Politics: Africa wary of punitive sanctions on member states
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 19, 2005 (SAPA) — As the 15-member U.N. Security Council keeps dragging its feet over a proposed military and economic embargo aimed at punishing Sudan for mass killings in Darfur, the world body has renewed its longstanding debate over the use of sanctions to penalise errant member states.
The 53-member African Group has expressed strong reservations over “the increasing trend in the application of U.N. sanctions — especially on African countries.”
Speaking on behalf of the African Group, Lydia Randrianarivony of Madagascar told the U.N.’s Charter Committee that of the 16 sanctions imposed by the world body so far, 12 were in Africa: Angola, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Liberia, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Libya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Sudan.
The four non-African countries that have also come under U.N. sanctions include Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia.
The sanctions on Angola, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Haiti, Libya, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Sudan and the former Yugoslavia have been fully lifted. In the case of Iraq, economic sanctions have been removed but a military embargo is still in force.
“The Security Council’s power to impose sanctions should be exercised in accordance with the U.N. charter and international law,” Randrianarivony told delegates Monday.
“Sanctions should be considered only after all means of peaceful settlement of disputes under chapter VI of the charter had been exhausted — and a thorough consideration of the effects of sanctions — undertaken,” she added.
According to chapter VI, “the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”
If the Security Council fails to negotiate a peaceful settlement, it has the option to impose sanctions under chapter VII of the charter.
These retaliatory measures include “complete or partial interruption of economic relations, and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communications, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”
In most instances, Randrianarivony said, sanctions have been responsible for “unintended, adverse humanitarian impacts, particularly on the most vulnerable”, including women and children.
“Sanctions regimes have been known to cripple vital national and/or regional infrastructure, and had led to severe socio-economic downturns with resultant widespread deterioration of the living standards of the less privileged,” she added.
The worst case scenario was the negative repercussions of the now-defunct economic sanctions on Iraq which affected the most vulnerable in Iraqi society.
A survey conducted by the U.N. children’s agency UNICEF revealed that in the south and centre of Iraq — home to some 85 percent of the country’s 26 million people — under-five mortality more than doubled, from 56 deaths per 1,000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1,000 live births (1994-1999).
Likewise, infant mortality, defined by UNICEF as death of children in their first year, increased from 47 per 1,000 live births to 108 within the same time frame.
As a result of the sanctions, most Iraqi children were deprived of nutritious food and medical supplies. But later the restrictions were gradually eased under the U.N.-supervised Iraqi oil-for-food programme.
Meanwhile, the African stand against sanctions is being backed by two veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, namely China and Russia, who are primarily responsible for thwarting current attempts to penalise Sudan over the Darfur killings.
Both countries have their own selfish reasons to block sanctions: China is trying to protect its oil interests in Sudan and Russia its arms market.
Sudan, which produces about 250,000 barrels of oil per day, has contracted to sell some of it to China. And both China and Russia are also major arms suppliers to Sudan.
The Sudanese air force has both Russian MiG-23s and Chinese Shenyang MiG-17 fighter planes. Sudan also has Chinese-made Silkworm missiles and battle tanks, along with Russian-made armored combat vehicles.
A working paper prepared by Russia bluntly states that sanctions should be not be used as a means of punishing member states.
The document defines sanctions as “an extreme measure which could be used only after the Security Council has determined the existence of a threat to international peace and security.”
Russian delegate Dmitry Lobach told the U.N. charter committee that his country was also interested in ensuring assistance to “third states” — mostly neighbouring countries indirectly affected by sanctions.
A warning also came from Zhang Yishan of China who said that sanctions must be applied with great caution — “given their deep impact and wide implications, as well as their likely negative consequences for third states.”
“Their use must be kept to the minimum or restricted,” he said. Currently, the Security Council is discussing behind closed doors a resolution calling for punitive measures against those who recruit child soldiers, including governments and insurgent groups worldwide.
Under-Secretary-General Olara Otunnu, U.N. Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, told IPS that Council members will soon decide to “impose concrete and targeted sanctions measures” against those who recruit child soldiers.
“These will be sophisticated, calibrated and carefully-chosen set of measures aimed at the vulnerabilities of the groups concerned,” he added. “It won’t be one-size-fits all,” Otunnu said. “Rather, it will be practical, realistic and feasible.”
Among the measures currently under consideration, he said, are travel restrictions on leaders and their exclusion from any governance structures and amnesty provisions; the imposition of arms embargoes; a ban on military restrictions; restrictions on the flow of financial resources; freezing of financial assets of leaders and parties concerned; and banning of illicit trade in natural resources.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already made a distinction between what he calls “smart” sanctions and “dumb” sanctions — the former being very selective and targeted and the latter imposed indiscriminately.