On July 3rd, the United Nations Security Council postponed a critical vote that could end or prolong the suffering of millions of Iraqi people for years to come.
Instead, the five permanent members of the Security Council delayed making a decision on sanctions against Iraq for another five months.
Five months in the context of the lifespan of the sanctions - now in place for almost 11 years - may seem like a short time but, when measured in terms of human lives, it is terrifying.
UNICEF estimates that about 4,500 children die each month as a result of the blanket embargo on Iraq. Multiply that by five and you have 22,500 children who will not be alive in December, 2001, to learn of the decisions made by the UN concerning the fate of their nation.
Anti-sanctions campaigners were stunned to learn last May that the two strongest proponents of the embargo had tabled a revision of the sanctions plan that would remove all possibility for accusations that the sanctions were harming Iraqi civilians. The UK and the US, who have repeatedly used their veto to prevent previous proposals for the termination of sanctions, appeared to have publicly accepted the failure of the sanctions.
Almost since their inception in 1990, the embargo against Iraq proved useless in its attempts to undermine Saddam Hussein. Instead, the sanctions were having an horrific and inexcusable impact on the social and economic welfare of the civilian population.
It is impossible to tell how many people have died since their imposition but estimates, backed up by UNICEF and other organisations, indicate that at least 1.5 million people, mostly children, have died as a result of the damage caused to a previously well-developed and functioning society.
Now, according to the UK the revised proposal would "nail the false charge" that sanctions, and not Saddam Hussein, were to blame for the suffering of the Iraqi people.
Regrettably, the analysis of the proposed revision shows it is merely window dressing to divert criticism as both the US and UK governments have come under increasing pressure to abandon the sanctions and to initiate a new relationship between the international community and Iraq.
The draft resolution tabled by the UK in May and redrafted in June proposes to lift trade restrictions on civilian goods, tighten controls on arms-related products, and clamp down on oil smuggling. These so-called "smart" sanctions should, according to the UK and US, be adequate to end any harmful side effects of the current embargo.
However, the draft resolution continues to prevent the government of Iraq from having access to any cash income generated by the sale of oil. There is only limited room for civilian investment in the country, an issue that critics of the resolution feel strongly about - the Irish Government included. After 11 years of isolation, the country requires massive investment from government, private, and international sources to rebuild the country's health, education and economic infrastructure.
Furthermore, purchases of items for civilian use and humanitarian relief will continue to be reviewed by third party committees and can be subsequently blocked or delayed by them. The draft resolution still contains a list of dual-use items - goods that will be restricted because of their potential military use. This is one of the most controversial elements of the current sanctions package. The Iraqi government has complained that the "dual use" clause has prevented millions of pounds worth of essential goods reaching Iraq.
The revised list runs to 150 pages and reportedly is not much more than a restructuring of that which is currently in use. Perhaps one of the biggest failings of the proposed revision and an indicator of the lack of commitment to finding a real solution to the issue is the almost compete lack of consultation with Iraq's neighbouring states or the Iraqi opposition living in exile.
Meanwhile, an alternative option has been tabled by Russia.
While this country's motivations for supporting a revision can be questioned - Russia is currently the largest purchaser of Iraqi oil and stands to gain economically from the restoration of normal trade relations - the essence of their proposal closely parallels what is being promoted by the humanitarian community.
The Russian proposal is considerably more specific in its requirements. It is time-bound and linked to defined criteria that must be met by the Iraqi government. It calls for strict weapons monitoring but crucially, it entertains the possibility of the ultimate total suspension of sanctions, something not addressed in any UK/ US documents.
Trocaire has called on the Government and the international community to pressure the UN Security Council to make real efforts to immediately end the humanitarian crisis that has been created in Iraq.
Attempts by the security council to undermine the abusive regime of Saddam Hussein have failed. The wrong people have suffered and this damage must be undone.
What is needed now is serious commitment to re-build the health and well-being of the Iraqi population and its civil society. This cannot be achieved without the immediate suspension of the current economic embargo.
Justin Kilcullen is director of Trocaire