraqi oil, and mandated US opposition to any loans by the IMF or any other mulilaterial financial institution. In the words of Jesse Helms "This legislation will help demonstrate to the Iraqi regime just how seriously our country views its campaign against the Kurds. In addition, it will help assure that US tax dollars do not subsidize the Iraqis." It passed the Senate in amazing time, unanimously.

The Reagan administration announced its opposition to the act. He was in favour of Diplomacy and acting through the United Nations-- (of all things). Publically, the Reagan administration argured that a pattern was emerging where Saddam Hussein was moderating himself. (It's difficult to see that pattern, but nonetheless)... The bill was considerably weakened in the House,... eventually being a toothless bill that left everything up to the discretion of the president. It died on the final day of the congressional session, as some Republicans and Democrats with agricultural interests in Iraq blocked it.

Dual-use technology trade than rose at a rate more than 50 percent from before Saddam Hussein gassed those Kurds. Considering that the two Realpolitikal geopolitical reasons for treating Saddam Hussein as an ally (the Soviet Union was experiencing perestrokia; Iran had been effectively marginalized in the war), I don't get it... even if you're interested in humanitarianly "helping the Iraqi people" in their faltered economy (and, the phrase that the Reagan administration used, "bringing Iraq into the family of nations"): shouldn't we've stuck to, say, agriculture exports and avoided trading in items that can be used to create weaponry to a man who had a record of atrocities?

Anyway -- a couple years later, Iraq invades Kuwait, leading the US into "The War to make the world safe for Constitutional Monarchy". While the reality of Saddam's crimes are as horrid as the lie of, say "tearing Kuwaiti babies off of incubators", Bush can't fully use it because it implicates the Reagan- Bush administration. Meaning what? I don't really know.

Oh, by the way: Uzbekistan is our friend. Never mind their leader boils people alive... it's... the ... war... on... terror.

http://www.struat.com/justin/historicalreview.html

here in the media forum for anyone who's interested.

Skeletons in the closet.

Bet you haven't read this:

Title: Inverse Engagement: Lessons from US-Iraq Relations, 1982-1990.
Author(s): Borer, Douglas A.
Source: Parameters: US Army War College; Summer2003, Vol. 33
Issue 2, p51, 15p
Document Type: Article
Subject(s): IRAQ -- Foreign relations

nah nah

:-)

Oh, by the way: Uzbekistan is our friend. Never mind their leader boils people alive... it's... the ... war... on... terror.

But Karimov's moderating himself, right?