POLITICS: UN Sanctions Hit People, Not Afghan Leadership

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 23 2000 (IPS) - After a two-month field investigation, the United Nations has concluded that economic sanctions imposed on Afghanistan last year have caused severe hardships on the people – not on the country’s political leaders who were the real targets.

“A significant impact of sanctions is the extent to which ordinary Afghans feel isolated and victimised,” the Office of the UN Co-ordinator for Afghanistan said Tuesday.

In a new report on Afghanistan released here, the United Nations said that “there is a widespread perception, and resultant bitterness, that the UN Security Council has set out to harm an innocent population and not the authorities with which it has a quarrel.”

“The population of Afghanistan is highly vulnerable and has little capacity to cope with any further economic shocks,” the study noted.

The UN Office, which is based in Islamabad, Pakistan, is headed by Eric de Mul, the UN’s Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Afghanistan. The study involved research and interviews with a wide cross- section of people, including aid donors, relief workers, ordinary Afghans and representatives of the Taliban government.

“From any perspective, Afghans face a dire situation,” the report pointed out, “They are war-weary and their resources are depleted from 21 years of armed conflict.”

Afghanistan has not only suffered the consequences of a prolonged military conflict and a fast-spreading drought but also grinding poverty and harsh restrictions imposed on the movement of people, particularly women. These restrictions have been imposed by a rigidly conservative and Islamic Taliban regime.

The sanctions, imposed by the Security Council in November last year, called for a ban on all international flights by the Kabul- based Ariana Airlines, and a freeze on the bank accounts of the Taliban regime.

As a result of the sanctions, the already depressed economy in Afghanistan has taken a turn for the worse.

The humanitarian implications of the freezing of bank accounts have been minimal, the UN report said, but sanctions on the airlines have disrupted the imports of food and medical supplies.

According to the staff of the Indira Gandhi Hospital in Kabul, about 50 percent of medicine and medical equipment used in Kabul’s hospitals were transported by Ariana. The loss of the air link to India has brought to an end the import of medicines that were valued for their low cost and good quality. By contrast, medicines from Pakistan and Iran, which could be transported by land, are more expensive.

The report also said that the ban on Ariana has disrupted the activities of the Afghan Postal Services. This has contributed to the sense of isolation that Afghans feel. In the week before the sanctions, postal officials said they took in 10,000 letters a day from Afghans desperate to send letters to their relatives abroad.

The lack of direct international air links to Afghanistan has also restricted options for aid agencies operating in the country. The health sector has been the most directly affected.

The main supplier of eye care in Afghanistan, the International Assistance Mission’s Nur Eye Hospital, previously purchased all its imported medicines in India and transported them via Ariana. They have been unable to do this since the imposition of sanctions.

The sanctions were imposed in an attempt to persuade the Taliban regime to hand over Osama bin Laden, who is accused by the United States of masterminding the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and military facilities in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996.

The United States, which played a key role in imposing the sanctions, has said that Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi businessman, is living in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban government. But the Taliban has said that unless there is positive proof of Bin Laden’s involvement in the bombings, the United States will not be allowed access to him.

After the imposition of sanctions last year, thousands of Afghans demonstrated against the United Nations in all major Afghan cities. This resulted in the closure of some aid agency offices for several days. Some agencies, including the UN, evacuated their expatriate staff from specific regions.

Eventually, evacuated staff were able to return and resumed relief assistance after receiving security assurances from the Taliban government.

Meanwhile, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has continued to express strong reservations about the effectiveness of existing UN sanctions which are designed primarily to punish political leaders for their erratic behaviour or for defying the international community.

“Just as we recognise the importance of sanctions as a way of compelling compliance with the will of the international community,” he said, “we also recognise that sanctions remain a blunt instrument.”

Annan has made the distinction between “smart” sanctions and “dumb sanctions”, the former impacting on political leaders, and the latter on innocent populations.

Annan said that most UN sanctions, by and large, have hurt large numbers of people who are not their primary targets. “Sanctions need refining if they are to be seen as more than a fig leaf in the future,” he added.

In its 55-year history, the United Nations has imposed sanctions on 13 member states: Afghanistan, Angola, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Libya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa (during the apartheid regime), Southern Rhodesia, Sudan and the former Yugoslavia (a second time after its break-up).

Of these, sanctions have been fully lifted only in the case of Haiti, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and the former Yugoslavia.