- Mission Background

On May 3-13, 1996, the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR, formerly known as the Harvard Study Team) sent a team of economists from the London School of Economics to Iraq. One of the economists on the team had participated in the 1991 mission, and this study builds on that work. The objective of the work was to study the effect of sanctions on the Iraqi economy and the livelihood and well-being of its population.

Earlier in the year (April 2-19), CESR had conducted scientific surveys in the areas of child mortality and nutritional status, public health, and water and sanitation infrastructure. These studies were designed to assess the impact of sanctions on the civilian population. In May, CESR had released its findings with a legal assessment of UN Security Council sanctions imposed against Iraq. The report, UNSanctioned Suffering: A Human Rights Assessment of United Nations Sanctions on Iraq, raised ethical and legal questions about the present sanctions regime that imposes such terrible costs on a population, which has no voice in the policies of either its own government or the international community. The report stated that less drastic means are available to constrain the Iraqi regime without imposing the costs on the most vulnerable sectors of society, and recommended that the Security Council and the international community consider the following measures:

• Modify the oil-for-food deal to remove the limit on oil revenues for humanitarian needs. It does not make legal, ethical or economic sense for the Security Council to adopt an arbitrary limit of $4 billion per year that will guarantee continued deprivation throughout the population.
• Adopt alternatives to comprehensive sanctions on Iraq and in future cases. The international community should not impose massive and collective suffering on innocent civilians for the sins of their government -- the entire human rights regime is premised on the inherent dignity of the individual. The case of Iraq demonstrates that sanctions are not always a humane alternative to war.
• Establish a clear legal framework to govern Security Council sanctions. Although the UN Charter and general principles of international law govern Security Council action, this area of law is less clearly defined than, for example, humanitarian law which governs military conduct during war. The UN should convene an international panel of experts to draft a legal regime that defines the parameters of the Council’s power to maintain international peace and security through sanctions and other forms of pressure.