The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> To Paul: Do you really think that sanctions work?

To Paul: Do you really think that sanctions work?
Posted by Jeff (Guest) jeff@attoz.com - Friday, September 17 2004, 6:05:25 (CEST)
from 69.14.127.173 - d14-69-173-127.try.wideopenwest.com Commercial - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

...well?

Economic sanctions: Legitimate diplomatic tool or failed policy?
After 10 years, the Iraq crisis opens debate on whether sanctions work at all
By Douglas S. Wood
CNN.com writer

ATLANTA (CNN) -- As the first post-Cold War international conflict, the Gulf War became the first test of the world community's ability to overcome its bifurcated past and work together against one nation's cross-border aggression.

Sanctions against Iraq
RESOLUTION 661, August 6, 1990
Resolution 661 imposed general trade sanctions against Iraq. It prevented exports of any kind from Iraq and most imports, not including "supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs..."

RESOLUTION 687, April 3, 1991
Resolution 687 set the cease-fire terms with Iraq and also amended the sanctions to allow the U.N. monitoring committee to allow Iraq to import "foodstuffs," "materials and supplies for essential civilian needs," and other "humanitarian need."

RESOLUTION 706, August 15, 1991
This resolution set up a framework for an oil-for-food program, which would have allowed Iraq limited exports of oil for the purpose of raising money to buy food. Iraq did not accept the conditions of this resolution.

RESOLUTION 986, April 14, 1995
This resolution marked a second attempt to offer Iraq conditions for an oil-for-food program. The arrangement finally went to effect at the end of 1996 after the United Nations and the government of Iraq agreed in May 1996 on the details of implementing resolution 986. Memorandum of Understanding on implementing Resolution 986

The U.N. oil-for-food program Web site
The initial term of the program has been extended several times. Currently the oil-for-food program is in its ninth 180-day phase, which will run through June 3, 2001.

The first weapon used by the world via the United Nations in the standoff with Iraq was not the smart bomb or an air strike, but economic sanctions. The sanctions placed on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait remain in place and they also were the first in a series of U.N.-levied sanctions that were placed on countries like Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan during the 1990s.

Before the Gulf War, the U.N. Security Council only levied economic sanctions three times. Since 1990, the council has used sanctions 13 different times.

However, after more than a decade of restricted trade, the results of the sanctions against Iraq, in particular, have opened up a debate on whether sanctions are even workable at all.

A renewed optimism
The Iraq crisis was the first instance after the Cold War's end that the "theoretical possibility of sanctions could become actual policy," according to Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago.

During the Cold War, China or the Soviet Union might have used its veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council to prevent the United Nations from imposing sanctions.

David Cortright, president of the Fourth Freedom Forum and co-author of "The Sanctions Decade," said the end of the Cold War tensions between the major powers allowed the Security Council to work together as it was designed and neither the Soviet Union nor China raised objections to the Iraq sanctions.

The Cold War also made Western democracies like the United States much less willing to use military force, heightening the appeal of an economic policy alternative, said Pape, who authored an article in the journal International Security, "Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work."

Cortright agrees that there was a new optimism within the international community in the time following the fall of the communism in Europe.

"There was a sense of optimism at the U.N. and not only on about sanctions," he said. "There was tremendous activism and energy at the Security Council on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. So this was all part of a kind of a post-Cold War enthusiasm, optimism, and sanctions were part of it, certainly, and they've continued pretty much through the decade."

But while Cortright acknowledged that there is disagreement over the use of sanctions, he says, "There are really no other instruments available for the Security Council to act."

Are sanctions effective?
The debate over the effectiveness of the Iraq sanctions stems from their effect on the civilian population.

Critics say that the sanctions are supposed to punish Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein but the country's citizens are suffering instead and there is a humanitarian crisis inside Iraq. They also point out that Hussein remains in power 10 years after economic sanctions were first levied.

Pape said although economic sanctions are seen as a more effective and more humane alternative to military action, in reality they don't work.

"Economic sanctions alone rarely achieve ambitious foreign policy goals, like causing states to surrender large chunks of territory or stop a military offensive in progress or stop building weapons of mass destruction," he said.

In his research, Pape identified 115 instances of economic sanctions being used by the U.N. or individual countries. In only five occurrences did sanctions produce a successful outcome and those usually involved minor issues, like the release of hostages, he said.

Cortright, however, said that sanctions have succeeded in bringing countries to the bargaining table. He said diplomats have credited sanctions as the primary form of leverage on former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic during the peace negotiations that ended the conflict in Bosnia.

"But it's also true that the sanctions undermined the middle class, the very forces of opposition that eventually won, reinforced the power ... of some of these gangsters and warlords over there, it centralized power in the hands of Milosevic and his political cronies," Cortright said. "It had both positive and negative effects."

Related Stories
Iraq-U.N. weapons talks postponed until after February January 8, 2001

U.N. Council extends Iraq oil, food plan for 6 months December 5, 2000

Senate panel told Iraq sanctions aren't curbing Hussein September 28, 2000

U.N.: Flights to Iraq flout sanctions September 23, 2000

Iraq suffers more air strikes, decries Saudi, Kuwait roles August 13, 2000

Iraq says latest Western airstrikes kill 7 April 30, 1999

U.S. planes bomb targets in northern Iraq March 1, 1999

Warnings over UNSCOM were ignored, weapons inspector says January 10, 1999

U.S. planes bomb targets in northern Iraq (3-1-99)

French propose new Iraqi inspection program, end of oil embargo January 13, 1999

U.S. attack on Iraqi radar site ushers in more aggressive strategy - January 12, 1999

Warnings over UNSCOM were ignored, weapons inspector says - January 10, 1999

U.N. weapons chief questions U.S. about involvement in UNSCOM - January 8, 1999

Sources: Annan's office leaked allegations of U.S. spies in UNSCOM - January 7, 1999

Chief U.N. weapons inspector rejects spying allegations - January 6, 1999

U.S.-Iraqi tensions escalate as jets clash over Iraq - January 5, 1999

CNN: Strike on Iraq1998

Humanitarian effects led to criticism
Iraq has staunchly opposed the sanctions and has decried the humanitarian effects. Indeed, UNICEF has reported that Iraq's infant mortality rate has doubled in the past decade.

Under U.N. resolutions, the sanctions cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors report Iraq has surrendered all weapons of mass destruction weapons. Iraq says it has meet the requirements and continues to insist that the sanctions be lifted.

On Tuesday, in a press conference marking the 10th anniversary of the start of Gulf War, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was asked if there was any flexibility regarding Iraq's policy regarding dealing with the U.N. resolutions.

"First, flexibility in politics shouldn't be above justice," Aziz replied. "You cannot tell a criminal that you are a good man and give him credit and you shouldn't deal with somebody who continues aggression against you."

Aziz also said that Iraq will continue to deal with the effects of the sanctions. "The economic situation in the country suffered a lot and that is clear, but the Iraqi people proved to be productive and proved to have ingenuity in terms of facing all the difficulties and all the complications of sanctions," he said.

Denis Halliday, a former U.N. assistant secretary general who headed the humanitarian relief program in Iraq, has referred to the sanctions in Iraq as "genocide."

"I mean, I think the issue is we cannot have the United Nations, the guardian of well-being of the people of this world, sustaining a regime of embargo or sanctions on a people that impacts only on the people, not on the decision makers, not on the government, not on the people who made the decision to go into Kuwait," he said in an interview with CNN. "It more than impacts, it kills the people."

David Welch, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, said Halliday's contention of genocide is a "hopelessly loaded remark and very unfortunate statement." He said the oil-for-food program produces $20 billion of resources that is adequate to deal with the humanitarian concerns of the Iraqi people.

"I think the international community is in the lead in trying to ameliorate the effects of sanctions and the regime in Baghdad is in the lead in trying to aggravate them on its own people," he said.

Cortright also says the responsibility for the humanitarian situation lies with the Iraqi regime's "malicious, diabolical strategy" to gain international sympathy. The U.N. first offered a version of the oil-for-food program in 1991 but Iraq did not accept the idea until 1997, after the worst of the humanitarian crisis in 1995 and 1996, he said.

"I think it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Iraqi regime has little or no concern for the suffering of its own people. It has actually consciously manipulated and allowed that suffering to take place in order to gain the sympathy of people in the West and other countries in order to have the sanctions lifted," he said.

Cortright pointed to the recent example of Iraq's insistence that the oil-for-food program be converted to euros and not dollars, which actually cost Iraq several hundred million dollars a year in income.

"So it means several hundred million dollars less humanitarian aid coming in for their own people in order to make this political point about the euro rather than the dollar," he said.

But Iraq puts the blame for the sanctions squarely on the United States and Great Britain. It says the sanctions should be lifted because it has met the conditions of the U.N. resolutions.

"The only solution is to lift the sanctions and this we deserve because we have fulfilled our part of the deal," said Iraqi oil minister Gen. Amer Rashid earlier this week, adding the United States and its allies are seeking to undermine Iraq's efforts to rebuild its economy.

Targeted sanctions
According to Pape, totalitarian states often count on the civilian population enduring significant punishment to achieve their goals. That punishment also encourages the population to remain loyal to the regime to gain access to supplies like food and medicine.

The original U.N. sanctions against Iraq were general trade sanctions that have since been scaled back in favor of more targeted sanctions. Cortright says U.N. sanctions have followed this approach since the mid-1990s, focusing on particular commodities like oil or diamonds, freezing financial assets, embargoing arms and dual-use military technologies and barring travel by targeted, decision-making elites.

Cortright says targeted sanctions cause fewer humanitarian problems. But Pape maintains that once sanctions are applied, the cost of those sanctions is distributed by the government that is the target of the sanctions.

"There's an illusion that sanctions can be targeted. Sanctions remain a blunt instrument," he said.

To work, sanctions also require enforcement and the political will to do so. Cortright said arms embargoes in places like Liberia are ineffective because they lack enforcement and exist mainly to give an impression of doing something. Full enforcement is both costly and risky and nations aren't willing to do it in all cases, he said.

"They don't want to shoulder that risk. They'll do it in Yugoslavia but they won't do it in Africa, by and large," he said.

The sanctions stalemate over Iraq
In Iraq's case, the sanctions remain in place but changes may be afoot. Russia has called for lifting the 10-year-old U.N. trade sanctions, but linked the end of the embargo to a resumption of U.N. inspections of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

"Russia believes that time has come for lifting the embargo but within the context of international monitoring and in accordance with U.N. resolutions," said Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov last November.

Related Sites
DefenseLINK - Official Web Site of the U.S. Department of Defense

United Nations

United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM)


The Iraq Foundation

Iraqi National Congress

Permanent Mission of Iraq to the UN

Office of the Iraq Programme

United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window. External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive
Ivanov said Russia had lost tens of billions of dollars because of the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Russia hopes to recoup some of Iraq's multi-billion dollar Soviet-era debts if the sanctions are lifted.

France and Russia recently defied the U.N. committee overseeing the sanctions by allowing air flights to Iraq and other countries have since followed their lead. Some of the flights have carried humanitarian aid but others brought passengers who openly sought the possibility of business deals with Iraq.

Under the U.N. resolutions, the sanctions imposed to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait in 1990 cannot be lifted until the inspectors certify Iraq has surrendered all its weapons of mass destruction.

There have been no U.N. weapons in inspections in Iraq since U.N. weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998, prompting U.S.-led airstrikes on Iraq.

In December 1999, the U.N. Security Council created the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC, to replace UNSCOM, but inspections have yet to resume. Talks between Iraq and the U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan are scheduled to take place in February.

Iraq immediately rejected the December 1999 resolution by the Security Council, which, if agreed to, would have led to the suspension of the sanctions. But Aziz said Tuesday that if the incoming Bush administration had a change of heart in its policy towards Iraq, Iraq would be willing to reciprocate.

However, incoming U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, the former U.S. general who was head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, said the Bush administration is hoping to "re-energize" the Iraqi sanctions.

Cortright said the coalition partners remain in agreement that Iraq should disarm itself but disagree on the methods of doing so. He said upcoming talks between Iraq and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan aimed at ending the impasse over United Nations weapons inspections will likely end with Iraq again declining to have more weapons inspections.

If that happens, he said most countries likely will favor the continuance of a well-enforced arms embargo and sanctions on dual-use military technologies but will lift or suspend the civilian trade sanctions. Those talks, originally scheduled for January, have now been delayed until February.

Pape says the United States and the U.N. should offer to drop sanctions completely in exchange for Iraq agreeing not to build up their conventional military forces, nor to develop medium- and long-range ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. policy toward Iraq doesn't have a long-term future due to international concerns over the sanctions from countries like Russia and France and from U.S. political concerns over rising gasoline prices. Keeping Iraq's oil off the international market could affect gas prices and U.S. consumers aren't likely to be understanding, Pape said.

"I just really am skeptical that Americans would really accept $2 a gallon for gasoline for the off-chance of toppling Saddam Hussein at some point, some time," he said.

Future of sanctions
Cortright said a "great learning experience" is under way over sanctions. While he said it was "unimaginable that general trade sanctions will be used again given the humanitarian effect," he said they are likely to be used again.

"I find that it's a tool that the Security Council uses as it tries to respond to crises of conflict," he said.

Pape also said sanctions will continue to be used, even though optimism over the ability of sanctions to resolve situations has receded. He also cited the reluctance by the U.S. to use military power.

"Economic sanctions are sort of the new American way of war. As our willingness to put at risk American lives declines, it'll just be natural to try to use economic sanctions to get our way," he said.

"The Unfinished War: A Decade Since Desert Storm" producer Jason Williams contributed to this report.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 19241
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf2/rkvsf_core.php?.5nos.
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9