Iraq and the UN

Given the recent topics in class, I thought that it would be appropriate to look at the involvement of Iraq within the United Nations. To be honest, when I first thought about whether Iraq was a member of the United Nations, I could not say for certain that they were or were not. With all the attention being drawn to the things Iraq has done in spite of the UN, it was hard to imagine they were still active members. But they are...Iraq is one of 192 current members, and were part of the first group of states to be recognized as members of the United Nations. It seems that for the most part, Iraq as a state spent much of its first 50 years as a member in compliance of UN standards. When Saddam took over control of Iraq, the conflict between the UN and Iraq began.

In 1990, the United Nations imposed sanctions against Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. These sanctions restricted Iraq’s ability to trade and generate economic activity. Even after the military involvement and removal of Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, the United Nations did not remove the sanctions. Specifically, the US, Britain, and France made it clear that they would veto any request for these sanctions to be lifted while Saddam was still in power. There are critics that suggest the sanctions on Iraq had human rights issues as the sanctions were felt throughout the nation by innocent civilians.
The sanctions remained through the 90’s and until after 2003...when the US invaded Iraq they were dropped. Once Saddam was overthrown and the US had control of the territory, the sanctions were removed to capitalize and free up the oil industry in the area.
An argument that might be heard from time to time is what the true power of the United Nations is, or does this organization truly make a difference? I think looking at this case, an argument could be made either way. While the UN Charter provides multiple states the platform to use soft power, it also can draw out an inevitable conclusion. In the case of Saddam, it seems no matter what sanctions or soft power or diplomacy was used, it would not be a factor in the end. A realist might argue that the UN can get in its own way…with these rules and norms the option to use force is not as easily accessible. A liberal perspective would argue that the UN is ideal, citing situations where diplomacy was successful and further conflict avoided. I think an identity perspective would also support the UN as it often uses its power in cases of human rights issues.
It will be interesting to see how the dealings between Iraq and the UN affect future issues…potentially w/ Iran, North Korea, or even China.