APPENDIX 5
Memorandum submitted by Quaker Peace &
Service (QPS)
1. Quaker Peace & Service (QPS) is the
international department of the Religious Society of Friends Quakers)
in Britain. Its work springs from over 300 years of Quaker witness
against all war violence and our consequent committed search for
non-violent means of resolving disputes. Through our practical
work overseas in areas affected by armed conflict, and through
our offices at the United Nations in New York and Geneva, QPS
has experience of trying to widen the range of options available
to the international community for resolving international conflicts
in just and sustainable ways.
2. One long-standing focus for this work
has been Quaker concern for, and practical involvement in, the
work of the United Nations. In this context, QPS has a continuing
interest in the development of international thinking and practice
concerning the use of non-military sanctions as one means of ensuring
positive behaviour by governments, including their adherence to
international law. In particular, Quakers in Britain feel an increasing
concern for the current situation of the Iraqi people under sanctions.
We believe that there is an urgent need to find ways of addressing
the present humanitarian crisis there. We need also, for the longer
term, to learn from this experience so as to improve the effectiveness
of sanctions regimes and minimise their humanitarian/developmental
impact on civil society in the countries targeted.
3. Not all Quakers would agree that the
use of sanctions by the international community is acceptable
in the attempt to right wrongs or resolve conflicts. Some find
all use of coercive measures contrary to a Quaker understanding
of peace and peace-making, which they believe should be pursued
by moral example and by persuasion only. Most Quakers, however,
would support the use of sanctions as one of a range of non-violent
means to apply pressure in situations of conflict or injustice,
in order to enforce compliance with an international law or judgement
or to bring about positive social change. In this context, the
Quakers in Britain corporately supported the use of UN sanctions
in cases such as Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence
and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. There was also corporate Quaker
support for "carefully selected economic measures" against
the apartheid regime in South Africa.
4. Quakers would never support the use of
sanctions as punishment. Our understanding is that sanctions should
be used only as a means of applying international pressure to
modify unacceptable behaviour on the part of a government or state.
It therefore follows that sanctions should be applied by the international
community under predictable and roughly similar circumstances,
avoiding double standards. Moreover, whenever sanctions are applied
there should be clarity—and broad consistency over time—about
what exactly needs to be done by the state or government concerned
in order that the sanctions should be relaxed, suspended or lifted.
5. To maximise their legitimacy, sustainability
and effectiveness, sanctions regimes should be debated and agreed
in a broad international forum, for example the UN, and supported
by a wide range of national and international actors. Sanctions
regimes should always be imposed and implemented in ways that
are mindful of, and consistent with, international human rights
standards and humanitarian law.
6. In the matter of the humanitarian/developmental
impact of sanctions and the effectiveness of humanitarian exemptions,
Quakers would argue strongly that sanctions should always be imposed
in such a way as to minimise civilian suffering. This is almost
always preferable to any attempt to alleviate such suffering,
once incurred, by humanitarian exemptions such as "oil for
food". These risk being cumbersome, intrusive and open to
manipulation by any part prepared to sacrifice the civilian population
to its own political interests. Sanctions must always exempt food,
medicines and other humanitarian supplies; and adequate provision
should be made in any sanctions regime for delivery for these
goods and for their financing.
7. We would support the exploration and
development of "smart sanctions" regimes, which explicitly
and effectively target those with the direct power and responsibility
for making the policy changes which the international community
is demanding. Before any sanctions regime is fully implemented,
impact assessments should be undertaken by those with relevant
expertise from UN agencies and non-governmental organisations.
The effectiveness of the sanctions, and their humanitarian impact,
should be assessed at regular intervals for the duration of the
sanctions regime, with serious note being taken and adjustments
being made by the Sanctions Committees or, if appropriate, by
the Security Council, if significant negative humanitarian consequences
are evident. Any decision to impose sanctions must take account
of—and the regime be realistically adapted to—the
level of economic development of the country targeted. (Thus,
for example, Quakers supported the use of comprehensive economic
sanctions against Iraq in 1990 as preferable to the use of armed
force to reverse the illegal occupation of Kuwait. In April 1991,
on the other hand, we called for these same sanctions be be lifted
when they were continued in force, for a different purpose, against
an Iraq whose economy and industrial infrastructure had been devastated
by bombing and a land war.)
8. We welcome the substantive discussions
which we understand are underway in UN circles at present about
ways of improving the effectiveness of sanctions regimes and minimising
their humanitarian impact. It is important that these draw effectively
on the practical experience of various UN bodies (eg Sanctions
Committees, UN agencies, and the Office for the Co-ordination
of Humanitarian Affairs) and of non-governmental organisations.
Through our Quaker UN Offices, and particularly the Office in
New York, we are following this debate with interest and would
be glad to comment further from that wider perspective on any
specific practical proposals if this would be useful to your Committee's
inquiry.
9. Non-military sanctions regimes are not
a "quick fix", and the international community needs
to be realistic about the time scale involved if they are to be
effective. It must be remembered that sanctions are only one tool
in a repertoire of possible international responses to threats
to peace and security. Quakers believe that they should always
be used in conjunction with a range of other tools for peace-building,
such as political and economic incentives, persuasion and diplomacy.
We would argue also that sanctions should never be confused by,
or held hostage to, the threat of military action if they are
perceived somehow as "not working" (or "not working
fast enough"). Avoiding tactics which simply isolate and
victimise, and emphasising those which maintain and enhance channels
of communication, are of vital importance.
10. Finally, whenever sanctions are imposed,
serious thought must also be given to, and preparations made for,
a future in which they have been lifted. How is it proposed to
repair any damage the sanctions regime may have caused to both
the physical and the political/social infrastructure of the country
which has been targeted? The end goal of sanctions, as of any
enforcement measure, must be the return of the people in question
to the international community, and the building of trust and
relationships strong enough to prevent the recurrence of destructive
behaviour or violent conflict in the long term.
Quaker Peace and Service
27 April 1999
|
