United Nations Conflict

¶ … 1998 edition of the Christian Century, Todd David Whitmore writes, "The U.S. may move at some point to bomb Iraq, and do so claiming that any shedding of innocent blood is on Hussein's hands. But if it does, it is important that it does so without support from those who live under the cross." Now that Whitmore's prediction has come true and the United States has gone ahead and bombed Iraq, the United Nations conflict over the Iraqi sanctions may be at an end.

However, new conflicts will certainly arise, over the self-determination of the Iraqi people vs. The interest of the paternalistic and hegemonic United States. Whitmore's article focuses on the moral implications of the sanctions. The author discusses the complexity of the conflict as it manifests in the United Nations. On the one hand, Saddam Hussain has perpetrated murder and worse on thousands, indeed millions of Iraqi people, especially the Kurds. Hussain is no saint.

On the other hand, the United States-imposed sanctions have killed an estimated 500,000 people, half of whom are children under five. Whitmore notes that both sides claim moral superiority; the United States declares that to remove the sanctions would be to condone Hussains' actions, but Hussain asserts that the sanctions are a cruel and unjust measure. As with any relationship conflict, both sides have valid points. Whitmore's article proves that cross-cultural relationships are always too intricate and complex to draw simple solutions.

Both sides of the conflict share an equal responsibility to the Iraqi people and both sides are incorrect in assuming they have the moral high ground. In any complex relationship, especially one involving whole nations and the world at large, oversimplification is dangerous. The United Nations conflict over the Iraqi sanctions illustrates the need for mutual.