Efforts to 'Reduce the Damage of Sanctions on Ordinary People'; Interview with the UN Special Rapporteur

Idris Jazairi is a seasoned diplomat at the United Nations and in the field of non-governmental organizations. An Algerian diplomat who is currently the UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures. In the three years since Mr. Jazairi took on this responsibility, he has primarily sought to defend ordinary people in countries under sanctions through behind-the-scenes diplomacy. However, on August 31, he criticized the United States for reinstating unilateral sanctions against Iran in a statement, while also urging the country to work to alleviate pressure on ordinary Iranians. In response to this statement, a U.S. State Department official emphasized in a response to Radio Farda that the goal of the sanctions is not to harm the Iranian people and that "what harms the Iranian people the most is the systematic violation of human rights within the country, the lack of civil liberties, and widespread government corruption and economic mismanagement." This U.S. official stated that the United States stands with the Iranian people, who "want economic opportunities, government transparency, justice and fairness, and more freedom." Concurrently, Idris Jazairi also elaborated on the nature of his mission and his views on sanctions in an interview with Radio Farda. Mr. Jazairi, can you explain your position at the United Nations and what tools this reporting role has to mitigate the impact of sanctions on the situation of ordinary people? I am a special rapporteur on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on humanitarian conditions and human rights. This relates to sanctions that have not been approved by the UN Security Council. This mission gives me the opportunity to mediate as much as possible between the sanctioning country and the target country. This effort aims to reduce the effects of these unilateral sanctions on the human rights and innocent ordinary citizens in the targeted country. This is a significant challenge in today's world as more than one-third of the world's population is somehow affected by sanctions that are outside the framework of the UN Security Council. We have not been able to achieve the lifting of U.S. sanctions through quiet diplomacy. We are making similar efforts in this regard to reduce the impact of sanctions on Syria on the lives of civilians, and we want to see how we can do this regarding Iran using diplomacy, with a particular focus on humanitarian exceptions that are accepted by the sanctioning country but are sometimes not implemented because financial sanctions create obstacles, for example, complicating the import of very important medicines and foodstuffs. You describe your work as a mediator, but you want to use diplomatic tools against the United States at a time when Washington has exited the Human Rights Council due to serious criticisms of it. How do you think this connection can be established? The fact that the U.S. has exited the Human Rights Council does not change the fact that this country is committed to international law and is a member of the United Nations. Therefore, we continue to have contact with member states of the United Nations, whether they are members of the council or not. I have always been a supporter of advancing diplomacy quietly, but this is not the only tool, and we can raise our voices to defend those whose rights have been violated, and perhaps we have done this now. I prefer to advance through behind-the-scenes diplomacy so that we can find a solution to help the people rather than blaming each other. If an opportunity arises to see how those humanitarian exceptions that the U.S., the European Union, and others are committed to can be implemented, I would welcome it. It is concerning that the U.S. Secretary of State speaks of the return of sanctions against Iran while the U.S. had committed itself to implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Iran has not violated the JCPOA either. According to the Secretary of State himself, these are the toughest sanctions in history aimed at collapsing the Iranian economy. Therefore, this not only means that the United States has not adhered to the Security Council resolution of which it was a part, but the sanctions also do not correspond to the current situation and the goals for which they were imposed. This is why I call on everyone to find a way, as much as possible, to create a process for respecting the rights of ordinary people in this regard. These rights should not be sacrificed for the disputes of governments. Three U.S. viewpoints on Idris Jazairi's criticisms: *The goal of the sanctions is to bring Iran back to the negotiating table as soon as possible, not to harm the Iranian people. *The Iranian government, which spreads terrorism worldwide, should be held responsible for its people's problems. *What harms the Iranian people the most is the systematic violation of human rights within the country, the lack of civil liberties, and widespread government corruption and economic mismanagement. The United States stands with the Iranian people who seek "economic opportunities, government transparency, justice and fairness, and more freedom." This response was provided to Radio Farda in reply to an email inquiry. The sanctions being imposed, at least most of them, were already in place before the JCPOA; more broadly and with the agreement of U.S. allies. How would your approach have been at that time? Would you still have had issues with their humanitarian effects? Yes, it is clear that this would have been the case. This has been our consistent position that the actions of any country should be proportional to the situation, whether within the framework of the Security Council or outside it. In any case, we must minimize harm to ordinary people. In this case of Iran, it has been officially stated that the goal of these sanctions is to be the heaviest in history and in such an approach, there is no effort to minimize this harm. And I think for this reason, it is stricter than actions previously taken by the United States and the European Union. My last question is about the human rights situation in Iran. You know that human rights violations by the Iranian government have always been condemned by activists in this field, various countries, and international organizations, and this includes not only coercive actions but also mismanagement of resources and issues of this nature that violate the rights of ordinary people. In this context, there are some human rights activists who support these U.S. sanctions because they believe there is no other solution. What do you think about this? Well, it depends on how much you care about your people. If you are willing to have tens of millions of people in Iran pay the cost of changing government policy, that is your responsibility. I do not have a preconception about the political aspect and I am not in a position to say whether the U.S. approach is politically justified or not. I only say that the U.S. made formal commitments in 2015 for certain actions, which included lifting sanctions, and all of this is precisely stated in Resolution 2231. International law generally says that such commitments should be respected. I do not want to get into politics and I only say this is an international responsibility that ordinary people should not be harmed.