The use of sanctions and unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) as a central instrument of foreign policy has become increasingly common and widespread in recent years, especially among a number of wealthy and powerful nations in the West. Today, dozens of countries around the world, including Eritrea, are targeted by UCMs of some form or type. It is widely recognized that UCMs are fraught with an array of significant issues. Not only do they run completely counter to international law, they have serious humanitarian effects.
In an earlier article, I detailed how these measures, by definition lacking due process and applied without the explicit authorization or consensus of the international community (and the United Nations Security Council specifically), constitute a flagrant violation of international law, international humanitarian law, the United Nations Charter, and the basic norms and principles governing peaceful, diplomatic relations among states, as well as violate and gravely impede the realization of all human rights. This piece continues the discussion by shining a spotlight on how UCMs negatively impact development, both broadly and for Eritrea specifically.
A violation of and a deleterious impact on the right to development
Notwithstanding their particular type, target, intensity, or scope of application, UCMs, which are essentially the modern equivalent of a medieval siege and represent a surrogate of warfare, flagrantly violate and have an adverse impact on the right to development – for Eritrea and other targeted countries.
For instance, consider the Declaration on the Right to Development (DRD), which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1986. (Although not legally binding, declarations carry considerable moral force and serve as a clear indication of the commitments of the international community.) The DRD recognizes development as “a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the wellbeing of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom.”
UCMs fundamentally violate these entitlements and greatly impede the possibility of people in targeted countries, such as Eritrea, to self-determine their development priorities, actively, freely and meaningfully participate in their own development, contribute to the process, and benefit from it. Additionally, UCMs contravene the obligations set out for states detailed in Articles 3, 4, and 6, revolving around promoting cooperation, especially in order to eliminate obstacles to the realization of the right to development.
Furthermore, the United Nations General Assembly, the main policymaking organ of the organization, has adopted numerous resolutions condemning or objecting to the application of UCMs and recognizing their harmful impacts. (While it is accepted that General Assembly resolutions cannot create binding legal obligations, they help to underscore existing customary international law or contribute to its emergence.) One example is Resolution 77/214, adopted in 2022 and which declared UCMs to be a major obstacle to the realization of the right to development and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (The 2030 Agenda, a global roadmap to achieve sustainable development by 2030, was agreed to by all member states of the United Nations in 2015.) Resolution 77/214 went on to call upon all states to avoid the unilateral imposition of coercive measures and the extraterritorial application of national laws that ran counter to the principles of free trade and hampered the development of developing countries.
Notably, alongside the General Assembly, numerous global bodies, an array of renowned scholars, international and regional organizations, various civil society groups, and many others have also called attention to the illegality of UCMs and highlighted their negative impact on things like mortality, poverty, and the well- being and full enjoyment of human rights by populations in targeted countries. And although the detrimental impacts of sanctions extend to reach all segments of the population, they disproportionately and indiscriminately harm the most vulnerable groups, including children, women, persons living with disabilities, the elderly, the sick, and the poor.
For Eritrea, alongside all of the above, UCMs have had a range of impacts. For instance, they have raised formidable obstacles in acquiring authorizations and licenses for procurement and delivery of certain essential goods.
Due to “over-compliance” and the vast complexities of sanctions regimes, including the fear of secondary sanctions on companies that do business with sanctioned countries, Eritrea has had to navigate immense hurdles, many of which have led extremely long, extended delays and substantially increased costs, to access capital goods, spare parts, and technologies essential for maintaining and growing manufacturing industries or development of infrastructure. Frequently, the country’s access to certain technological and knowledge systems has been impeded or made far more challenging, thus creating barriers to scientific and technological advancement, exacerbating existing inequalities, and undermining the realization of the right to development.
Additionally, there have been unceasing efforts to prevent legitimate remittance transactions by Eritreans living abroad. Rooted in the country’s deeply-rooted values of solidarity and community, remittances represent a vital lifeline for many households (especially the poorest). More broadly, numerous studies by international organizations and leading scholars have consistently demonstrated that remittances are often a critical stabilizer, help recipient households build resilience, can promote sustainable development, and should be “welcomed, encouraged, and facilitated.”
Over the years, considerable pressure and coercion have been directed at third parties and potential partners aiming to thwart Eritrea’s receipt of valuable investments or requests for lines of credit, while frequent efforts have been exerted to force the closure of Eritrea’s diplomatic missions. With regard to investment, foreign investment in the considerable mining sector has been actively deterred and access to international markets curtailed, with the hopes of “choking off” a valuable revenue stream for the nation.
These streams are critical for financing the broad arrays of Eritrea’s health, education, and other developmental programs and initiatives. Diplomatic missions, meanwhile, are critical not only for their political relations dimensions, but also in fostering trade, mobilizing partners, and promoting economic interaction (such as foreign capital or investment flows and tourism) – all of which can play a positive role in driving socioeconomic growth and development. (This is true not just for Eritrea, but other countries.)
Conclusion
UCMs on Eritrea (and other targeted nations) have no legal foundation and lead to an array of negative humanitarian or developmental impacts. It is only right and just that they are lifted immediately.
+ There are no comments
Add yours