|
Are embargoes and sanctions ethically acceptable?
The 104th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, held in Jakarta (15-21 October 2000) at the invitation of the Indonesian Parliament, adopted four resolutions, including one on the question "Are embargoes and economic sanctions still ethically acceptable, do they still work, and are they suited to achieving their purpose in an ever more globalised world?". This subject, submitted by the Belgian Parliament, has led, for some time, to a lively debate in the international community. We asked three members of national parliaments to explain their position.
Mrs. Marie-Josée Laloy, member of the Belgian Parliament.
Q: Why did the Belgian Parliament decide to propose that the 104th Inter-Parliamentary Conference take up the question of embargoes and sanctions?
M.-J. L.: Considerations of a humanitarian nature were the primary factor behind the Belgian initiative. Some UN sanctions systems have had such a negative impact on the population of the countries concerned, without achieving their goal of bringing these countries to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, that there are serious doubts as to the effectiveness of sanctions and their acceptability from an ethical point of view. This was the debate that the Belgian Group wished to launch when it proposed the question of embargoes and economic sanctions as a supplementary item for the Jakarta Conference.
In so doing, our Group did not intend to challenge the principle of the use of sanctions by the Security Council - that would be irresponsible, given that Article 41 of the UN Charter makes specific provision for sanctions. On the contrary, it was seeking to remove the negative aspects of these sanctions, which jeopardise the universality needed for UN action. The aim is more particularly to reconcile the legitimate security interests of the international community with respect for the inalienable economic, social and cultural rights of the population in countries targeted by sanctions.
The Belgian Group also wished to raise the issue of economic sanctions implemented by States or groups of States in connection with their foreign policy, as such sanctions pose specific problems.
Q: What are the salient points of the resolution adopted in Jakarta?
M.-J. L.: The most significant feature of the resolution - apart from the fact that it exists at all and has enabled the IPU to take a stand on a difficult topical issue that is also of concern to the United Nations and many countries - is that it sets out a great many concrete criteria which UN sanctions systems must meet, particularly with regard to design and follow-up, to be acceptable and to avoid much of the criticism levelled at them.
Another important point is that the resolution distinguishes clearly between sanctions imposed by the Security Council and those used by a single country or group of countries. With regard to the latter category, the resolution clarifies a number of points, for example, the fact that such sanctions are not necessarily illegitimate (which one tends to forget because of indignation at unilateral sanctions such as the US embargo of Cuba), while taking a stand against extraterritorial measures, which are incompatible with the UN Charter or have unacceptable humanitarian consequences.
The problem of humanitarian repercussions is common to all types of sanctions, whether they are imposed by the United Nations or by States. The resolution calls for the codification, within the framework of a binding international convention, of humanitarian norms to be respected when applying economic sanctions. Over the longer term, this is the best means of resolving the moral dilemmas that inevitably arise with the application of sanctions. It is paradoxical indeed that there is a body of international humanitarian law for which covers armed conflict but nothing for sanctions - another type of coercive measure.
Of course, the most striking feature of the resolution is its appeal for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. However, the Belgian Group was not in agreement with this point, as worded in the resolution, because it called for the unconditional lifting of sanctions and in particular without imposing any obligation on the country targeted. Although the Security Council has an obligation to take the necessary steps to ensure that the sanctions it imposes are acceptable, particularly from a humanitarian point of view, the lifting of a sanctions system must also depend on the attitude of the country singled out. One must not forget that it is the country which refuses to comply with Security Council decisions that bears primary responsibility for the imposition of sanctions by that body. This aspect is not taken up in the resolution - it merely speaks of the need for the United Nations to take precautions - which is why the draft resolution submitted by the Belgian Group limited itself to asking the Security Council to assess sanctions systems currently in force in the light of these requirements.
Q: The resolution was approved by a broad majority but was not adopted unanimously. How do you explain this?
M.-J. L.: It is precisely the point I mentioned earlier - the appeal for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq - which divided the Conference. The separate vote on this point showed that it was unacceptable for a great many delegations. For some of them, the adoption of that particular point was reason enough to reject the entire resolution, despite its many positive points on which everyone appeared to agree.
Q: How will the resolution be followed up?
M.-J. L.: Our Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken an interest in the Belgian initiative and in the texts debated in Jakarta. Moreover, in September 2000, the Belgian Foreign Affairs Minister devoted part of his speech before the UN General Assembly to the question of economic sanctions. Upon my return from Jakarta, I tabled a draft resolution on the matter in the Senate, which basically followed the draft resolution proposed by Belgium. In the House of Representatives, the External Relations Committee - a body chaired by Mr Geert Versnick, a member of IPU's Executive Committee - also decided to debate the question. It therefore seems likely that, in coming months and further to the debate which took place in the IPU, both houses of the Belgian Federal Parliament will take a stand on the question and the Government will also express its views on the same occasion.
Mr. Julian McGauran, Senator, Australia
Q: Are embargos and sanctions still ethically acceptable, do they still work, and are they suited to achieving their purpose in an ever more globalised world ?
J. McG.: Yes. Sanctions bring accountability, as the South African speaker confirmed. They need to be smart sanctions and the timely necessary, along with all countries adhering - no sanction runners. Of course, sanctions and embargoes can have serious consequences for States. But I have never known them to be lightly entered into by the international community. They always follow a response to serious violations of human rights, including the unconstitutional overthrow of governments. For what is the alternative ? Use of force is rarely an option. Indeed, sanctions often prevent worse action such as the threat of force, indeed war. Sanctions and embargoes are the acceptable and often the only way for the international community to bring pressure to bear on a army. They may hurt political leaders. They are meant to.
Q: Embargoes and sanctions mainly affect vulnerable people. Are they still ethically acceptable when the leaders targeted by this measure are still in power?
J. McG: Firstly, yes, the effect of sanctions is often designed to hurt the whole country and its standard of living, so as to put extra pressure upon the regime, to change its offending ways, or face strong rejection from their own people, who are suffering. Concerns and claims have been expressed about the detrimental effects UN sanctions are having on civilians in certain countries. I share the view that there is a need to monitor the humanitarian impact of sanctions, their impact on third parties, and the overall effectiveness of particular measures in changing the behaviour of States. But the alleviation of misery and suffering is often within the power of the regimes concerned.
Secondly, sanctions are designed to target the offending regime but not directly the people, though there is undoubtedly a cascading effect on the economy of the country, as mentioned above. Sanctions have never been designed to propel the ordinary citizen into life-threatening situations, as the Iraq regime would have us believe. Rather, sanctions are specifically targeted not to cause starvation or illness, as medical supplies and staple foods are not part of any sanctions regimes.
Q: Why did Australia abstain from the vote?
J. McG: We could not accept certain clauses in particular the clause that basically condemned the sanctions upon Iraq and called for their lifting. The resolution favoured a stronger anti-sanction position than Australia could accept.
OPINION:
"South African example of the failure of this stratagem"
Mr Tommy Abrahams MP, South Africa
As an African from South Africa, who spent the prime years of his life enduring one of the most notoriously oppressive regimes in the world, I must draw attention to the fact that economic sanctions are not necessarily effective in dealing with illegitimate and corrupt governments. South Africa - before, during and after the application of economic sanctions - is a glowing example of the failure of this stratagem.
Timing of application
If economic sanctions and embargoes are intended to successfully promote democracy, they must be applied in a timely fashion. In the case of South Africa, the world first chose to ignore the institution of apartheid and traded profitably with the reprehensible engineers of this deplorable system of government. This was followed by a long period in which technocrats consolidated apartheid in South Africa. The victims of apartheid had to be satisfied with hot air emanating from world summits and conferences like the one we attended in Jakarta. Meanwhile, trade continued and investment in South Africa was maintained. This emboldened the oppression and simultaneously made life hell on earth for the poor and, worse, the poorest of the poor.
Concerted action
Sanctions tend to cause long-lasting damage to a country if its government is really able to defy them and to find allies. Economic sanctions and embargoes against South Africa were applied by countries on the basis of their own levels of greed and self-interest. The more committed and selfless countries like the Netherlands and Sweden moved in early while others stalled in acting against the South African government by inventing policies like "constructive engagement". The rule of the apartheid-mongers was extended because they continued to find willing international partners.
The dilemma arose that sanctions could not be applied against the government of apartheid South Africa without adversely affecting the lives of the persecuted people of the country. Further compounding the issue is the fact that democracy does not allow for any country to be compelled to apply sanctions. The ones is on individual governments to declare that they did not view sanctions against South Africa as a profit opportunity and that they did regard apartheid as a crime against humanity.
Reconstruction
Economic sanctions and embargoes have a devastating effect on the economy of a country and this effect is long-lasting. Material support subsequently becomes critically necessary. The miraculous changes that culminated in the holding of the first-ever democratic elections in South Africa in 1994 (and again in 1999) ushered in the challenges of political, economic and social reconstruction. While moral support flooded in from every part of the globe, it is becoming clear to South Africa which countries are truly committed to the uplifting of the oppressed, the battle against poverty and to securing a brighter future for all via judicious investment programmes and education.
Developed countries which helped bring about the demise of the apartheid system by applying sanctions have yet to learn that that system drained the country's resources and that the new democracy, which concerns itself with the needs of the total population, demands material support....The people of South Africa are well rid of an apartheid government, but it will suffer the devastating effects of economic sanctions and embargoes for a very long time yet.
|
| |
Committee on Middle East Questions:
the priorities of the President
At the 104th Conference in Jakarta, the IPU Committee on Middle East Questions (composed of six MPs from different regions) elected its new President, French MP Yves Tavernier. Interview.
Q: Did the absence of the Israeli delegation have an impact on the work of the Middle East Committee at the 104th Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Jakarta?
Y.T.: Naturally it affected our work insofar as the role of the Committee is to hear both parties, if possible together, so as to facilitate dialogue between them. Our aim is to try and take stock of the situation and endeavour, as far as possible, to identify future prospects in connection with the peace process. The fact that the Israelis were not in Jakarta naturally limited our chances of dialogue. Nevertheless, we heard the Palestinian representatives, who gave us their points of view. At the close of the Committee's meeting, we decided to propose to the IPU Executive Committee and to Council President Najma Heptulla that the Inter-Parliamentary Union explore possibilities for a resumption of dialogue between the two parties at the parliamentary level. Meetings between Heads of State are a good thing, but it is also useful for parliaments, which represent the peoples, to have a say in the debate.
Q: Why exactly?
Y.T.: Dialogue is sometimes easier between parliaments because the same constraints do not apply. We are therefore proposing that the IPU's governing bodies arrange for representatives of the Knesset and representatives of Palestinian parliamentary institutions to meet with the members of IPU's Middle East Committee under the Union's auspices. This meeting could take place in Geneva or Paris, and we would be glad to organise it.
Q: Is this a priority for you?
Y.T.: Yes, because the IPU's role is to promote rapprochement and dialogue. IPU Conferences are one of the few places where Palestinian and Israeli representatives meet face to face and engage in dialogue, on a parliamentary level naturally. We play a useful role in this respect. And given the particularly difficult situation at present, an initiative along these lines can only be a very positive step.
IInd Committee on Parliamentary, Judicial and Human Rights Questions: the objectives of the President
The Jakarta Conference also elected Mrs Beth Mugo, Kenya MP, President of the IInd Committee on parliamentary, Juridical, and Human Rights Questions. Interview.
Q: You were elected President of the IInd Committee on Parliamentary, Juridical, and Human Rights questions at the Jakarta Conference. What are your objectives ?
B.M.: The agenda of the IPU Committees is normally set by the Council of the IPU (governing body). During my tenure as President of the IInd Committee, I would like to see addressed, as a matter of urgency, the issues of good governance, zero tolerance to corruption, transparency and accountability in government. Indeed, corruption and insufficient accountability have been identified as the major causes of strife in many countries and therefore need to be addressed exhaustively.
During the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in 1993, women became part of visible humanity. It was at this Conference that the international community became aware that the universality of human rights was compromised due to the violation of women's human rights. The IInd Committee should therefore promote respect for women's rights as human rights.
The Committee should also address the question of the violation of the human rights of refugees and encourage their repatriation, fair treatment and resettlement.
Q: You will also chair the Committee to Promote Respect for International Humanitarian Law. What can you do concretely in that respect ?
B.M.: The world is full of internal and international conflicts. These take the form of both military coups, as was recently experienced in Sierra Leone and Cote d'Ivoire in Africa and racial or religious disharmony. During such times, international humanitarian law is grossly violated. People are tortured, maimed, beaten and raped. Prisoners of war are used as human shields and infrastructure is destroyed for strategic military interests. As a result, civilians are exposed to enormous suffering. Children and women are particularly vulnerable.
In this connection, the Committee should look afresh at ways of safeguarding the human rights of the people affected. The Committee, in collaboration with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), has published a Handbook on respect for international humanitarian law. The Handbook has already been translated into several languages. I would like to encourage national Parliaments and other donors to translate the Handbook into as many languages as possible for wider dissemination.
The Committee should seek to build strategic partnerships with media organisations to help in disseminating information contained in the handbook. We should also encourage the participation of the military and other security forces when launching the Handbook and also follow this up with workshops on international humanitarian law. This is in recognition of the fact that it is the military that is mostly involved in the event of armed conflicts, whether of a national or an international nature. The aim of this will be to raise awareness among the military of the various instruments governing international humanitarian law during their operations.
The Committee should also encourage civic education of the general public on their human rights in times of armed conflicts. It should mobilise parliamentarians to prevail upon their governments to accelerate ratification of and adherence to such conventions as the Convention on weapons with excessively injurious or indiscriminate effects. Some of these weapons include : Antipersonnel mines, incendiary weapons and blinding laser weapons.
The Committee should encourage the IPU to organise regional workshops and seminars on promotion of respect for international humanitarian law to ensure that the information reaches the broadest possible audience.
|
|
