Economic Sanctions, Yay or Nay?

By Lucinda G10

At the Basel MUN conference, the Council of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice was faced with the question of whether economic sanctions and international trade should play a role in conflict resolution. Seventeen delegations representing seventeen different countries were discussed and debated in order to find a suitable conclusion to the issue. An Economic sanction is the motion of imposing a policy, a restriction or a penalty by a country or group of countries in order to create political pressure or influence a decision (Masters). Economic sanctions allow a group of countries (or a singular one) to control the actions of another collective of countries. They can take the form of; pulling out of trade agreements, travel bans and/or asset freezes. International trade is the purchase and sale of goods across borders (“Trade/Conflict”). This includes, raw materials, food, machinery and/or consumer goods (Heakal). International trade is known for reducing political disputes and lowering the risk of conflicts between countries, this is because each country relies on another for something and doesn’t want to lose that material (“Trade/Conflict”). Countries of significant power and with a history of implementing economic sanctions such as the UK, US and France were very present in this debate and were involved in 2 resolutions each. These countries worked together with the other fourteen countries to negotiate terms so that all countries could benefit.

Three resolutions were proposed, by the delegations of Russia, Ukraine and the United States respectively. None of the three resolutions addressed stopping the use of economic sanctions as a whole, but instead placed restrictions, so the innocent would not be negatively harmed. The major resolutions, put forth by the delegates of Ukraine and Russia are detailed below.

Ukrainian Resolution

This resolution was proposed by the delegate of Ukraine and supported by the delegates of Iraq, the UK and US, Japan, Italy and Albania. Each of these countries recognised that by implementing economic sanctions – even in conflict resolution – humanitarian issues were likely to arise. However, they are also aware of how economic sanctions have helped create peace. Because of these contradicting facts, instead of saying that economic sanctions must be stopped, the delegate of Ukraine argued that restrictions should be put in place. The restrictions are as follows, sanctions must target those accountable for it and not innocents who may get caught in the crossfire, there must be valid reasoning for an economic sanction to be imposed and finally, delegations must communicate to ensure that the sanctions are effective. Each of these clauses help to maintain peace through the decreased risk of bystanders and innocents being harmed inadvertently. Due to the simplicity and clarity of this resolution, no amendments were put forth by other delegations, however despite this other delegations didn’t see how this would change much and decided to vote against, leading to the dismissal of the resolution.

Russian Resolution

The delegation of Russia, like that of Ukraine, recognises how economic sanctions have many benefits while also having many risks. Because of these risks, the delegation of Russia put forth a resolution with the delegations of Afghanistan, France, North Korea, Syria, Romania, Lebanon, China and Israel. This resolution detailed “the importance of international cooperation and dialogue to address global challenges without causing unnecessary harm to civilian populations”. By including nine separate clauses, the Russian delegation was able to convey their solutions, the first clause spoke of already existing economic sanctions, and the dangers that they could bring. It calls upon all member states to thoroughly examine their sanctions and determine whether they were or weren’t needed, and if they were necessary, then to discover if innocents were being harmed in the process. The second clause urged all countries to address the issues caused by some already in place sanctions, by amending them to harm the intended target. The third and fourth clauses detailed looking into the details of their sanctions or looking at other possible solutions. The fifth and sixth clauses further addresses the humanitarian problems caused by economic sanctions and called for “humanitarian exemptions in all economic trade sanctions regimes”, which would ensure that critical supplies and assistance reach those in need without obstruction. Similar to the resolution put forth by the delegation of Ukraine, the seventh clause encourages communication between all countries, which would hopefully decrease the need for economic sanctions. The eighth clause was a requirement for the Secretary general, who would need to write an annual report for the impacts that economic sanctions would be having on society. The final clause simply restated the importance for all of these restrictions, and how the humanitarian impact from economic sanctions should not be disproportionately bad to those targeted. This resolution as a whole looks to benefit all countries, reduce the risks involved in sanctions and better world peace. 

The countless discussions during this debate ended with one solution in the end; sanctions can remain but they must be restricted. The core goal of this is to protect those negatively impacted by economic sanctions while still using them as a way to resolve conflict. They should not be a first resort but should instead be a heavily thought through decision only imposed when necessary. These decisions made by the Council of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice described issues and solutions and allowed for a more peaceful approach to conflict resolution.

Works Cited

allegrabaschiera's avatar Posted by allegrabaschiera
Categories
Conferences