But there was no lifting of the embargo after the Allied victory. Instead a regime of sanctions coupled with weapons inspections was set up to ensure the complete destruction of Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programmes, with the aim of preventing the possibility of a future invasion. The motivation for continuing the embargo was therefore twofold: first, to put pressure on the Iraqi government to co-operate with the UN's team of weapons inspectors (UNSCOM), second, to prevent Saddam Hussein from importing the equipment to build new weapons.
UNSCOM went about its mandate of monitoring the destruction of the Iraq's weapons facilities from 1991 until 1998 when the inspection team was recalled from Iraq prior to the US bombing of December 1998. Since then Iraq has refused to allow the return of inspectors.
Whilst UNSCOM was active in Iraq the Western press pounced on reports of the Iraq's non co-operation, especially refusals to allow the UN team into Iraq's palaces (regarded by Iraqis as symbols of their sovereignty). But former weapons inspector Raymond Zilinskas insisted that '95% of [Unscom's] work proceed[ed] unhindered.' (See 'Weapons Inspections' for a more detailed account of Iraq's relationship with the UN monitors.)
In December 1999 a UN resolution created a new inspection team, UNMOVIC, designed to be independent of Washington's influence. But Iraq has yet to be reassured that UNMOVIC is anything more than the old inspections body under a new name. For the foreseeable future the UN monitoring mission is dead, irrespective of the status of the embargo.
So much for sanctions as a tool for forcing Iraq to comply with inspections?
As for the effectiveness of the blockade in preventing Saddam Hussein from importing materials for producing new weapons of mass destruction, crippling Iraq economically may have achieved this aim but only at the unacceptable cost of the well-being of the Iraqi people and their country, (See ' Impact of Sanctions' for more details.) This is too high a price to pay, whatever Madelaine Albright may say.
What was the motivation for prolonging the blockade?
While the UN resolution that served as the initial basis for sanctions stated that the blockade should be lifted once Iraq complied with weapons inspections, the US has since explicitly stated that it no longer sees the eradication of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the primary target of sanctions. Madelaine Albright has said 'we do not agree that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.' In 1997 The New York Times quoted Clinton as saying 'Sanctions will be there until the end of time or as long as he [Hussein] lasts.'
But Saddam Hussein, his friends and cronies have not been hurt by sanctions. They have managed to safeguard their privileged lifestyle with the profits of smuggling. And with the mood of the country infected by anti-US feeling, Saddam Hussein's position in power has only been strengthened. While the West has criticised Saddam Hussein for restricting the political and civil rights of the Iraqi people, the embargo has removed their economic and social rights.
Moreover, the US actions after the Gulf War belie their claim to want to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. In January 1991, with the defeat of the Iraqi army in Kuwait, the Americans had the opportunity to press onto Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein from power, but stopped short under orders from Washington.
Two weeks later the Shia'a in the south responded to George Bush's call that they should rise up against Saddam Hussein. The rebels soon controlled much of the area around the city of Najaf and would have taken the south if they had not been stopped by the American military who prevented them from taking arms and ammunition from captured army depots and refused them oil for their tanks. 30,000 Iraqis were killed by Saddam's Republican Guard who were allowed to escape encirclement by General Schwarzkopf's troops. American planes flew overhead as Saddam Hussein's army poured paraffin on escaping refugees and then set them alight.
A rebel brigadier reported 'We had the message that the Americans would support us. But I saw with my own eyes the American planes fly over [the regime's] helicopters. They were taking pictures. They knew what was happening.' At the same time Washington refused to support Iraqi opposition groups and Kurdish claims for independence.
The reality is that Kurdish or Shia'a independence in north and south Iraq would have create massive political instability in the region, especially amongst the large Kurdish populations in the neighbouring countries of Syria, Iran, Jordan and Turkey.
On the other hand, with Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq the west (led by the US) has a rationale to keep a tight economic straight-jacket on the country. The Americans can explain away their large military presence in the Gulf, maintaining their no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. And most importantly of all Iraq's oil output can be kept under western control. | 
