Dr. Bahaa Helmy Writes: Economic Sanctions Against Humanity

The Charter of the United Nations contains many contradictory provisions. There is Chapter VII, which governs the measures required in cases of threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression, whether these are peaceful measures such as the interruption of economic relations and the like, or measures involving the use of military force, including measures to prevent or suppress any state that poses a threat to international peace and security, together with the right of self-defence.

The contradiction between those provisions and the Charter's other provisions relating to human rights is clear, whether those that require the necessary peaceful means to be adopted for resolving and settling international disputes, or those in the field of peaceful and friendly relations among nations and respect for the principles that call for equal rights among peoples, the pursuit of higher standards of living, the promotion of the factors of economic development and progress, the strengthening of international cooperation, and the spread throughout the world of respect for human rights and freedoms.

This contradiction is not merely theoretical; it is a real contradiction on the ground. Economic sanctions are usually marketed as being directed against rulers or governments and their policies, yet in reality they directly affect the livelihoods and rights of people in the states targeted by those sanctions, since they affect economic, social and cultural rights and may disrupt the distribution of food, medicine, medical supplies and other goods. They may also create a new political and social situation that places additional burdens on the citizens of those states, while the ruling elite remains unaffected.

There is therefore a great difference between exercising political and economic pressure on the ruling elite of any country and imposing economic sanctions that cause suffering to the most vulnerable groups within the targeted country.

We have not heard of any role played by international human rights organizations with regard to the harmful effects and consequences for the peoples of the states targeted by these sanctions, unless those states possess the resources and capabilities with which to withstand such sanctions. The major powers have given special momentum to the term "international peace and security" and have made its use override every other consideration; even if sanctions crush human rights somewhere, it is silence that takes centre stage. Remarkably, we have never heard of means of communication, technology and social media being cut off or blocked in any state subjected to economic sanctions, because these serve the aims of the great powers that dominate international events and their course.

Consider the US-led air strike on Syria, carried out as punishment for the use of chemical weapons, as was announced, or in order to influence the international powers in the region, attempt to control events, and create a new reality that would end the conflict in a particular manner affecting the existence and unity of the state, without regard to any humanitarian considerations or to the adverse health and environmental effects that the weapons and missiles used leave on the Syrian people. Most importantly, these attacks and strikes are carried out by circumventing international legitimacy.

The question arises: is a state to be punished for using internationally prohibited means by dropping more of those means on its citizens? If the aim is to destroy the sites of those prohibited means, this means detonating and spreading the existing chemical agents so that they strike the citizens and life in the area. On the other hand, the use of modern, destructive missiles and weapons in striking Syria is nothing but the use of means that have grave effects and consequences for people's health and lives, and for the future of coming generations as well. In every case, then, it is human rights that are the target.

It is therefore important for all states and civil society organizations to join forces to exert real pressure by creating an influential international civil public opinion that calls for amending the Charter of the United Nations in order to uphold the values of human rights, state sovereignty and peaceful settlement, and to reorganize the rules on the use of force in the face of the arrogance and tyranny of the major powers, whether that force is military, economic, social or informational, while taking into account the right to confront cyberattacks, in order to safeguard the rights of peoples and the purposes of the United Nations. We also call for studying the establishment of a new international organization to replace the United Nations, founded on equality and non-discrimination among states, now that the international organization has lost its effectiveness and its role and is no longer able to protect or uphold its own resolutions.