A debate has sprung up in recent weeks in Iran arguing that Western sanctions have caused human rights problems for the country. In other words, some believe that living conditions have deteriorated, poverty has expanded and more limitations exist now on availability of medicine, thus making them conclude that human rights have suffered and that Western governments, led by the United States, are the cause of human rights violations and deterioration in Iran.
The extremist faction in Iran strives to portray sanctions as the biggest human rights issue in the country advancing the idea that the supporters of this view have always been against the sanctions and foreign pressure on Iran.
I would like to examine this issue, but before that I want to make it clear that reviewing the human rights situation is not done for the purpose of defending the sanctions.
The first issue with the view that international sanctions have exacerbated human rights conditions in Iran is that this misrepresents reality. Some supporters of this view speak as if the West has banned the export of medicine and foodstuffs to Iran. Such items are not on the sanctions list. In fact, the volume of imports of agricultural products, health and even industrial products to Iran from the US show a growing trend since 2007. In the first eight months of 2012, the volume of US exports to Iran stood at 199,500,000 USD. Documents show that this is more than the 161.5 million USD in 2010.
Even imports of the European Union from Iran last month show an increase. EU exports to Iran particularly in consumer goods and food items have remained the same and there has been no drop in their volume.
So the claim that food and medicine have been banned for export to Iran is not true. At most one can say that they have been impacted. Clearly, the problems that have been created in opening banking letters of credit, the import of medicine, particularly critical medicine, is now subject to bottlenecks, but the channel has not been blocked.
One can criticize Western governments to the effect that they have not taken any steps to create special channels non-banned items, but clearly the sanctions do not contain provisions to target what people need and deprive them of food and medicine.
The other issue is about exaggerations in describing the situation. Despite all the conditions facing the country, the situation has not resulted in hunger or absolute absence of any goods in the country. People do not even face absolute shortages in finding their medicine. Attempts by some to compare the situation in Iran with that of the final days of Saddam Hussein’s regime, or getting close to that soon, are not supported by reality and are the products of imagination.
The most important problem with the view that sanctions have resulted in harsher human rights conditions relates to overlooking the ineffective role of the Iranian government and its unpreparedness in the economic management of the nation. Critics of the sanctions point the finger of blame for everything on the sanctions. The reality is that the wrong policies of the government, particularly those economic government policies that have been approved by the supreme leader, have played a key role in the creation of the current situation, including welfare issues. At the same time one should not forget that the Islamic republic has been ineffective right from the beginning in the field of economic management, managing inflation and providing the minimum needs of the majority of Iran’s population.
This is not just a point of view but is even claimed by certain key factions within the Iranian regime. Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani, and MP Ahmad Tavakoli, reject the notion that all current economic problems have been caused by sanctions.
Those individuals and groups that advance the notion that sanctions have worsened the human rights situation in Iran say this because of their ideological and political views, not on the basis of factual evidence and realities on the ground.
Weak management and wrong policies of the regime have had a greater negative impact on the hardening living conditions than economic sanctions.
The foreign exchange crises, because of which there is now a very wide gap between the official and market values of the Dollar, and the attraction of makingng huge profits with the least effort, have resulted in that some importers of consumer goods and medicine sell their goods in the open market (for which they earn much larger profit margins). In some other cases, they prefer to export their products to make better profits. Such practices and opportunism have resulted in the shortage of some goods in the country, which in the final count make the government responsible for the consequential problems.
The issue of course is that the West is in conflict with Iran because of security issues over the latter’s nuclear problems. The nuclear program of Iran is suspicious and no one can comfortably say that Tehran is not after nuclear weapons. An Islamic republic armed with nuclear weapons is costly to the people of Iran, the region and the world because of its confrontational and negative approach to human rights and international law and norms.
On the other hand, there are no categorical documents indicating that Iran is pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The international community has approached this issue with double standards. Some countries have obtained nuclear weapons outside international monitoring of their nuclear programs and they have not faced any punitive measures. So these issues have created a complicated situation that cannot be resolved very easily. The lifting of international sanctions requires the elimination of the legitimate concerns of the international community.
The only conclusion one can reach is that the regime in Tehran is the principle responsible party because it has embarked on an adventurous path on the nuclear issue creating this situation for the people of Iran and the country. In fact, the regime’s attempts to escape confidence building measures, the history of secret activities and the lack of cooperation with the IAEA have created the basis for the international sanctions against Iran.
But in looking at the consequences of the sanctions for the people of Iran, the regime in Tehran is far more responsible for this than Western governments. This is after all a regime which for its nuclear aggrandizement and a confrontation that brings no specific benefits to the Iranian people, and which is willing to endanger the living conditions of the people through this dangerous path. Because of these, it deserves the larger condemnation and criticism.
In a selfish and imposing measure, the supreme leader of the Islamic regime calls on the people of Iran to bear greater pain and sacrifice, including economic problems, while these very people have not had any say in the decision to go ahead with this nuclear program and its specific direction. This decision by the regime, and particularly its supreme leader, is a trampling of their rights and pursuits of building the industries, agriculture, infra-structure etc of their society. Instead of utilizing the resources of the country for development and resolution of the problems related to the basic needs of people, they are used for the pursuit and achievement of something that brings no benefits to the people.
Another issue that complicates this situation is the price that is paid by social movements and struggle. It is clear that a regime such as the Islamic republic will not easily transfer power to people and embrace democracy. So the achievement of this dream of the Iranian people requires a rough struggle and battle. This will have costs for them. And this cost is not limited to torture, prison and executions. When the struggle reaches its heights, strikes take place and economic activity across the country diminishes, at least for a while. Clearly the impact of such economic slowdown will be more hardship for people. So people’s tolerance of hardships does not in essence conflict with their human rights and only determine the ultimate goal and the timing of its attainment. And since the current sanctions are related to the nuclear problem and not related to the democracy movement in Iran, this debate too is not directly relevant.
So, do sanctions aimed at constraining the behavior of a state conflict with human rights? This is difficult to conclude, but it can be said that under specific conditions, hardship will come if there is a determination to attain long-term improvements and benefits. Consequently, if sanctions create serious issues for a regime and threaten its survival, they can be effective.
