Impact of conflict greater than sanctions

A UN report to the Security Council has found that although there are adverse humanitarian effects resulting from the current sanctions regime, they paled in significance as compared to the effects of war and drought. The report concluded that the scope and magnitude of adverse humanitarian effects were “greatly exceeded by the effects of other factors causing suffering, notably the unprecedented drought, continuation of the conflict and widespread deprivation of human rights”.

“This report acknowledges that the war is at the root of human suffering in Afghanistan,” Spokeswoman for the Office of the Coordinator for Afghanistan in Islamabad, Stephanie Bunker, told IRIN on Tuesday. “It’s not sanctions, it’s not drought. It clearly points to the fighting as the main cause for suffering and displacement,” she added.

Released on 13 July, the Secretary-General’s mid-term review of the humanitarian implications of UN sanctions found the clearest direct effect was on civil aviation. The ban on international flights by the national carrier, Ariana Airlines, had reduced the airline’s ability “to operate its planes, maintain safety, generate employment and income”, the report said. Based on field assessments between March and May, the report claimed current sanctions risked compromising the safety of Ariana Airlines domestic flights, and called for exemptions that would enable aircraft to be properly maintained outside the country.

However, the impact of the air restrictions on Afghanistan’s international trade was limited. With only a small proportion of Afghan trade transported by air, it was found that imports and exports were relatively unaffected by the ban. But sanctions had helped to deter foreign investors, it said. Whereas there had been some limited investment from Pakistani businessmen, Greek and Czech companies had withdrawn from investment negotiations when the sanctions were imposed, it said.
Taliban officials claimed that the sanctions had also ended discussions to establish a US $500 million portfolio with an investment bank in Dubai.

Meanwhile, it emerged that the reaction to the sanctions by the
authorities had worsened the working environment for relief agencies. The
report claimed that humanitarian restrictions hardened after the
imposition of resolution 1333 (2000) in December. The decline in respect
for humanitarian agencies was also linked to other factors, including a
complicated political environment and differences over humanitarian
principles, it said. [for the full Report of the Secretary-General (Kofi
Annan) on the humanitarian implications of the measures imposed by
Security Council resolution 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000) on Afghanistan, go to: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/reports/2001/sgrep01.htm]

Bunker said the report demonstrated how little had been done by the Taliban authorities to address the humanitarian crisis. Recent estimates had calculated that the international community would have poured in an average of US $800,000 per day by the year’s end, she said. She regarded as significant the fact that international humanitarian assistance amounted to over five times the annual Afghan state budget. “Aid provides the only safety net for Afghans at the moment, and it remains critical to their welfare,” she added.

Interviews in and around Kabul indicated a high awareness of the sanctions, with 33 percent claiming to have suffered directly themselves. A further 83 percent of some 287 people interviewed believed that sanctions had caused an element of suffering for Afghans. The report indicated that the authorities had heavily publicised the sanctions, associating them directly with adverse conditions in Afghanistan. This had not helped foster a good working environment for the UN system, it said.

The monitoring mechanism was included in the last UN resolution to determine whether UN resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000) had any impact on the humanitarian situation inside the country.