Do the UN sanctions reach their goal?

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.