POLITICS: UN Sanctions Under Fire Once Again

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 5 2000 (IPS) - Ambassador Anwarul Karim Chowdhury of Bangladesh was waiting in line at an airport in Paris recently when he saw an unusual sign hanging over the immigration counter.

On one side was the customary sign: “European Union (EU) passport holders only”. But on the other side was a more intriguing sign which read: “All others – and Austria.”

As Chowdhury would recall the incident last week, a visibly angry Austrian standing behind him was heard muttering: “Where do they think we are from? The Third World?”

The Austrian, of course, was furious at the French who were one of the most vigorous supporters of the short-lived EU sanctions against Austria – and also enforcing it with a vengeance.

The remark also reinforced the fact that most sanctions, primarily by the UN Security Council, have been directed at Third World nations – including Libya, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti and Liberia.

The seven-month-old sanctions on Austria, which were lifted in early September, were imposed by the 15-member EU to punish the Austrian government for having as its coalition partner the right-wing Freedom Party led by the controversial Jorg Haider.

Haider was accused of publicly advocating neo-Nazi racist policies: a non-no in Western Europe, or for that matter even in the United States.

Austria was one of the few – or perhaps the only – Western industrial nation in recent times to have suffered an embargo, even though the sanctions were mild, shortlived and never life-threatening. They were mostly an attempt to isolate Austria politically.

Addressing the General Assembly early this week, Rafael Dausa Cespedes of Cuba said that during the last decade, the Security Council had frequently, and increasingly, used sanctions to punish countries, mostly involved in conflicts.

But their use, he argued, did not correspond either with the elimination or even the reduction of conflicts. “Sanctions should be an extreme recourse, not a punitive one.”

The Security Council, where developing countries were underrepresented, was imposing most of its sanctions on Third World nations, he added. Nearly 70 percent of the sanctions were against African nations.

Ambassador Hasmy Agam of Malaysia told the Assembly that sanctions remained a legitimate and legal instrument to coerce states to conform to internationally accepted standards of inter-state conduct.

Unfortunately, he pointed out, they often exerted a heavy toll on the populace, as graphically illustrated by the continuing grave humanitarian situation in Iraq which has been suffering the consequences of a 10-year-old UN embargo.

The Malaysian envoy said he was encouraged by current efforts to move in the direction of more focused and targeted sanctions. Sanctions of the future should have specific objectives, be clearly targeted and have specified time frames.

They should be lifted as soon as they had served their purpose or were no longer pertinent to the situation – as should have been done in respect of the sanctions imposed on Libya and Sudan, he added.

As an increasingly large number of countries, including Russia, France and China, criticise the use of sanctions for punishing countries, the Czech Republic has proposed the creation of special UN Panel to make a comprehensive study on UN sanctions and its impact on innocent people.

Addressing the Assembly this week, Ambassador Sergei Ling of Belarus said his government has expressed serious doubts about the effectiveness of sanctions.

Third World countries appeared to suffer the most from sanctions, he said. Since the impact of sanctions have also been severe on third-party countries, Belarus was an unintended victim. Belarus, he said, supported the proposal for an in-depth study of sanctions and their negative consequences.

Until now, the longest – and the most severe – embargo has been on Iraq. The sanctions were imposed following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. But the impact of the sanctions have been on the people, not on the leaders who were the primary targets.

The five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council – namely the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia – who can formally initiate or end embargoes, remain divided over Iraq.

France, China and Russia want sanctions lifted. But it cannot force the issue in the Security Council because the United States and Britain have threatened to veto it.

Both the United States and Britain feel that Iraq should continue to be punished until either President Saddam Hussein is ousted from power (which is not part of any UN resolution on sanctions) or all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological and chemical) weapons are destroyed.