The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Comment on sanctions from Center for Economic and Social Rights



Forwarded by Vicki Andrada http://my.voyager.net/andrada/ (web page with
numerous sanctions links). The essay is on a familiar theme but it is
always useful to know where influential organisations (such as CESR) are
speaking out against sanctions.

********************
ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Excerpts from an essay by Roger Normand, Policy Director, Center for
Economic and Social Rights

There are a number of reasons why economic sanctions have become a
favored
foreign policy tool in the post-Cold War era.  Sanctions provide the US
with a
relatively cost-free mechanism for defining the boundaries of acceptable
international behavior and punishing regimes that, in the American view,
cross
the line.  Sanctions do not require Congressional approval and do not
attract
much public attention, thereby minimizing the government's
accountability to
domestic politics.  And in today's global economy, with most countries
dependent on access to international markets, sanctions have more bite
than
ever before.  This is especially true for comprehensive sanctions, which
isolate a country from all foreign trade and investment.

It is commonly believed that sanctions are a humane alternative to war.
But
this is a misconception.  Both sanctions and war are forms of organized
violence that cause people in the targeted country to suffer and die in
order
to achieve certain political objectives.  Economic violence is a humane
alternative to military violence only if one believes that it is more
humane
to die from hunger than from a bomb.

In fact, there are several reasons why war may sometimes be a humane
alternative to sanctions.  The resort to war generally attracts intense
public scrutiny and a certain level of vocal opposition, and therefore
must
be politically justified at every turn.  Moreover, the pain of war is
usually
felt on both sides of the conflict, even if one country holds the
military
advantage.  In addition, war is limited and regulated by international
law,
albeit imperfectly.  Military attacks are supposed to be directed
against
legitimate targets such as the opposing army or political leaders, and
may
not cause disproportionate civilian casualties.  Carpet bombing an
entire
city in order to kill its leaders or "change their behavior" is a clear
violation of the laws of war, as is causing civilian starvation through
blockade.

Of course, these limiting factors have not gone far towards reducing the
horrors of war.  Yet it is significant that even these weak constraints
are
absent in the case of economic sanctions.  Sanctions are not generally
viewed
as subject to human rights law or even the laws of war.  Sanctions
generate
very little public attention, since soldiers do not risk their lives and
television does not provide instant coverage.  Most importantly, by
depriving
the entire targeted country of resources, comprehensive sanctions take
the
greatest toll on the poorest and weakest sectors of society (minorities,
women, and children) rather than on political or military elites.

Iraq is a case in point.  Eight years of comprehensive sanctions have
not
affected the nature or behavior of the Iraqi regime.  Any temporary
gains in
dismantling weapons of mass destruction (which can always be
reconstituted
later) are dwarfed by the staggering human costs.  Well over half a
million
Iraqi civilians, many of them children, have been killed by hunger and
disease brought on by economic collapse.  A civilian death toll of this
magnitude during the US-led war against Iraq in 1991 would have provoked
public revulsion and been denounced as a violation of international law.
But
what would have been unacceptable in war has passed almost without
notice
because economic violence kills people quietly, in homes and hospitals,
beyond the glare of television cameras.

As with Iraq, sanctions are almost always imposed by strong countries
against
weaker countries without reference to objective legal criteria or
standards.
This has resulted in the selective use of sanctions: occupation by Iraq
triggers sanctions but not by Israel; human rights violations in the
Sudan
trigger sanctions but not in Nigeria.

No one wants to sit idly by as people's human rights are violated and
their
lands occupied.  But before unleashing a potential weapon of mass
destruction
like economic sanctions, it makes sense to develop a consistent legal
and
moral basis for their application.  Otherwise the cure may be worse than
the
disease.

There are two main options for bringing sanctions within the rule of
international law.  Business interests favor the international law of
free
trade, which protects the rights of corporations and investors to seek
the
most profitable home for their capital without restrictions or
regulations.
While certain companies may benefit from certain sanctions regimes, the
overall trend of US business has been to attack sanctions as a restraint
on
free trade and investment based on treaties like GATT and NAFTA or
enforcement bodies like the WTO.

For those who prefer an international law grounded in human values
rather
than the almighty dollar, there is the human rights regime.  Binding
international treaties and declarations over the past 50 years have
recognized a set of universal human rights standards  aimed at
protecting all
individuals in all nations.  Even the Security Council is obligated to
respect human rights under the Charter of the United Nations.  But it is
important to invoke the full vision set forth in the Universal
Declaration of
Human Rights, which recognizes the centrality of economic and social
rights
(e.g. health, food, housing, work) to the inherent dignity of every
person.

A human rights approach to sanctions has immediate implications.  First,
any
imposition of sanctions should be justified on human rights grounds and
should comply with human rights standards.  Second, sanctions must be
carefully tailored to impact the offending regime through targeted tools
such
as financial and diplomatic sanctions, arms embargoes, and sanctions on
communications and technology.  Such sanctions should be carefully
monitored
to ensure that the rights of the population are protected.  Third,
comprehensive trade sanctions should be presumed illegal given the
inevitable
human rights violations that result from punishing an entire people for
the
sins of their leaders.  Fourth, and most important, under no
circumstances
should sanctions be imposed by outside powers without clear support from
the
affected population.

This last point is based on the centrality of popular participation in
the
promotion and protection of all human rights.  It is proper to
distinguish
between sanctions against South Africa or Haiti, which enjoyed strong
internal popular support in both countries as a tool against repressive
regimes, and UN sanctions against Iraq or the US embargo against Cuba,
which
have no internal support because they are viewed as an outside
imposition
that causes widespread misery.  Such popular support is essential to
establish a credible moral basis for sanctions and minimize the
possibility
that sanctions will be used by outside powers to further narrow
political
interests at the expense of the general population.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To be removed/added, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk, NOT the
whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]