Do the UN sanctions reach their goal?

By Hasan Kleib

JAKARTA (JP): The recent crisis between Iraq and the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was resolved through peaceful means after Iraq agreed to allow the inspectors to return to monitor eradication of mass-destruction weapons.

It is interesting to try to understand Iraq's rationale for moving to expel U.S. inspectors in UNSCOM, in defiance of UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. Its official reason was that the American inspectors were spies and acted beyond the UNSCOM's mandates and functions.

An argument could be made that the seven-year-old UN sanctions were the real trigger. This assumption could be derived from the prominence in the deals easing the tension of a commitment by permanent UNSC permanent members to contribute to a rapid lifting of the sanctions.

Iraq's move to confront UNSCOM seems to be a reflection of its frustrations and an attempt to attract more attention of the international community to the acute humanitarian tragedy caused by the sanctions, imposed by UNSC Resolution 661 of Aug. 6, 1990.

Sanctions impact all facets of life. The humanitarian suffering and misery have taken on dramatic proportions. Iraq has been isolated and made to feel it is an international pariah. It has nothing left to be maintained and promoted.

Iraq has made assurances that it has complied with some provisions of the resolutions. But nothing has come Iraq's way as reward, not even partial lifting of sanctions. Periodic reviews of sanctions have always become bogged down over disagreements among UNSC member states on the level of Iraqi compliance. And so the suffering of the Iraqi people continues, forcing Iraq to fight what it calls unjust and improper sanctions.

In the aftermath of the Iraqi standoff, the real issue becomes the efficacy of UN sanctions. Do the sanctions always fulfill their objectives as set out in relevant UNSC resolutions?

The point is how to make sanctions entirely effective, rather than only exerting unintended and undesirable impact on the humanitarian situation in the target country.

Sanctions are a tool of peace enforcement legally allowed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, action with respect to threats to peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Article 41 of the UN Charter permits the UNSC to take measures not involving the use of armed forces to effect its decisions.

These measures, always referred to as sanctions, may include arms embargo, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, interruption of transportation and communications, severance of diplomatic relations and other restrictive measures.

The UNSC has invoked Article 41 to impose sanctions of different types on nine states -- the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Haiti, Sudan, Angola, Somalia, Rwanda and Liberia. It is clear that not all of those sanctions have had significant impact in forcing the target country to comply with the relevant resolutions.

In assuring that sanctions are effective, organized, implemented and globally enforced, at least five fundamental principles should be fulfilled.

* The provision of the relevant resolutions should be fully adhered to by all states, including the target country. The charter has indeed emphasized this requisite. All UN members have recognized that the UNSC has the power to act on their behalf (Article 24), and they agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the UNSC (Article 25).

* The sanctions should be imposed as the penultimate resort, before the very last one, the use of force. All diplomatic and political means must be exhausted first. The implementation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter is exercised only after all pacific settlements under Chapter VI have totally failed.

* The objectives for imposition of specific sanction regimes must always be clearly defined in the relevant UNSC resolutions. The imprecision and mutability will make it difficult for agreement on when the objectives can be considered to have been achieved, and sanctions can be lifted.

The impression that the purpose of imposing sanctions is punishment rather than the modification of political behavior should always be avoided. The goal is not to punish the population of the target country, but to make it physically impossible for the lawbreaking government to continue its internationally illegal, unacceptable activity.

Exceptions should also be explicitly made for humanitarian reasons to prevent undue suffering for the civilians in the target country. Goods for humanitarian, educational and medical purposes should be excluded from any embargo.

* The decision-making process in imposing and lifting sanctions should be done in the same manner. The UNSC should treat the two issues in the most fair and just manner. If the decision of imposing sanctions is determined by nine affirmative votes of UNSC member states, the same should hold for lifting it, partially or comprehensively. A consensus-based decision in lifting it would only create unjust and unfair treatments.

* The UNSC must find ways and means in assisting any state which find itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out those measures (Article 50). The UNSC should also evaluate claims submitted by such states which are suffering collateral damage. The failure to do so will prompt the third party to violate the provisions of UNSC resolutions. The UN has not yet organized an effective system of burden- sharing to provide quick relief to those unintended targets that indirectly suffer hardship resulting from sanctions.

The fact that some of the present sanctions have not yet been effectively and globally enforced reflects that one or more principles above have failed to be executed. Among the most prominent is the absence of clear-cut objectives in imposing sanctions.

In the case of Iraq, the objectives to be achieved are imprecise, giving the chance to interpret them through different perspectives. The degree of compliance for partial or complete lifting of sanctions is also unclear.

The question of UN sanctions should be reviewed to make it effective and in line with the principles of the UN Charter. The ongoing efforts to reform the UNSC might be the best opportunity to revisit the sanction issues.

Member states should not only emphasize the enlargement of UNSC membership and the possession of veto powers, but also the working methods of UNSC in the efficacy of the sanction regimes.

The writer was a member of a delegation to the UN Security Council in 1995-1996. The views expressed in this article are personal.