|
Where international political confrontations or armed conflicts are accompanied by multilateral sanctions, little may be known about the condition of people’s lives. Good assessments are needed to evaluate humanitarian conditions, to identify whether and how sanctions cause harm, to improve the quality of people’s lives by anticipating potential negative consequences, and to get maximum humanitarian benefit from available resources. A reliable assessment methodology will help address these needs. Without this type of standardized strategy, there has been a great deal of confusion surrounding the humanitarian impact of sanctions, as the following examples demonstrate:
In Yugoslavia during the 1990s, Ministry of Health officials were convinced that sanctions had caused the infant mortality rate to double. In reality, the rate had instead decreased more rapidly than in any neighbouring country.5 In Serbia between 1992 and 1995 sanctions were blamed for blocking the importation of medicines. Sanctions had caused some contract delays but at the same time the UN’s supervision of imports had assured payments to suppliers. When sanctions ended many companies stopped trading with the Ministry of Health altogether and shortages of essential drugs grew worse, not better. Contrary to perception, UN sanctions had helped to ensure access to medicines by providing commercial guarantees.
In Liberia during 2001, billboards depicted the UN sanctions as a dangerous elephant, crushing a hospital and school (see figure 1). But in fact, the targeted UN sanctions in place at the time contained no restrictions on humanitarian goods used by hospitals or schools. Also, in Afghanistan during 2000 and 2001, the Talibancontrolled media directed a sustained campaign against sanctions, blaming them for the poor socioeconomic conditions in the country. This resulted in a general public perception that sanctions were having a direct impact on socioeconomic and humanitarian conditions, even though the sanctions in place at the time were targeted to cover travel prohibitions, limited financial restrictions, diplomatic restrictions and an arms embargo.6 Given the operating environment in the country, the United Nations had limited opportunities, and in any event made almost no attempt, to respond to this misinformation.
During 13 years of comprehensive sanctions, the Government of Iraq used the sanctions to gain sympathy by arguing that they caused half a million excess child deaths. The temporary system of humanitarian exemptions in place from 19962003—the “Oil-for-Food” Programme—provided high dollar inputs for certain commodities, but few reliable assessments were carried out over the entire duration of the sanctions (1990 to 2003). The Government of Iraq pointed to sanctions as the primary cause of suffering in Iraq, while others blamed the authorities in Baghdad. A reliable assessment could have identified the processes by which humanitarian conditions were being affected, and could therefore have assisted in mitigating the unintended negative consequences of sanctions.
These examples highlight the need for credible humanitarian assessments in advance of, and during, sanctions. The approach to such assessments should be made explicit, be consistent across countries and over time, and be rigorous enough to clarify the specific consequences of sanctions among other possible humanitarian threats. Only in this way will such assessments be politically neutral and technically legitimate.
Since no methodological approach is perfect, the question is: “Is it credible?”. Do those assessing the humanitarian implications of sanctions make explicit their sources of information, how they think sanctions cause harm, and the strength of the evidence available to support their claims? If they do that, others can judge if a convincing and credible case has been put forward. This handbook aims to provide guidance on how to conduct an assessment, but cannot guarantee that it is done well! To help ensure that humanitarian assessments are credible, chapter 6 outlines standards for who is best qualified to carry out such an assessment and what their assessment should include.
This handbook builds on several important earlier efforts, including analyses and methodologies by the (then) UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the Humanitarianism and War Project. The contribution of these earlier initiatives to assessing the humanitarian implications of sanctions is summarized in annex I.
|
