Speakers Differ over Use of Sanctions as Security Council Considers Working Methods of Its Subsidiary Bodies
Effectiveness, Procedures, Unintended Impacts Among Main Concerns as Targeted Countries Address Members for First Time
Speakers called today for greater transparency in the procedures and practices of committees established to monitor United Nations sanctions and improve communication with affected countries, as the Security Council held a general debate on the working methods of its subsidiary bodies.
The 15-member Council has established a total of 26 sanctions regimes since 1966, imposing arms embargoes, travel bans and financial restrictions on nations and extremist groups as part of broader political strategies to resolve conflicts and maintain international peace and security.
Representatives of the United Kingdom, United States and France said that sanctions had helped to restrict the development of nuclear weapons in Iran and were choking off funding for Da’esh and Al-Qaida. Yet Venezuela’s representative, among others, expressed fears that sanctions could become permanent in some cases, and expressed concern about their unintended consequences causing greater harm and instability.
Many speakers said the current method for selecting chairs for the Council’s sanctions committees was not balanced, transparent and inclusive, and the process took too long, depriving the incoming chairs of sufficient time to prepare for their respective new roles. There was also a need for greater dialogue with non-Council members, States affected by sanctions and regional organizations, many speakers emphasized.
Some called for publishing the reports issued by sanctions committees on a regular basis. The representatives of Senegal and Uruguay called for broadening the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsperson for the 1267 Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee to other subsidiary bodies, a proposal that the Russian Federation’s representative described as dangerous. Council resolution 2253 (2015) ensured an optimal measure of transparency and fairness, and additional measures could lead to a “watering down” of the anti-terrorism sanctions regime, he cautioned.
The representative of Sweden, one of the main five sponsors of the High-level Review of United Nations Sanctions established in May 2014, pointed to several steps taken to address calls for greater openness, including more active engagement with major stakeholders, more field visits by committee chairs and more reporting to the public. Furthermore, the High-level Review recommended that committee chairs present their reports to the Council during public sessions so that Member States could be better informed and more involved, he said.
Chile’s representative, speaking on behalf of the former Chair of the 1572 Côte d’Ivoire and 2206 South Sudan Sanctions Committees, said that since subsidiary bodies covered a broad range of topics, it would be reasonable to establish some “common denominators” to identify best practices. Each committee should consider preparing an “Implementation Assistance Note” to supplement the Consolidated Sanctions List in the application of all Council sanctions.
Noting that complaints about the lack of due process in establishing sanctions regimes or the designation process undermined the legitimacy of sanctions and hampered their implementation, he emphasized nonetheless that sanctions were a “temporary tool” and not an end in themselves. As such, the Council should not perpetuate the committees indefinitely, and to better facilitate their work, new Council members should know quickly, once they were elected, the committees to which they were to be assigned.
For the first time today, sanctions-affected countries were invited to address the Council under rule 37 of its provisional rules of procedure. Six representatives expressed their concerns.
The representative of the Central African Republic said that an individual subjected to a travel ban had recently entered the country and left freely, which called into question the role of INTERPOL in enforcing the sanctions regime as well as the surveillance of the relevant sanctions committee’s Panel of Experts. He noted that neighbouring Sudan and South Sudan were failing to respect both the sanctions regime and the Arms Trade Treaty’s provisions on the non-circulation of weapons. To be effective, the arms embargo must include actions on border control, he stressed.
Côte d’Ivoire’s representative said his Government’s willingness to cooperate with the committee overseeing sanctions on the country was undermined by the short engagement time — a mere two to three weeks. He called for more time for States to respond efficiently to expert panels, particularly when dealing with complex subjects. Once peace and stability returned, the arms embargo against Côte d’Ivoire should be lifted, he said.
Eritrea’s representative urged the Council to lift the sanctions against his country altogether, pointing out that the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group had been reporting baseless allegations collected from nameless and faceless sources. While mandated to examine Eritrea’s alleged support for Al-Shabaab in Somalia and look into its border dispute with Djibouti, the Monitoring Group had exceeded its mandate in taking on the dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Since the Group had clearly stated that “it has found no evidence of Eritrean support to Al-Shabaab”, and the Eritrea-Djibouti issue was being handled by Qatar, “there is no imagined or real threat to international peace and security in which Eritrea is involved”, he stressed.
Iran’s representative pointed out that unintended impacts were among the most neglected aspects of sanctions, adding that they often interfered with the functioning of basic health and education systems, undermined the right to work and created serious obstacles to development. His counterpart from Libya noted that while the arms embargo imposed on his country was needed to prevent radical militias from arming themselves, the flow of weapons to militias affiliated with Da’esh and Al-Qaida continued under the direction of “well-known” States. Sudan’s representative emphasized that Council members had a responsibility not to pursue their own political agendas through sanctions, adding that they represented not just themselves, but all Member States.
Also speaking today were representatives of China, Angola, New Zealand, Japan, Spain, Malaysia, Ukraine and Egypt.
The meeting started at 10:09 a.m. and ended at 1:14 p.m.
Briefings
OLOF SKOOG (Sweden), recalling that his country had been one of the five main sponsors of the High-level Review of United Nations Sanctions, launched in May 2014, said that such measures could never be successful in isolation, but must always be part of a broader political strategy. Closer interaction among the chairs of sanctions committees and the penholders of resolutions mandating sanctions should be encouraged, as should further interaction between sanctions committees and the Secretariat. Sanctions must have clear aims as well as criteria for suspension or termination, he emphasized, adding that they must also be targeted, easily understood, well communicated, and easy to implement, with transparent procedures and provisions for due process.
Several steps had already been taken to increase transparency in the working methods of sanctions committees, he said. There was now more active engagement with major stakeholders, committee chairs were conducting more field visits, and reporting to the public had increased. Such efforts were commendable. Citing several requirements to improve the working methods of sanctions committees, as identified by the High-level Review, he said that, for example, the committees could present their reports to the Council during public sessions so that Member States could be better informed and more involved. Committee chairs with similar themes or geographic scope could organize joint meetings and the Secretariat could organize targeted meetings with New York-based regional groups on challenges to sanctions implementation and possible assistance.
He went on to propose that committees could routinely review individual and entity designations to ensure that listings remained appropriate. The Council and its sanctions committees could use standardized terms and guidelines to reduce uncertainty and the potential for over-compliance with sanctions. Greater transparency was needed in the appointment of sanctions committee chairs, he said, emphasizing that broader consultations with Council members would ensure a more balanced distribution of chairs. New chairs should be appointed as early as possible after each election of non-permanent Council members. Calling for earlier elections of non-permanent Council members, he said comprehensive and timely handover from outgoing to incoming chairs should become established practice.
CARLOS OLGUÍN CIGARROA (Chile), speaking on behalf of the former Chair of the Cote d’Ivoire and South Sudan Sanctions Committees, said that, while progress had been made in recent years, there were still problems affecting the effective implementation of sanctions by Member States. Identifying some worrying issues in that regard, he said that, since sanctions committees covered a broad range of topics, it would be reasonable to establish some “common denominators” to identify best practices. Consideration should be given to the preparation of an “Implementation Assistance Note” to supplement the Consolidated Sanctions List in the application of all Security Council sanctions, he suggested.
Noting that criticisms about lack of due process in establishing sanctions regimes or the designation process undermined the legitimacy of the measures and hampered their implementation, he said it was for that reason that the Council should strengthen and extend the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsperson. Transparency and outreach were critical, he added. The periodic reports submitted by the sanctions committees and other subsidiary organs of the Council should be delivered in public as a general rule, and should be accompanied by press releases, a tool that was underutilized. Additionally, there was a need to improve dialogue between the committees and States directly affected by sanctions, neighbouring States and others in the region. It was also important to promote on-site visits by sanctions committees.
On the issue of unintended consequences — which must be avoided — he said assistance and cooperation should enhance national capacities and national ownership by the States concerned, at their request, in areas such as exploitation of natural resources and control over small arms and light weapons. Emphasizing that sanctions were a “temporary tool” and not an end in themselves, he said the Council should not perpetuate the committees indefinitely. As for working methods, he said concrete measures should facilitate the chairmanship of committees. For example, once new Council members were elected, they should know quickly the committees to which they were to be assigned in order to allow the incoming teams to prepare for their new and important tasks. Finally, he called for reflection on modalities for improving the sanctions architecture.
Statements
LIU JIEYI (China), noting that the number of open debates in the Council had increased notably, said the Council had held briefings with non-Council members and had increased interaction with the broader United Nations membership. Such efforts were commendable and should continue, he said, urging the Council to focus its resources and energy on major international peace and security items, while also increasing its focus on secondary issues. It should increase the use of diplomacy, mediation and good offices to resolve crisis, while paying greater attention to the views of affected countries. In line with Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, it should strengthen cooperation and consultation with regional bodies. The Council’s subsidiary bodies must implement their mandates in a comprehensive manner, he emphasized, calling also for the strengthening of listing and delisting processes. The 1540 Counter-terrorism Committee, the Council’s Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations and other subsidiary bodies must be provided with technical support in order to enhance their capacity-building efforts, he said.
ALEXIS LAMEK (France), citing the five Council resolutions in which the international community stressed its profound concern regarding Iran, said there was a new chapter with that country. A new vigilance system was in place and would be presented by Member States on Friday, he said. Sanctions were a key tool for States shaken by insecurity like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic and Somalia. They were flexible due also to their scope, he said, noting that the 1267 regime initially targeting Al-Qaida had changed with the evolving terrorist threat to take Da’esh into account. The expert panels mandated by the Council produced very useful reports, and their publication should not be called into question, he emphasized. As penholder for many sanctions regimes in Africa, France was always at the disposal of the sanctions committees’ chairs, he said, adding that his delegation was interested in the work of the High-level Review. Sanctions were mainly a political tool to help the Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, and the Council had a responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of the tools it established, he stressed.
ISMAEL ABRAÃO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola) said that sanctions committees played a substantive role as a political tool of the Council, and it must carefully address key issues of transparency and outreach. It was currently perceived by the wider United Nations membership that transparency was closely linked to the legitimacy of sanctions, he said, noting that the international community’s compliance required that relevant information be provided to all Member States. The draft note presented by the President suggested substantial changes in the way in which sanctions committees operated, including the fact that much of their work was presently conducted without the knowledge of Council members. Calling for greater dialogue with non-Council members and States affected by sanctions, he said the selection and preparation of Committee chairs was also critical and should be balanced, transparent and inclusive, which was not currently the case. Chairs should be appointed in a timely and proper manner, allowing for prior attendance to the subsidiary bodies concerned. Angola hoped the draft note would be used as a tool for better implementation of the relevant work of the Council. “The Security Council needs, now more than ever, to maintain a clear stand” to ensure that divisions among its members would not have a negative impact on the ability of committees to fulfil their mandates.
GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand), noting that sanctions were among the few tools, short of force, available to the Security Council, said they could and did have a useful impact, although their implementation and overall usefulness was dependent upon the effective functioning of the sanctions committees. Formal and often cumbersome operational processes often got in the way of their ability to carry out its work, he said, declaring: “Being unable to agree on the simplest of follow-up actions on allegations of non-compliance is, quite frankly, ridiculous.” There must also be greater coherence between the work of the subsidiary bodies and related discussions in the Council’s broader work, he emphasized. “Sanctions are not imposed in isolation; but, save for a few formulaic briefings if we are lucky, we discuss them as if they were. This needs to change.” Furthermore, elected members needed greater support for their role in the subsidiary bodies, he said, stressing that the non-permanent Council members should not be relegated to the “burden” of the committees’ administrative tasks. As for changes to the Council’s working methods, he acknowledged that they would not happen overnight, but would require a shift in the existing culture of formality and exclusivity.
FODÉ SECK (Senegal) said the Council must make the work of its subsidiary bodies and the way in which their chairs were appointed more inclusive and transparent. The appointment of chairs should be subject to an informal consultations process with all Council members in a fair, transparent and inclusive manner, he said, adding that appointments should occur at least three months prior to a mandate’s creation. Outgoing chairs should be encouraged to provide oral and written presentation of their mandates, and to improve transparency, chairs must hold briefings, followed by exchanges with non-Council members. There was a need to consider coordination mechanisms for planning between sanctions committee chairs and the countries concerned, and affected countries as well as their neighbours should be part of the committees’ work. The translation of the committees’ reports into all official United Nations languages was imperative and must be considered in a timely manner, and the office of the ombudsman for the 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), and 2253 (2015) committees dealing with terrorism financing should be institutionalized. That would strengthen its ability to make decisions, he said, pointing out that the current method for appointing the ombudsman — in the same manner as the appointment of members of expert groups — was hardly transparent. The process must be independent, he emphasized, stressing also that the expert panels must carry out their mandates in a spirit of independence.
MATTHEW RYCROF (United Kingdom) said sanctions had helped to restrict the development of nuclear weapons in Iran and were choking off funding for groups like Da’esh and Al-Qaida. Noting that the United Nations had applied lessons from the past, moving away from broad trade embargoes to the application of sanctions that targeted individuals, he said more could always and must be done to promote the work of sanctions committees. While there was scope for greater openness and transparency in certain sanctions committees, any proposals for reform must be in keeping with the High-level Review. Sanctions reform must be discussed in the round, including by examining the sanctions machinery and the work and impact of sanctions inside and outside the United Nations. Any efforts to improve the work of sanctions committees would count for nothing if they failed to address how sanctions were implemented, he said, stressing that it was crucial that all States implemented them fully. States serving on sanctions committees must abide by the terms of resolutions governing the relevant sanctions regimes, he said, adding that there was scope for the sharing of best practices and lessons learned. Sharing information and best practices would help Member States with implementation, he said, adding that sanctions must be made as easy to implement as possible.
MOTOHIDE YOSHIKAWA (Japan) said the international community now faced serious threats posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent nuclear tests and ballistic missile launch, which both constituted violations of relevant Council resolutions. The Council should adopt a new resolution in response to those dangerous provocations, he said. While the word “sanctions” had a punitive connotation, sanctions were in fact non-military measures, as stipulated by the United Nations Charter, and not a punishment or objective. They constituted one of the most important tools at the Council’s disposal. On the Council’s 11 expert panels, he stressed that competent experts must be selected and that independence was crucial as they were subjected to much political pressure. In that connection, the annual reports of individual panels should be published without exception. Recalling that he had been selected to lead subsidiary bodies dealing with Lebanon and Yemen, among others, he said one month had not been enough time to prepare for those positions, and suggested that chairs be appointed no fewer than three months before assuming leadership, and be able immediately to attend meetings. In addition, chairmanship of subsidiary bodies should not be monopolized by elected Council members, but should also be enjoyed by the five permanent members.
VLADIMIR K. SAFRONKOV (Russian Federation) said his delegation was open to increasing transparency, but warned that all proposals to change the work of sanctions committees should be considered carefully. The additional workload should not create an obstacle for committees attempting to carry out their primary functions. Given the specificities of the scope of the committees’ work, open meetings should be carefully considered. He went on to question proposals to publish the committees’ reports and to insist that there must be a careful analysis of the effectiveness of sanctions regimes as they were being drawn up. It was dangerous to talk about broadening the mandate of the ombudsperson, he added. Council resolution 2253 (2015) ensured an optimal measure of transparency and fairness; additional measures could lead to a “watering down” of the anti-terrorism sanctions regime, he said, expressing his delegation’s negative view regarding the creation of additional bureaucratic red tape. Furthermore, the functioning of each sanctions committee was unique, and measures to address their work could not be universalized. Unfortunately, today certain Council members abused their rights as penholders because they viewed other countries as “their lands”, he said, noting that the resolution drafted by the United States last week had divided the Council.
Ms. PEDROS (Spain), recalling that her delegation had presided over the 1718 and 1540 sanctions committees, said the management of those two bodies must improve in the future. Describing each subsidiary body as “its own world”, she said all sanctions committees could not be considered on an equal footing and each required a case-by-case analysis. Open briefings by the chairs of subsidiary bodies should be the norm, as should publication of the reports of expert panels. Greater focus must be placed on the substance of informal meetings of committees, she said, adding that the websites of subsidiary bodies were very useful, and describing the 1540 sanctions committee’s website as a good example in that regard. New Council members should be elected in June, and new committee chairs designated earlier than in the past, she said. With non-permanent Council members only serving for two years, it did not make sense to begin the transition process so late, she said, emphasizing that it must start earlier. Efforts should be made to avoid the unintended consequences of sanctions, which should be preventative rather than punitive. Noting that restrictive measures had proven effective in changing certain behaviours or actions, she called for better coordination among subsidiary bodies as well as between them and the penholders.
Mr. BERMUDEZ (Uruguay) said the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group attached great importance to enhancing the transparency of the Council and its subsidiary bodies. At the end of its Council presidency in January, Uruguay had proposed the creation of a more open configuration to discuss items on the Council’s agenda, he said, adding that ongoing dialogue with non-Council Member States was vital. He called for greater transparency in Council subsidiary bodies without jeopardizing confidentiality, emphasizing that their working methods should make the sanctions system more effective. Uruguay called for a debate on extending the mandate of the ombudsman for certain sanctions committees to all sanctions committees, as well as for greater transparency in appointing committee chairs. He echoed calls by the representatives of Venezuela and other Council members for more frequent interactive discussions, more dissemination of information on committee activities to the international press, and public records of committee meetings. As a troop contributor and non-permanent Council member, Uruguay reiterated the importance of improving the working methods of sanctions committees, he said.
DAVID PRESSMAN (United States), recalling the role of international sanctions in ending apartheid in South Africa and in such areas as nuclear non-proliferation, among others, said they constituted a flexible tool and could be adjusted to encourage progress, good governance and other important goals, as had been the case in Liberia. Today, the 1267 Committee on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al-Qaida was successfully choking off funding to those groups, while sanctions had been imposed on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in relation to that country’s violations of Council resolutions. Sanctions could prevent greater violence or “change the calculus” of countries, including those who threatened to commit genocide or provide support to terrorists, he said, recalling that most recently, sanctions had helped to guide Iran to an international nuclear deal and had then been lifted.
He went on to say that he disagreed with the characterization of his delegation’s actions as penholder on Sudan by the representative of the Russian Federation. Indeed, when a member of the Council blocked the publication of a Panel of Experts report, it was frustrating for transparency, he pointed out. Sanctions committees should do more to ensure that their work was integrated with that of other United Nations bodies, he said, proposing that committee chairs and special representatives of the Secretary-General hold regular dialogue. “Too often, these bodies are opaque to the outside world,” he noted, emphasizing the need for further dialogue with concerned States and with the wider United Nations membership. Yesterday’s resolution on the Sudan Panel of Experts contained no new information because the Panel’s report had been blocked from publication, he recalled, stressing that sanctions committees must improve their ability to respond to wilful violations of Council resolutions.
SITI HAJJAR ADNIN (Malaysia) reiterated the position of the Non-Aligned Movement that the application of sanctions must be fully in line with the United Nations Charter, and even then used only as a last resort. Focusing on her delegation’s work as Chair of the Working Group on Children in Armed Conflict and of the 1970 Committee on Libya Sanctions, she described Malaysia’s efforts to bring innovation to those bodies, including by holding joint meetings with other United Nations organs. She underscored the role of committee chairs in undertaking outreach activities, including the dissemination of information on their work to as wide an audience as possible. She said her delegation supported suggestions that chairs begin their work as early as possible, adding that improving the transparency of the selection process would greatly improve the legitimacy of sanctions committees in the eyes of the Council’s elected members. Moving forward, Malaysia would support proposals on burden-sharing among all Council members, and on reviving the 2006 Open Working Group on improving the functioning of sanctions committees, she said.
VOLODYMYR YELCHENKO (Ukraine) pressed the Council to better adhere to the formula agreed in presidential note S/2012/937 on the selection of subsidiary-body chairs, by ensuring the participation of all Council members. Ukraine supported their appointment as soon as possible following their election, but no less than three months prior to assuming that role, thereby encouraging outgoing chairs to provide extensive written and oral briefings to those incoming. Chairs should meet regularly with their counterparts in bodies with similar themes and geographic scope, as well as with the Council itself, he said, citing the joint meeting of the 1267 Committee and the Counter-Terrorism Committee in that regard. The Council should invite chairs to brief in an open format to encourage engagement with non-Council members, he added.
AMR ABDELLATIF ABOULATTA (Egypt) said sanctions were not a long-term solution and should be lifted once their intended aim had been accomplished. The working methods of sanctions committees must be appropriate and effective in strengthening their own credibility and that of the United Nations, he said, adding that they should be subjected to periodic updating and review. There should be increased transparency in their work, including by increasing the number of public briefings by their chairs, he said, adding that summaries of their work should be periodically circulated to non-permanent Council members. All sanctions lists must be translated into all official languages and updated on the relevant websites. There was a need for a common vision of coordination among chairs of sanctions committees and penholders, he said, adding that the Council President should convene consultations in that regard, in addition to fostering constructive cooperation with national authorities, regional parties and neighbouring countries through periodic joint meetings and visits on the ground. Sanctions committees would benefit from hearing from a broad spectrum of players, including peacekeeping operations, special representatives of the Secretary-General on sexual violence and children in armed conflict, and advisory working groups on those matters. Further, the Council should hear from national experts and civil society, in line with the appropriate mechanisms.
RAFAEL DARÍO RAMÍREZ CARREÑO (Venezuela), Council President for February, said today marked the first time that the Council would be hearing from sanctions-affected countries regarding the impact of those measures. The aim was to discuss sanctions on specific issues and countries, not issues such as weapons of mass destruction. While Venezuela supported Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, which established the Council as the guarantor of international peace and security, it rejected any unilateral sanctions by one country against another. Although legal, sanctions were not perfect and they often created more instability and suffering, as had been the case in Iraq during the 1990s and in Haiti in 2004. The Council could and should adjust its approach in line with Article 41. Emphasizing the importance of discussing the effectiveness of sanctions committees, he said the measures could not be permanent. More must be done to improve due process in sanctions committees, which currently did not meet even the minimum legal threshold existing in national laws, he stressed. Noting that nine of 16 existing sanctions committees had been in operation for more than 10 years, he said only five had ceased operations. There was also a need for clear criteria and procedures for lifting sanctions that must be communicated publicly, he said, adding that the work of sanctions committee must more accurately reflect provisions of the Charter.
GHOLAMALI KHOSHROO (Iran) said that the need for transparency and strategic insight, as well as the potential for humanitarian impacts, should be taken into account when considering sanctions. The terms and conditions that the State or entity concerned must be clearly defined and subject to periodic review, he said, pointing out that unintended impacts were among the most neglected aspects of sanctions regimes. Such measures often interfered with the functioning of basic health and education systems, undermined the right to work and created serious obstacles to development. The use of sanctions raised fundamental ethical questions about their impact on vulnerable groups in targeted countries and whether they should be deemed legitimate means of exerting pressure. Utmost care must be taken by sanctions committees to protect against the victimization of innocent civilians, he stressed.
IBRAHIM O. A. DABBASHI (Libya) focused on his country’s experience of sanctions, saying they were not aimed against the legitimate Government but were in fact intended to help it restore stability. The sanctions were confined to an arms embargo, a travel ban, an asset freeze and regulations on the illegitimate trafficking of oil and fuel, all of which had been necessary. However, the application of the sanctions had faced many challenges, he said. For example, while the arms embargo was needed to prevent radical militias from obtaining weapons, it should not have applied to the Government or police. Moreover, the flow of weapons to militias — including those affiliated with Da’esh and Al-Qaida — continued under the direction of well-known States.
He went on to express hope that the Council had learned a lesson in that regard, and that the relevant sanctions committee would anticipate the new Government’s need for weapons. It was strange that information collected by the Panel of Experts had been withheld from Libya, he said, questioning in that regard the benefit and utility of the Panel. Noting that Libya was awaiting the formation of a National Reconciliation Government, he expressed hope that it would bring the country to a stage where there would be no longer be a need for sanctions. Finally, he emphasized that transparency, cooperation and coordination were the pillars that rendered sanctions regimes effective.
OMER DAHAB FADL MOHAMED (Sudan) said it was critical that expert panels maintain both transparency and impartiality, and that they hold regular dialogues with sanctions-affected States. Based on their nature, there was an inherent danger that sanctions regimes might be turned into “tutorships”, he cautioned, emphasizing that Council members had a responsibility not to pursue their own political agendas through sanctions.
Indeed, the United Nations had been created to protect collective security, and Council members therefore represented all Member States, not just themselves, he said. The use of sanctions should not be the norm, but a last resort because they could otherwise have direct consequences on populations. In that regard, he underscored the sovereign right of peoples to enjoy their own natural resources. Spotlighting the importance of country visits by chairs of sanctions committees — which allowed them to see the situation on the ground — he warned against the “plethora” of procedures and mechanisms in each country that were sometimes contradictory or could lead to corruption.
GIRMA ASMEROM TESFAY (Eritrea) said that sanctions committees must share information and interact regularly with the targeted countries, which had every right to receive the full contents of the draft and final report compiled by experts or monitoring groups. Sweeping statements such as “information gathered from reliable sources or former officials” must be rejected, he said, emphasizing that they could not be the basis for Council decisions. The sources must be clearly identified, and when information presented by expert panels was found to be false, it must be corrected publicly and immediately, he stressed.
The Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group had been reporting baseless allegations collected from nameless and faceless sources, he continued. While the Group was mandated to look into Eritrea’s alleged support for Al-Shabaab in Somalia and the border dispute between Eritrea and Djibouti, it had gone beyond its mandate to deal with the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict, he noted. Since the Group had clearly stated that “it has found no evidence of Eritrean support to Al-Shabaab” and the Eritrea-Djibouti issue was being handled by Qatar, “there is no imagined or real threat to international peace and security in which Eritrea is involved”, he said, urging the Council to lift the sanctions against his country.
Feh Moussa Gone (Côte d’Ivoire) recalled that Council resolution 1572 (2004) had placed his country under sanctions, including an arms embargo, movement restrictions, a freeze on individual assets and an embargo on diamonds. The first six years of sanctions had not allowed for true progress, but with the inauguration of President Alassane Ouattara in 2011, positive changes had followed, leading the Council progressively to lighten the arms embargo. In April 2014, effective governance over natural resources had led the Council to lift the embargo on diamonds. With the good conduct of presidential elections, Côte d’Ivoire was awaiting a total lifting of the arms embargo following the release of the Secretary-General’s 2016 report on the matter, he said.
Noting the constructive cooperation between his Government and the relevant sanctions committee over the past five years, he said they had held working sessions, and during its periodic visits to the country, the Government had always offered the best working conditions possible. A striking example of good cooperation was the 2014 visit of the Chair of the Sanctions Committee, which had been received by the Head of State. However, the Government’s willingness to cooperate with the committee was undermined by excessively short time frames of a mere two to three weeks, he said, calling for more time for States to respond efficiently to expert panels, particularly when dealing with complex subjects. Arrangements should be made for better management of files by the new committee chair, he said, noting that key data should indeed garner all the necessary attention to help adapt sanctions regimes to needs on the ground. Once peace and stability had returned, the arms embargo should be lifted, he said.
LARRY MARCEL KOYMA (Central African Republic) said that in the fight against weapons proliferation, all it took was one neighbouring State or one entity to be supported by that State for a sanctions regime to become ineffective. Strong political pressure was needed on bordering States. On the travel ban imposed on individuals in the Central African Republic, he said one such person had recently entered and left the country freely, making no attempt to disguise himself. That called into question the role of INTERPOL in enforcing the sanctions regime as well as the surveillance of the sanctions committee’s expert panel.
Pointing out that the Central African Republic shared its north-eastern border with Sudan and South Sudan, which were both dealing with rebellions, as well as the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), he said all three were failing to respect the sanctions regime and ignoring provision of the Arms Trade Treaty on the non-circulation of weapons. To be effective, the arms embargo must include actions on border control, he emphasized, adding that the Central African Republic was now in the process of vetting its defence and security forces, a very lengthy and costly process for a fragile country.