Culture and conflict

By Salama Ahmed Salama

For some time now, the US has used the imposition of sanctions as a substitute for direct military intervention. The US has increased the use of sanctions to include their unilateral imposition as a tool of foreign policy in addition to utilising its influence in the UN to secure their imposition. According to a recent report, in the last five years 61 countries have faced either trade sanctions or seen the withdrawal of US foreign aid. These countries, incidentally, are home to half of the world's population, which means that Washington has vented its anger on half of humanity. Furthermore, should the American administration decide to apply the new law approved by Congress to combat religious persecution, 75 countries would find themselves facing sanctions, according to internal figures produced by the US State Department.

While European countries have refused to comply with US demands for sanctions against Iran, and have reservations about those imposed on Cuba, Arab countries continue to waver about how to react to the Security Council sanctions imposed on Libya and Iraq. While the UN remains incapable of enforcing Security Council resolutions on Israel, the US and Britain remain adamant that Arab countries abide by UN resolutions on Libya and Iraq. Such sanctions, insist both Washington and London, were issued in accordance with Article 7 of the UN Charter. Yet Article 7 is invariably wheeled out by Washington when convenient, and is applied in a selective and cavalier way. Strangely, Article 7, when invoked against South Africa in its apartheid days, carried little weight with European countries, or with Israel, unlike the situation today, when it is invoked, instead, against Libya and Iraq.

Today there are many factors that undermine the legitimacy of the sanctions the US is so determined to uphold against Libya. The International Court of Justice itself issued, a few months ago, a ruling supporting Libya's right to insist that the suspects in the Lockerbie case be tried in a neutral state, and not in Scotland or the US, as Washington demands. The Organisation of African Unity also passed a resolution -- one supported by the Arab League -- to lift sanctions should the US and Britain fail by September to modify their position regarding the venue of the trial. France, which supported the American and British position immediately after the Lockerbie disaster, has now changed its position after having reached an agreement over the trial of those accused of downing a French airliner over the Niger desert. France is, indeed, currently making moves towards normalising relations with Libya.

Given that the legitimacy of sanctions imposed on Libya is being systematically eroded, the UN secretary general may well find himself in the position of having to find some face saving formula before the rulings of the UN cease to carry any kudos, let alone respectability, in international eyes. Kofi Annan has already expressed concern that any failure to abide by Security Council resolutions will weaken the position of the UN. But the blame for this situation, surely, cannot be placed on the shoulders of those countries unwilling to abide indefinitely by arbitrarily imposed sanctions that harm vast numbers of innocent citizens. The blame, if it is to be apportioned, lies with the US and Britain, and in their irrational insistence on such aggressive and vengeful tactics.