Methodist Federation for Social Action

The parable of the good Samaritan invites us to see the fundamental character of God’s love as unconditional and overflowing. In the face of death and in death-dealing situations, aid and succor are the hallmarks of Christian response. The neighbor in need and the good neighbor were not known for their friendly relations. They were strangers and historical enemies to one another. In the time of need, however, care was made available—unconditioned by tribe, class, kinship, religion, race, and economic or political status.

Sanctions, in whatever form, lay conditions upon love and on the extension of humanitarian aid and succor; they fall short of the Gospel imperative for unconditional love. Yet sanctions as political and economic tools of pressure and leverage can play a critical role in the mitigation and deterioration of conflicts. It is in this sense that sanctions are sometimes seen as a more tolerable alternative to war.

A Church World Service and Witness (CWSW) study defines sanctions as “a menu of possible diplomatic, communications and economic measures used by governments, intergovernmental bodies, and non-governmental entities to force changes in policies and behavior (usually but not exclusively on the part of a government). Sanctions cover a wide variety of measures from moratoria on diplomatic contacts to trade embargoes. Consumer boycotts and disinvestments programs are related measures.”

The CWSW study notes that “sanctions can be limited and targeted, such as sports boycotts or restrictions on air travel, or they can be comprehensive, as in the case of trade embargoes. Sanctions can be unilateral (involving a single government) or multilateral (involving more than one).” The term sanction is most frequently associated with economic measures intended to inflict economic damage and thereby force a government or other entity to change its behavior and its policies. The effective use of sanctions lies in the political will of the imposer and is to be measured by the positive response of the sanctioned on the desired outcomes.

At the heart of the conflictive character of sanctions is the debate over when or when not to use and impose them. The caution in the use of sanctions arises out of a fundamental ethical and moral dilemma: the impact of sanctions on the innocent, and in situations of armed conflict, on non-combatants. Imposed in any way, those who impose sanctions must always take care to protect the suffering and the innocents with the basic modicum of international and humanitarian laws, uncompromised. This means the minimum guarantee of the right to the protection of human life and of human rights and civil liberties. The Christian community must insist that any and all sanctions include humanitarian exceptions—food, medicine, medical supplies and equipment, basic school supplies, and agricultural inputs and implements.

The CWSW study on the effectiveness of sanctions as an alternative to war concluded with recommendations which include the establishment of decision-making criteria for the imposition of sanctions based on the following guidelines:

Sanctions must be a part of a broader strategy of peacemaking and an alternative to warfare.
Sanctions should be adopted only in circumstances of flagrant and persistent violations of international law.
Sanctions should have a clearly defined purpose.
Sanctions have their greatest legitimacy and moral authority when authorized by a competent multilateral authority.
The good achieved must not be exceeded by anticipated harm.
There must be a reasonable prospect that their stated purpose of effecting political change will be achieved.
Sanctions are effective only to the extent that they are consistently and thoroughly applied.

There must also be operational criteria to sanction impositions:

Sanctions should be directed as precisely as possible to those bodies and leaders most responsible for the violation. Humanitarian assistance should be made available to the general population.
The progress and effects of sanctions should be continually monitored by an independent and impartial multilateral monitoring body.
Enforcers should be prepared to address the hurts and needs of victims in the sanctioned country and affected third countries.
Open communication should be maintained with government leaders and civic groups in the sanctioned country.

Therefore, be it resolved that United Methodists:

Request the United Nations and the United States ascribe to and use indicators to assess potential humanitarian impacts prior to imposing sanctions and for monitoring impacts once sanctions are in place.

Ensure in our advocacy efforts that sanctions and embargoes meet the requirements of available international human rights and humanitarian laws, including the provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Commit ourselves and our humanitarian aid efforts as United Methodists to be carried out with awareness of this understanding of sanctions, especially because sanctions, especially trade embargoes have been shown to be of limited effectiveness in achieving their stated political goals while resulting in severe hardship for the general population, especially the most vulnerable.

¹World Medical Association Resolution on Economic Embargoes and Health – 1997 www.wma.net/e/policy/20-5-97_e.html.

DATE: November 24, 2003

SUBMITTED BY: Kathryn J. Johnson, on behalf of

PETITIONER IDENTIFICATION: Methodist Federation for Social Action
(endorsing petition as authored by GBCS)

TELEPHONE: 202-546-8806
FAX: 202-546-6811
E-MAIL: kj@mfsaweb.org

Download PDF of above Petition