UN Sanctions Reform - The Watson Institute for International Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Workshop on UN Sanctions 16-17 July 2004 exercise, an arms embargo was already in place on combatants within Arcadia). However, groups differed in the precise mix of measures to be imposed, citing diverse reasons for taking their various approaches. For example, one group shaped the imposition of prohibitions such as to maximize pressure on the parties, given their unwillingness to enter into a political process. A further group preferred the gradual intensification of measures, imposing targeted timber sanctions alone in Resolution 1713, and threatening to extend targeted sanctions to other sectors if the target’s behavior did not change. Recognizing timber as an essential source of revenue for both parties of the conflict, all three groups decided to impose timber embargoes. In reaching this decision, each of the groups scrutinized the economic, historic, and demographic information on Arcadia; in the end, each group was satisfied that the impact on civilians would be limited. As an additional safeguard, each of the resolutions that resulted from the working groups called for regular assessments of the humanitarian impact of such sanctions. In outlining further provisions for implementing the timber ban, however, one group called for tactical maritime assistance for enforcing the embargo, as well as the “naming and shaming” of corporations involved in the Arcadian timber trade. Two groups modeled their timber export bans on recent Security Council resolutions, 1478 (2003) and 1521 (2003). In one case, this included specifying a time limit for the embargo (ten-months). After this period the embargo would be reviewed, with the potential for extension. Working groups also discussed specific enforcement challenges, such as discerning timber originating in Arcadia from that harvested in neighboring Warwick. In addition to sanctions targeted upon the timber sector, the working groups debated the imposition of targeted sanctions on individuals, including travel bans and targeted financial sanctions. The approach to listing such individuals differed among working groups. Using language from the Interlaken manual, one group compiled an open list of targets for both a financial assets freeze and a travel ban. The group’s list included all of the principal actors described in the simulation fact situation, and their immediate family members. In another group, participants initially suggested targeting all members of the government, the rebels, and their respective supporters. But, on reflection, the group decided that it would be more feasible to limit the sanctions to senior government and rebel leaders, their families, and close associates. This group’s resolution contained an annex that listed targeted individuals and extended sanctions to “legal persons owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by targeted individuals and entities listed in Annex A.” Their resolution also enabled the Sanctions Committee to add or remove individuals from the annex. The final group extended a travel ban and financial sanctions to those “obstructing and violating the measures of the peace process,” which included all rebel and government leaders involved in the fighting, although family members were not explicitly targeted. The matter of whether to target Arcadian President Rutherford Simmons drew each group into a lengthy discussion. His role in the scenario was ambiguous. While he had a constructive attitude toward peace talks, he lacked the ability to control government officials involved in abuses. For this latter reason, all groups decided to include Simmons among the government officials identified in any list of targeted individuals. Finally, all three groups decided that exemptions to the travel ban 9
Workshop on UN Sanctions 16-17 July 2004 and assets freeze should be granted on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian purposes such as health care or participation in peace negotiations. Two groups called for an aviation ban on AirARMS, the airline of suspected arms-dealer, Paul Armstrong. Drawing on the Bonn-Berlin Manual, one such group decided that all states “shall take all measures to deny permission to any aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory if that aircraft is owned, leased, controlled or operated on behalf of AirARMS.” One group did not impose an aviation ban, instead relying on an assets freeze on Paul Armstrong to curtail the illicit activities of AirARMS. The groups’ final challenge was to devise methods to monitor and enforce the new targeted sanctions regime. Each group suggested engaging regional and international organizations and expanding the mandate of the UN Mission in Arcadia (UNMIA) to achieve this. In each group, the task of assessing the progress of the peace process and maintaining a watching brief on the utility of sanctions was delegated to the Sanctions Committee. One group also tasked the Committee with receiving reports on sanctions implementation from all member countries, and reporting any violations of the sanctions. A further group, using language from the Interlaken Manual, called for member states to provide support to the Committee towards these ends, for example, by notifying the Sanctions Committee of the actions of targeted persons or entities, and forwarding any relevant information to the Committee. In addition to the Committee, one group also called for the formation of a Sanctions Enforcement Team. While a Panel of Experts had been created in a prior resolution, one group expanded it to include appointees with experience in the new sanction areas. Further, this group directed the Panel to monitor the implementation of sanctions and offer recommendations for increasing the enforcement capabilities of Arcadia and its neighbors. In addition, the group requested that ECOSOC establish an ad hoc advisory group to assist in coping with all aspects of the crisis, including political issues, humanitarian problems, and reconstruction. In order to monitor the effects of the sanctions regime (especially humanitarian effects), another group requested quarterly reports from the UN Secretary General’s office. This group also decided to renew the mandate of the Panel of Experts and request additional help from neighboring states in deploying Sanctions Assistance Missions (SAMs). Finally, members of the final group to present stressed the importance of stating that those responsible for the violent atrocities receive no impunity. The group discussed the possible role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) or an internationally supported fact-finding commission to investigate atrocities including, the deaths of 5,000 Arcadians and 25 UN workers in a spate of violence in December 2005. The role of targeted sanctions in responding to changed facts on the ground On the second day of the workshop, participants were informed that 13 months had elapsed since the targeted sanctions they designed on the previous day had been imposed. On this basis, they were given a revised briefing (see Attachment XX), in the form of an Expert Panel Report on developments in Arcadia subsequent to the imposition of targeted sanctions. The most important development was the conclusion of a peace agreement, 10
Page 1 and 2: WORKSHOP ON UN Sanctions Reform 16-
Page 3 and 4: Workshop on UN Sanctions 16-17 July
Page 11: Workshop on UN Sanctions 16-17 July
Page 31 and 32: Draft 1. Welcomes UNMIA’s readine
Page 33 and 34: Draft UNITED NATIONS S Security Cou
Page 35 and 36: Draft Sanctions Committee: • Task
Page 37 and 38: Draft 4. The successful conclusion

UN Sanctions Reform - The Watson Institute for International Studies

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?