Most objective analysts agree, it is unlikely there will be any forceful or effective UN or international, even regional, resistance to the slaughter happening daily in Aleppo. There is some, but not much, appetite in Washington for European capitals to enforce a 'no-fly zone' which entails risks of war with Russia. Despite some campaign rhetoric, presumed next U.S. President, Hilary Clinton will face resistance from the Pentagon and Congress in the unlikely event that she opts for war, as she stated the other day, "Enough is enough of war crimes in Syria!"
The Double-Edged Sword of Sanctions
So what are the realistic options for the US-led coalition and much of the global community committed to protecting the civilian population of Syria? Frankly there are almost none. But one that will be employed are more US-led sanctions against Syria and possibly even Russia. Some EU countries want to add another 20 names from Syria to a current sanctions list blocking their banking activities and imposing travel bans. EU foreign policy Chief Federica Mogherini mentioned a couple of days ago that there was a chance that ministers would agree to put more Syrians on the EU's list of people blocked from traveling to Europe or accessing money there. These additional sanctions will likely deter no one. Those who may be affected have likely long ago employed other means five years ago to protect their assets.
Yet, despite EU divisions (Germany, Hungary, Austria Greece, Cyprus and others objecting) among the 28 EU members, whose unanimity of votes is required to impose more sanctions, on 10/17/2016 the Obama administration and the European Union expressed the view that new efforts at tightening the sanctions against Syria and Russia for countless war crimes may have some positive effects.
In this observer's
view, it is unlikely that serious new sanctions will be agreed upon by the EU
which already has extensive sanctions in place
against Syria, including oil and arms embargoes, plus restrictions on more than 200 individuals and 70
entities. With little result. On 10/17/2016,
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told colleagues following a
meeting in Lausanne, "At present, I don't see how sanctions with a possible
long-term effect are supposed to contribute to improving supplies to the
civilian population".
Meanwhile, the slaughter of civilians continues. Few objective observers deny that massive war crimes continue to be committed in Syria although there is plenty of hysterical debate over who the perpetrators are and who are defeating "terrorists" as opposed to creating more "terrorists" with every bombing.
Historically, economic sanctions have had mixed results. Between 1914 and 2016, various countries imposed economic sanctions in 125 cases. They failed to achieve their stated objectives in 66 percent of those cases and were marginally successful in the other one-third. Since 1973, the success ratio for economic sanctions has fallen to 24 percent according to scholars researching their effectiveness. Some might argue that one-quarter success rate is not so bad when one considers that sanctions are politically cheap, do not require military action, while skeptics who increasingly oppose armed interventions are more accepting of economic sanctions which show that "we are doing something!" to oppose perceived foreign oppression and brutality. Sanctions also are more acceptable among UN members as they suggest "international governance." They are seen as more "meaty" than mere diplomatic protests, hence carry less political baggage. They are often viewed as a sort of mild punishment, short of being aggression of the kind that might portend human costs.
US-led Western Sanctions against Syria: Crimes against Humanity?
Photo: Associated Press
War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity now being committed in Syria also include in this observers view, as a result of the most intense civilian targeting economic sanctions ever imposed by the United States or any other country. War Crimes because they target and destroy the most vulnerable Syrians, all protected by International Humanitarian Law including the Geneva Conventions as well as principles, standards and rules of International Customary Law. All must be adjudicated by a Special Tribunal for Syria without further delay.
For these reasons sanctions have largely escaped the scrutiny of International Humanitarian Law that military actions increasingly face. But the reality is that in Syria (as in Iran and Iraq) US-led sanctions are causing extensive civilian damage, because the suffering has been borne primarily by women, children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor. The targeted political and military leadership are largely exempt from their effects.
A serious and growing legal problem with respect to the US-led sanctions in Syria is that they target mainly civilians protected by the Geneva Conventions, so they are increasingly running amok and afoul of International Humanitarian Law. There is little doubt that the new US-led sanctions will increase quality of life pressure on most who still remain in Syria. They may also result in war crimes punishable before a Special Tribunal for Syria with universal jurisdiction, which is virtually certain to be established.
While economic sanctions are rapidly becoming one of the major tools of international governance of the post-Cold War era, this observer would argue that economic sanctions, like a siege, intend harm to civilians and therefore cannot be justified as a tool of warfare. The history of US-led sanctions demonstrates that they are not a device that keeps the peace and enforces international law. Rather, they are they intrinsically a form of violence, which in fact violate International Humanitarian Law as their effects target non-combatant civilians.
Like siege warfare, US-led sanctions targeting Syria are the face of economic strangulation. History teaches that the claimed targets - the military and political leaderships -, will easily insulate themselves from its consequences, and place a disproportionate burden on the civilian population. History also teaches that economic sanctions will consolidate the state's power rather than undermine it and economic sanctions are unlikely to stop military aggression, or stop human rights violations, or achieve compliance with any political or military demand, even when sanctions drag on for decades. The history of US-led sanctions has been that they harm the most vulnerable and the least political; and that this is something which the US government and its allies such as the sanction-imposing EU know. To the extent that economic sanctions seek to undermine the economy of a society, and thereby prevent the production or importation of necessities, they are functioning as the modern equivalent of siege and are war crimes. To the extent that sanctions deprive the most vulnerable and least political sectors of society of the food, drinkable water, medical care, and fuel necessary for survival and basic human needs, sanctions should be subject to the same international humanitarian legal standard as siege warfare and judged to be war crimes. US-led sanctions targeting Syria are imposing an economic siege which is contributing to the killing of more Syrians than those who have died and die of illness and malnutrition in sieges, such as in Aleppo, which EU and US leaders have described as war crimes.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
