Sanctions are made of sterner stuff

IN light of the word ‘sanctions’ being used as a political talking point to achieve the aims of the machinations by anti-government forces, it behooves those who know this issue to set the record straight. Sanctions are not applied on the flimsiest of excuses. My research has led me to the conclusion that it is difficult to see Guyana or the government officials facing any semblance of sanctions due to electoral glitches and procedural issues in Guyana elections 2020 by an independent commission of which there is no evidence that it is being directed by the state apparatus. Hereunder contains my argumentation.

SANCTIONS
Sanctions are political and economic mechanisms used to force countries to align with the values and norms of the international system. They include temporary economic, diplomatic, trade, cultural and other restrictions on countries in violation of international rules that may pose a security threat to the nations of the world. According to the Charter of the United Nations, only the United Nations (UN) Security Council has a legal right to apply sanctions in the multilateral sphere in conformance with Article 41 and all UN member countries must comply with the decision of the Security Council, by following Article 2.2. However, this is separate and apart from unilateral sanctions which are imposed by individual countries. Those are based on a myriad of complex geopolitical considerations. Sanctions are more commonly imposed on economically poor countries and on countries with low levels of foreign direct investments (McKoy&Miller, 2012). Be that as it may, nations are compelled to provide some basis for the application of same. In our present context and vis-à-vis our just concluded regional and general elections, untamed geopolitical bullyism would be laid bare if there is the application of sanctions on the Guyanese people, the government of Guyana or government officials based on recent developments at the Guyana Elections Commission. It must be noted, the government invited all the observer missions who expressed their desire to be here.

These organizations subsequently declared the elections free and fair. There was no coercion of the population, freedom to exercise the franchise was unfettered, the free press was allowed to complete its work, there was no fear or intimidation of political opponents by the state and there were no political imprisonments or political executions before these elections. Above all, there is no evidence of the state apparatus exercising control over an independent electoral commission. The government of Guyana, based on the conduct of these elections, is in good democratic stead; sanctions ought to be made of much more stern stuff.

SANCTIONS MUST HAVE SOME LOGIC OR BASIS
Modern sanctions have been driven by the desire to promote democracy and human rights. Where they become applicable, there has to be a general situation of the complete breakdown of democracy and gross violations of human rights. It is difficult to see this mechanism rearing its head based on the arguing or bickering over how an independent commission executes its work according to law. The post-2015 government of Guyana has ushered in unprecedented democracy and human rights have been promoted and protected ferociously by the state apparatus, the institutional challenges notwithstanding. More than 50% of all sanctions directed toward autocratic regimes recorded in the new global dataset on post-Cold War sanctions explicitly aim to bring about democratization, that is, improvements in civil liberties and political rights (Von Soest&Wahman, 2014). The data points to the promotion of democracy as the key driver of sanctions. It is illogical to apply the same in the Guyana context where democracy flourishes.

OBSERVER MISSIONS’ REPORTS, STATEMENTS BY HEADS OF MISSIONS AND TWEETS
Elections Observers should be welcomed by all democratic nations and governments who proceed from a position of honorable intentions. Observers can spot fraud, offer recommendations to improve the electoral process, enhance the legitimacy or confirm the illegitimacy of a regime and help countries to strengthen their elections procedures, laws and systems. However, constructive or deconstructive criticisms by observer missions do not automatically equate to sanctions being exacted on countries. Reports are submitted to the head of the organization which facilitates the observer mission and countries are given a chance to defend themselves in the face of allegations made. In the case of the Organization of the American States (OAS), it comprises three main bodies.

Any submissions with consideration for robust action would have to withstand the rigorous bureaucratic structures of this organization. The author is of the view that the government of Guyana can easily argue its case which would be readily accepted by members of this organization. As mentioned above, all this becomes null and void when an economically powerful nation sets out to unilaterally sanction a country. Statements by heads of missions reflect the official policy position and sentiments of nations, albeit, at the Embassy level. These statements can indicate the posture of the government and can act as a mechanism to deter violations or urge countries to continue on a positive path. However, they do not automatically trigger sanctions; a bureaucratic process would have to follow. Tweets by officials at the highest level of government are not government policies. A tweet that says; ‘there will be consequences’ can be designed to instill fear in government officials to do the right thing but they are not guarantees of economic consequences.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.