I've Seen for Myself How Western Sanctions Only Hurt the Poor
By Patrick Cockburn, Independent
07 July 19
Sanctions will fail against Assad, just as they failed against Saddam
Hussein 20 years ago, but they will do terrible damage to ordinary people
The seizure of an Iranian oil tanker allegedly bound for Syria by British
Royal Marine commandos off Gibraltar is the latest episode in the long and
disastrous history of economic sanctions in the Middle East. The UK claims
that it is implementing EU sanctions on Syria, but the act will be seen by
Tehran - and most other states - as the British enforcing US sanctions on
Iran that the EU said it opposes. An Iranian official said a British tanker
should be seized in retaliation.
Jeremy Hunt, foreign secretary and aspirant prime minister, eager to show
himself walking tall on the international stage, tweeted: "Swift action has
denied valuable resources to Assad's murderous regime."
But that is exactly what has not happened. Economic sanctions in the Middle
East and elsewhere have invariably been a collective punishment of an entire
people while leaders and their security forces come through unscathed. UN
sanctions on Iraq between 1990 and 2003 did not stop Saddam Hussein building
luxurious palaces and giant mosques while ordinary Iraqis were reduced to
selling their furniture and crockery in the streets.
I visited a village called Penjwin in mountainous northeast Iraq in 1996
which was in the Kurdish-controlled area, but still subject to UN sanctions.
I wondered why so many people in the main streets had lost an arm or a foot.
The explanation given to me by the villagers lives in my mind as a grisly
example of the straits to which people can be reduced by the impact of
sanctions on top of their many other burdens.
People in Penjwin said they were very poor and lived in the middle of vast
minefields laid during the Iran-Iraq war. The one way they could make money
was by defusing one particular mine, the Italian Valmara, and selling the
aluminium wrapped around the explosives.
The Valmara is a lethal device with five khaki-coloured prongs at the top
that looked like dried grass. If any prong is disturbed a small charge was
detonated making the mine jump into the air to waist height and the main
charge explodes, spraying 1,200 metal balls over a range of 100 yards.
"I defuse the mine with a piece of wire," Sabir Majid, a middle-aged man who
had formerly been a farmer, told me. "Then I unscrew the top of it and take
out the aluminium around the explosives. When I have taken apart six mines,
I have enough aluminium to sell for 30 dinars (about 75 pence) to a shop in
Penjwin."
He said this was just enough to feed but not to clothe his family. Few of
those who made a mistake in defusing a Valmara survived, but it was
surrounded by small, difficult-to-spot anti-personnel mines which looked
like large mushrooms and could easily take off a foot or a hand.
At that time, the UN estimated that between six and seven thousand Iraqi
children were dying every month because of sanctions. The education and
health services had collapsed: visiting foreign doctors "witnessed a surgeon
trying to operate with scissors that were too blunt to cut the patient's
skin".
I wrote many articles about the devastating effect of sanctions on millions
of Iraqis, but nobody appeared to pay much attention. Foreign governments,
such as the US and UK, blamed the continuation of sanctions, whose ill
effects on the mass of the population they downplayed, on Saddam Hussein for
not coming clean about his Weapons of Mass Destruction (that turned out not
to exist) and not giving up power.
Two UN Humanitarian Coordinators for Iraq resigned in succession in protest
against sanctions, but it did no good. It is worth recalling the prophetic
words of one of them, Dennis Halliday, as he left his post in 1998, keeping
in mind that this was five years before al-Qaeda took root in Iraq. "What
should be of concern is the possibility of more fundamentalist Islamic
thinking developing," he said. "It is not well understood as a spin-off of
the sanctions regime. We are pushing people to take extreme positions."
Fast forward 20 years and compare Syria now to Iraq then. Three million
people are trapped in Idlib province under Russian and Syrian government
bombardment. There is a festering guerrilla war in the Kurdish-controlled
but half-Arab area east of the Euphrates river.
All of Syria is subjected to economic sanctions by the EU and US which a
leaked UN internal report in 2016 said were causing extreme suffering among
ordinary Syrians. Basic medicines and medical equipment could not be
purchased and imported into Syria by foreign aid agencies. The report,
entitled "Humanitarian Impact of Syria-Related Unilateral Restrictive
Measures" - in other words sanctions -and leaked to the investigative
publication The Intercept, quotes a European doctor working in Syria as
saying: "the indirect effect of sanctions . makes the import of medical
instruments and other medical supplies immensely difficult, nearly
impossible".
The UN sanctions against Iraq used to target "dual use" items, such as
pencils and tyres for ambulance because they could have a military as well
as civilian application. Much the same thing happens with sanctions in Syria
today with bans on drilling equipment and pipes for water supply and
sanitation according to the report.
A more recent survey by a UN body coordinating humanitarian affairs in Syria
published this May is ominously similar to the ones I used to read about
Iraq 20 years ago. It says that at least 83 per cent of Syrians were living
below the poverty line: "a monthly food ration with staple items costs at
least 80 per cent of an unskilled labourer's monthly salary and 50-80 per
cent of a public service employee's monthly salary". It describes people
trying to cope by eating less, avoiding medical treatment because there is
no money to pay for it, child labour and child marriage, and being recruited
as fighters to pay off debts.
In other words, a whole society is in meltdown. Part of this is the result
of eight years of civil war, but sanctions exacerbate the suffering and
prevent recovery. Least affected are those, both government and opposition,
who command the armed forces to make sure they never lack for anything. The
economic blockade of Iraq did not get rid of Saddam Hussein and the same is
true of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
The political equivalents of Jeremy Hunt in the 1990s claimed that the aid
agencies' accounts of the misery inflicted on the civilian population by
sanctions were phoney or exaggerated. Well-informed officials like Dennis
Halliday, who protested about what was happening, could always be smeared as
being soft on Saddam. Critics of sanctions in Syria can be similarly ignored
or discredited as sympathisers with Assad, though rigorous sanctions have
demonstrably failed to stop him tightening his grip on power.
Why are those who impose sanctions able to get their way despite past
failures? To governments they are a soft option that avoids the risks of
war. To many they may seem more humane because, unlike bombing and shooting,
the process of destruction is slow. The casualties - the young, the old, the
sick - die invisibly in their homes and there is seldom proof that sanctions
had anything to do with their passing.
Email This Page
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
