WEAPONS OF MASS SUFFERING, DEATH
US sanctions have caused pain in North Korea, Cuba and Iran
NORTH Korea lost more than 500,000 people to hunger in the last 20 years. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, food supply fell drastically and severe malnutrition followed, especially when UN and unilateral sanctions were ramped up following Pyongyang’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003.
The United States embargo on arms imports into Cuba in 1958 was extended to all imports in 1962. Cuba ceased to pose any kind of a threat to the US after the collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1989. But US sanctions have been maintained, periodically enhanced and extended to secondary sanctions on third countries. Cuba has fallen into a grave economic crisis. There are shortages of food and medicine.
The unilateral sanctions on Cuba have been condemned by the UN General Assembly every year since 1992 as a violation of international law. The vote has been near-unanimous. The last vote last year saw 187 UN members supporting the resolution.
The almost universal condemnation has not moved the US.
Iran is back under a harsh sanctions regime after the US withdrew unilaterally from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. Ironically, the US was one of the main architects of the JCPOA. Repeated IAEA confirmation that Iran is complying fully with the programme has been rejected by the US. EU attempts to bypass US secondary sanctions, so that Iran can return to the JCPOA even without US participation, have failed.
On Oct 3, 2018, the International Court of Justice issued an interim court order to the US to end sanctions that impacted on humanitarian goods and civil aviation because they violated its 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights with Iran. The US response was to withdraw from the treaty.
The plea by Teheran and the appeals by Europe and the international community that the US respond to Iran’s desperate need for Covid-19 medical equipment and medication by relaxing sanctions have been rejected.
The existing sanctions regime is seriously flawed. Abuses and excesses have been extensive and sustained. Criticism had come from many quarters. Past and present secretaries general of the UN, the Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Medecins Sans Frontieres and Pope John Paul II, to name a few.
Current practices, especially those that are contributing to the humanitarian crises in several countries, need urgent review. Five areas may be highlighted.
First, the UN could further clarify charter provisions and tighten practices. Proposals to sanction countries and other entities should first be thoroughly discussed under Article 39 before resolutions are considered under Article 41. Criteria to be met before a state is sanctioned could also be set to minimise inconsistency and political selectivity.
Sanctions committees established by the SC to monitor the implementation of sanctions should be more transparent in their reports. Sanctions regimes that fail to achieve their objectives should be re-examined and other options considered.
The legality of unilateral sanctions should be addressed. The UN must take a stand against them. They bypass UN authority and belong to bygone pre-UN anarchic eras, when hegemonistic states acted as they pleased.
Second, lift the sanctions on Cuba. Launch a more vocal global campaign against them. “Democracy” cannot be forced.
Sixty years of external coercion have failed. Other issues have to be found to secure Cuban American votes in Florida. The financial claims that the US has against Cuba should be pursued in the courts.
Third, the US in particular, but also the UN and other parties should adopt a less draconian, more discriminating sanctions policy that pays heed to the humanitarian welfare of innocent Koreans . Food and medical supplies, and the resources to secure them, are of the utmost urgency.
The Six Party Talks is a flop. Credible third-party mediation should be sought for the North Korea issue. Europe offers several possibilities. Negotiate to satisfy the legitimate security concerns of all relevant parties, including North Korea’s. Yes, it too has them.
The US can adopt a less doctrinaire hardline stance. Insistence on “complete, verifiable and irreversible disarmament” is no longer relevant after North Korea acquired the bomb. More realistic would be to put in place iron-clad measures to assure that Pyongyang will not expand its nuclear weapon capabilities.
Human rights and “democracy’ are not relevant to the peace agenda. They should be pursued through other, more constructive, means. Seventy years of coercion have not worked.
Fourth, re-instate JCPOA. Alleviate sanctions pressure on Iran, especially on the vulnerable sections of its population.
The US may also consider complying with the ICJ interim court order. It is fitting, because it sees itself as the world’s leading champion of international law. Iran is in dire need of medical supplies to combat lethal diseases.
Democratic “regime change” is not a credible US sanctions policy for Iran. It was the US, working with the UK, that engineered the coup against the democratic government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and installed the oppressive absolute monarchy of the Shah of Iran.
And fifth, the widespread practice of imposing secondary sanctions should cease. They are illegal.
Political and economic sanctions are powerful instruments. Used responsibly, they contribute to international peace and security. Abused and enforced for decades, they become weapons of mass suffering and death. The international community, working through the UN and other fronts, can help ensure the former and prevent the latter.