By Hilal Elver
Originally published in Welt Sitchen, 23 June 2020
Unilateral economic sanctions hit the wrong people and increase poverty. In times of a pandemic, this is criminal and sanctions should be lifted, says Hilal Elver, the former UN special rapporteur on the right to food.
The corona virus has been the greatest public health threat in the world for over a century. Even before the pandemic, long-term conflicts, extreme weather events and economic shocks threatened famine in several countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. In addition, the population in many countries such as Zimbabwe or Iran is suffering from economic sanctions from the United States or the European Union. The pandemic makes it clear that such unilateral sanctions violate human rights and should be lifted.
Covid-19 not only pushes health and nutrition systems to their limits in many countries, but once again shows us how unjust and unstable the current world order is. The pandemic has disrupted global food supply chains, to the detriment of countries that cannot supply themselves and have to import food. Corona increases the long-standing structural inequalities in our political, economic and social systems.
A prime example of this inequality are unilateral – i.e. unilateral – economic sanctions. Sanctions are one of the foreign policy instruments to isolate countries, prevent wars or stop human rights violations. The majority of unilateral sanctions aim to damage the target country’s economy in order to change the regime or its policies.
While some sanctions are mandated by the UN Security Council, such as arms embargoes against countries in armed conflict, most are imposed unilaterally by states, especially the United States, followed by their close allies in the European Union. Countries that are currently subject to various forms of blanket economic sanctions include Burundi, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
The sanctions do not hit the elites
In many cases, economic sanctions have a disproportionate impact on particularly vulnerable groups such as women and children – and not on the government elites, which are supposed to be the real target. Sanctions often limit the availability of food, clean water and medicines, with far-reaching consequences for the health of the civilian population.
A common argument for sanctions is that, unlike military operations, they do not aim to kill people in the target country, which is why they are seen as a more humane coercive measure. But in reality this is often not the case: in fact, sanctions can have a more destructive effect on the economy of the target country than a military operation. Most of the countries that have been sanctioned are suffering from persistent war conditions, are in post-war situations, or have to cope with natural disasters and economic hardships. Anyone who imposes economic sanctions on such countries risks collapsing.
Greater need in Zimbabwe and Cuba
To give an example: Zimbabwe was hit by tropical cyclone Idai last year, one of the worst storms ever to hit Africa. The sanctions against Zimbabwe contributed to the country’s already fragile economy slipping into a deep recession with high inflation, unemployment and a lack of basic public services. Today, almost 60 percent of the population suffer from great food insecurity.
Also in 2019, hurricane Irma devastated Cuba and its infrastructure, which was already crumbling as a result of the longstanding sanctions imposed by the United States. The sanctions increased the need after the storm and Cuba needed more time and resources to recover from the disaster. Nevertheless, the island nation is also a good example of successful self-sufficiency under difficult conditions: Cuba coped with the Covid 19 pandemic impressively due to its very good health system and created an exemplary agri-ecological system for food production.
Iran is particularly hard hit by Covid-19. US wide-ranging economic sanctions have drastically restricted the country’s ability to fund humanitarian imports, including medicines and medical equipment. Washington has also blocked Tehran’s attempt to get a five billion dollar loan to fight the pandemic from the World Bank.
Against the spirit of international humanitarian law
Although economic sanctions are not explicitly prohibited under international law, they violate the spirit and substance of international humanitarian law. They violate the human rights of children, women and the elderly, in particular, by making access to essential goods such as medicines and food difficult. The UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council have repeatedly condemned unilateral coercive measures. Both have questioned the legality of sanctions because they have been imposed by individual states without a UN mandate, but above all because of the harmful effects on humanitarian aid.
Comprehensive sanctions could also be seen as a crime against humanity within the meaning of Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Although economic sanctions are not explicitly mentioned there, they could be considered prohibited acts, which are referred to elsewhere in the Statute. Sanctions can even amount to crimes against humanity if they hit civilians in any emergency or during a global pandemic. With this argument, the Government of Venezuela petitioned the International Criminal Court in February pursuant to Article 14 of the Rome Statute. The chief prosecutor will now examine whether the case warrants an investigation.
Global solidarity doesn’t work that way
All over the world, new bonds of solidarity are being created in response to the pandemic. Unilateral economic sanctions should therefore be lifted immediately. In response to the pandemic, the international community should become aware of its responsibility and act accordingly – as it did in 2014 during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa: at that time, the UN Security Council declared the outbreak to be a threat to world peace and international security and called for it the UN member states to help the affected countries. During the Covid 19 pandemic, the Security Council was unable to make a similar decision. The reason: The United States has so far been unwilling to promote cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO) or other global health initiatives.
The UN General Assembly, on the other hand, has adopted two resolutions calling for WHO support and classifying Covid-19 as a threat to international peace and security. UN Secretary-General António Guterres also called for global solidarity: in a letter to the group of the 20 largest industrialized and emerging countries (G20), he asked to review the lifting of sanctions to ensure access to food, essential health goods in the countries concerned and facilitate medical care. This is, according to Guterres, “the time for solidarity, not for exclusion”.
Global solidarity does not work if economic sanctions are in effect at the same time. Economic sanctions only serve to make it difficult for ordinary people to survive. In a world where we are all interdependent in one way or another, we need to awaken global conscience and practice solidarity. Unilateral sanctions should be considered illegal under all circumstances, especially during humanitarian emergencies. And during a world health crisis, they should be classified as criminal and banned.