UN Human Rights Council calls for abolition of unilateral sanctions
Not a word in the mediaThe UN Human Rights Council has called for the abolition of unilateral sanctions and the German media report... not at all.
From
18. April 2023
The fact that the German "quality media" do not inform their readers, but engage in unilateral opinion-making is not new and has been confirmed again these days. While the German media report widely on every UN resolution they like - for example, when it comes to a resolution against Russia - they completely conceal it when a resolution is adopted in the UN that opposes the policy of the US-led West.
Resolution against unilateral sanctions
So it is on the 3rd. April, because on that day the Non-Aligned States introduced a resolution to the UN Human Rights Council entitled "The negative effects of unilateral coercive measures on the protection of human rights" and called on all states to "no longer take, maintain, carry out or comply with unilateral coercive measures" because they "contradict the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles for peaceful relations between
The UN Human Rights Council consists of 47 members and the vote on the resolution was clear: 33 states voted in favour, 13 against and one state (Mexico) abstained. The 13 states that voted against the resolution were unsurprisingly NATO members and other satellite states of the USA, which are world leaders in imposing unilateral (and thus contrary to international law) sanctions. The 13 states were: Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Georgia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Romania, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Great Britain and the USA.
For the sake of completeness, it should also be mentioned which states voted for the resolution: Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Ivory Coast, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Honduras, India, Cameroon, Qatar, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, Paraguay, Senegal, Somalia, South
The resolution stated that they were "an alarmed about the disproportionate and indiscriminate human costs of unilateral sanctions and their negative effects on the civilian population, in particular on women and children, in the target states" and "deeply concerned about the negative effects of unilateral coercive measures on the right to life, the right of everyone to the highest level of physical and mental health and medical care In addition, it was found that sanctions lead to "serious violations of the human rights of the affected population groups" with "special consequences for (...) the elderly and people with disabilities". Furthermore, the adopted resolution text said:
(We) strongly condemn the continued unilateral application and enforcement of such measures by certain powers as a means of pressure, including political and economic pressure, against each country, especially against the least developed countries and the developing countries, with the aim of preventing these countries from exercising their right to freely decide on their own political, economic and social system."
You don't have to be an expert in international politics to understand who the resolution is addressing and who it criticizes. The resolution is a slap in the face for the USA and its Western vassal states, which have therefore all voted well against this resolution.
Why unilateral resolutions are contrary to international law
According to the UN Charter, which is the basis of the current international law, sanctions are only allowed if they are decided by the UN Security Council. All other unilaterally imposed sanctions are a violation of international law, as we can read in the UN Charter.
According to the UN Charter, any attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of another state is prohibited. This is clearly stated in the first articles of the UN Charter. But there are exceptions, as can be read in Article 2 paragraph 7 of the UN Charter. It says:
"This Charter cannot be used to derive a power of the United Nations to intervene in matters which are inherently the internal jurisdiction of a state or an obligation of members to subject such matters to a regulation on the basis of this Charter; the application of coercive measures under Chapter VII is not affected by this principle."
In plain language: Neither individual states, nor groups of states, nor the UN itself may interfere in the internal affairs of another state. The exceptions to this basic rule of the UN Charter are regulated in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. So let's take a look at it.
Chapter VII begins with Article 39, which reads:
The Security Council determines whether there is a threat or a breach of peace or an act of aggression; it makes recommendations or decides what measures are to be taken on the basis of Articles 41 and 42 to maintain or restore world peace and international security.
Before sanctions are imposed (or even a military operation permitted by the UN Security Council), the UN Security Council must first determine a threat or a breach of peace. The hurdle for the imposition of sanctions was therefore very high in international law. If this has happened and the UN Security Council wants to react by imposing sanctions, Article 41 applies, which reads:
"The Security Council may decide what measures - excluding force of arms - are to be taken to give effect to its decisions; it may call on the members of the United Nations to carry out these measures. They may include the total or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea and air transport, postal, telegraph and radio connections as well as other transport options and the termination of diplomatic relations."
That has already happened. The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on North Korea, these sanctions are covered by international law. But these are also pretty much the only sanctions currently covered by international law. All other sanctions imposed by the states of the US-led West on Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, Syria, Cuba and so on and so on are contrary to international law.
Therefore, the resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Council by a large majority is actually nothing special. The UN Human Rights Council has "only" demanded that the West respect and comply with international law, and for this very reason, the states of the West represented in the UN Human Rights Council have also voted unanimously against the resolution.
By the way, not only the states mentioned are against the unilateral Western sanctions. The Brazilian Foreign Minister also on the 17th. April at a meeting with his Russian colleague Lavrov as follows:
"I have reaffirmed to Lavrov Brazil's position on unilateral sanctions. Apart from the fact that they were not decided by the UN Security Council, they have negative consequences for economies around the world, especially for developing countries, many of which have not yet recovered from the pandemic."
The states of the West, which allegedly stand up for prosperity all over the world, have no inhibitions to harm the economy of all states in the world with their sanctions if they believe that it serves the interests of the US-led West. This is probably one of the many reasons why the West is currently rapidly losing influence in Africa, for example, because the African states in particular are suffering from the consequences of Western sanctions.
Western sanctions kill people
The Western sanctions are not only harmful to the economy of the affected countries, they are literally deadly. Not infrequently, for example, banks are sanctioned or states are disconnected from the international payment system SWIFT. But how should a state buy medicines, for example, if it cannot pay for it due to the Western sanctions?
Already in 2019, I reported on statements by the UN Special Representative on Sanctions and their consequences from the OHCHR, who stated when presenting a report on the effects of unilateral sanctions on Iran, for example:
The reintroduction of comprehensive unilateral sanctions has already had a negative impact on the human rights of ordinary Iranians. (...) The most comprehensive and serious effects of the sanctions have affected the human right to health, as evidenced by numerous credible sources, which indicate a number of cases of preventable suffering and even death, which is due to the lack of medicines due to sanctions."
Currently, Western sanctions are hindering the aid measures after the severe earthquake in Syria, because even the supply of certain medicines has been banned, at least by the EU (at least Nobel Peace Prize winner).
Russia would also be affected, because Russia can no longer import many medicines due to Western sanctions. However, in response to Western sanctions, the Russian government has begun to promote the development of a Russian pharmaceutical industry since 2014, which is why there are no problems with medicines in Russia today. Russia can largely provide itself with the necessary medicines.
The West has no inhibitions to kill hundreds of thousands of children through sanctions, as the example of Iraq has shown. As a reminder, the reaction of the US politician Albright, who was responsible for this, shows once again when she was asked that the Western sanctions in Iraq killed 500,000 children.
"500,000 children died. Is it worth it?" -"Yes"