Viet Nam Human Rights
»
home
»
political-social
»
Sanctions: Peacetime weapon that violates human rights
Sanctions: Peacetime weapon that violates human rights
13/9/15
Sanctions remain
an inherent contradiction in the international political system. It is
certainly to be regretted that, as the primary global organization, the United
Nations has demonstrated limited concern over the use of sanctions for
political purposes. At the behest of the United States and other members of
the UN Security Council, the United Nations imposes sanctions which adversely
affect the lives of millions of people. There are obvious injustices in this
complex terrain, and a need to rethink the entire concept of sanctions.
One of the most
used sanctions is economic sanction. Economic sanction can be defined as
“coercive economic measures taken against one or more countries to force a
change in policies, or at least to demonstrate a country’s opinion about the
other’s policies”. Economic sanctions help a state or group of states to
further their foreign policy objectives by imposing harsh and punitive
measures against an offending state.
Economic sanctions
have been referred to as a blunt instrument that the international community
has often wielded without full consideration of the impact that these measures
will have on the population of the targeted countries, particularly the weakest
elements of society. Case studies of sanctions against Cuba, Iraq,
and Yugoslavia
have demonstrated the impact that sanctions can have on the availability of
food, clean water, and medicine, causing many to conclude that all sanctions
have extensive public health consequences.
Sanctions and
human rights are inherently at odds, and it is myopic in the extreme to imagine
that sanctions necessarily promote improvements in human rights in the targeted
countries. Instead, they are more likely to lead to deterioration in the lived
experience of the vast majority of sanctioned peoples. Economic sanctions run
contrary to the spirit of human rights because they explicitly and implicitly
expose the ordinary people of the sanctioned country to considerable suffering.
At times this amounts to a form of economic coercion. How far, from case to
case, the imposition of sanctions actually constitutes illegal behaviour has
been a highly contentious point in international law. “Economic coercion” as a
practical concept is notoriously difficult to define. Be that as it may,
economic sanctions have certainly been among the most unevenly, if not
hypocritically, applied of international measures. In fact, which countries
actually get targeted for such legislation depends far more upon the current
political agenda than it does upon international law.
Sadly, economic
sanctions have been blatantly used as a form of political coercion by the north
against the south, and in this the United States has been the key
player. Any force for change will have to confront US neo-imperialism and a worldview
which is apparently too rigid to adapt to new possibilities. Certainly, the United States
has rejected alternatives to the unequal international system it upholds. It
has bullied independent leaderships and covertly challenged regional economic
co-operation where it cuts against American interests.
Whilst the last
decade has seen an unprecedented rise in wars waged openly by the US and
NATO against various countries, governments and regimes, arguably another tool
of war has been strengthened, that is equally devastating in its impact.
Economic sanctions are not new, however they have become a ‘peacetime’ weapon
which has resulted and may possibly result in hundreds of thousands if not
millions of deaths and suffering on a larger scale.
The interplay
between human rights and economic sanctions is fraught with tension. The United States
is the most frequent user of international economic sanctions in the world. U.S. sanctions programs often involve broad prohibitions
against trade and financial transactions between persons subject to U.S.
jurisdiction and particular target states or their nationals. When implemented
effectively, such programs can have a dramatic impact on the basic human rights
of subsistence and security. This presents the question whether policy makers
should adjust sanctions programs to ameliorate such possible effects.
Does economic
coercion increase or decrease government respect for human rights in countries
targeted with economic sanctions? If economic sanctions weaken the target
regime's coercive capacity, human rights violations by the government should be
less likely. If, on the contrary, sanctions fail to attenuate the coercive
capacity of the target elites and create more economic difficulties and
political violence among ordinary citizens, the government will likely commit
more human rights violations.
Economic sanctions and human rights are
essentially at odds, and it is extremely misguided to believe that sanctions
will help improvements in human rights in the targeted countries. Instead, they
are more likely to lead to deterioration in the lived experience of the vast
majority of sanctioned peoples.
Economic sanctions run contrary to the
spirit of human rights because they explicitly and implicitly expose the
ordinary citizen of the sanctioned country to considerable suffering. The scale
and gravity of the suffering amounts to collective punishment
Collective
punishment is the punishment of a group of people for the actions of one or
more other individuals or groups. The punished group may have no connection to
or control over the actions of the individuals or groups whose actions have led
to them being punished.
Human
rights are a contested concept but the Universal Declaration of 1948 argues
that all human beings are to be treated fairly, without discriminating them on
the grounds of race, nationality, sexual orientation or gender. The application
of economic sanctions targets certain nationalities who are bundled under one
umbrella over the mistakes of unscrupulous leaders who have the wealth to
survive a closed economy. To generalize a group of people together can be seen
as a violation of human rights because most citizens of the aggrieved country
are innocent of their leaders’ policies towards other states.
These actions have
put into question the legitimacy and credibility of the West and undermined its
positions around the world. Unfortunately, mainstream media in the EU and the US are
controlling public opinion, and there is no democracy on foreign policy issues.
As the cases of Afghanistan
and Iraq
proved, it may be possible to win a war by economic sanctions and military
intervention but not the peace. To win the peace the US and the EU need to practice
human rights and democracy, not preach them.
The U.N. Human Rights Council has appointted an
official whose job is to examine Western sanctions, viewed as constituting
human rights violations against the targeted countries. The resolution
condemned “the continued unilateral application and enforcement by certain
powers of such measures as tools of political or economic pressure against any
country, particularly against developing countries, with a view to preventing
these countries from exercising their right to decide, of their own free will,
their own political, economic and social systems.”./.
Popular Posts
-
Religion is a part of the spiritual life in society, this phenomenon of the superstructure has been strongly changed with economic - social... -
Vietnam has just done well for the second cycle of Universal Periodical Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland. So, what’s the UPR? an... -
Thai people in Shutdown Bangkok protests Not until this crisis, we have realized the ne... -
Representatives from foreign countries congratulate Viet Nam on its election to the Human Rights Council for the first time on November ... -
A street flowers vendor in Hanoi Another new spring has come to Vietnam, bring... -
If nothing changes, there will be a preferential credit program with hundreds of thousands billion of capital for agriculture and r... -
Recently, several anti-governmental individuals have established series of illegal groups and organizations in the name of civil soci... -
Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a private, nonprofit international broadcasting agency of the United States government that broadcasts and...
All comments [ 12 ]
Economic sanctions have been referred to as a blunt instrument that the international community has often wielded without full consideration of the impact.
Utilizing time-series, cross-national data for the period 1981—2000, the findings suggest that economic sanctions worsen government respect for physical integrity rights, including freedom from disappearances, extra-judicial killings, torture, and political imprisonment.
Economic sanction is a speciality of the US.
Economic coercion remains a counterproductive policy tool, even when sanctions are specifically imposed with the goal of improving human rights.
I think sanction is enemy of human rights and democracy.
Multilateral sanctions have a greater overall negative impact on human rights than unilateral sanctions, like what US, EU have done with Russia, Iran,...
Economic sanction imposed during peacetime may infringe following human rights: the right to life, health, an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and freedom from hunger.
Sadly, economic sanctions have been blatantly used as a form of political coercion, and United States has been the key player.
Apparently, sanctions have negative impacts on human rights and democracy, but the West have move against their self-proclaimed values.
It makes no sense that something illegal during war is not only legal but a preferred tool to pursue aggressive foreign policy agendas in peace-time.
The sanctions against Iraq are the most comprehensive, total sanctions that have ever been imposed on a country.
Economic sanctions seriously undermine freedom, democracy, justice and peace both inside the targeted country and at an international level.
Your comments