Ethics and Sanctions Case Study: Iran

Transcription

1 Nazmi 1 Neda Nazmi Global Ethics Summary Ethics and Sanctions Case Study: Iran Introduction Historically, economic sanctions are considered mainly as an alternative to wars. Thus, they have received a higher moral standing. However, during past two decades, after a range of debates about their effectiveness, and consequences sanctions literature has finally started noticing the humanitarian impacts. This occurred particularly after comprehensive sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s, when ethical implications of sanctions attracted more attention. 1 Despite all this, still, there has not been enough discussion about the ethics of sanctions or their moral consequences. This paper focuses on ethical aspects of sanctioning from a Rawlsian point of view. First, Rawls classification of various societies will be discussed. The second section illustrates that Rawls only approves sanctioning, with various restriction, on one type of society. The last section applies Rawlsian theory to one specific case: Iran. Rawlsian Theory John Rawls main concern is justice in liberal societies. He defines his theory through a hypothesis situation, an original position, in which members are behind a veil of ignorance. These people are free, equal, reasonable, rational citizens and they are specifying fair terms 1 Joy Gordon, "Smart Sanctions Revisited," Ethics & International Affairs, no. 3 (2011): , (accessed April 04, 2013).

2 Nazmi 2 of cooperation for regulating the basic structure of the society. 2 An original position appears in both levels of Rawls theory (1) domestic, and (2) Society of Peoples. Rawls divides current international societies into five groups and conducts dissimilar approaches about sanctioning toward each. The first society is Liberal one, a constitutional democracy, based on the common good, 3 which respects human rights, and citizens comprehensive doctrine religious, philosophical, and moral. 4 The second group is Decent Hierarchical Peoples. These societies are not aggressive. They respect human rights and their system of law is based on bona fide moral duties. Moreover, people who administer the legal system believe that the law indeed is guided by a common good idea of justice. 5 Decent and liberal societies, together, are well ordered peoples. The third type is Outlaw Societies. They are aggressive, and engage in wars to promote their interests. The fourth group is Benevolent Absolutisms which respect human rights, but are not democratic. The final group is Burdened Societies. In these societies it is very difficult to achieve liberal standards because of cultural, traditional or other potential barriers. However, they are not aggressive. 6 To clarify Rawls approach about sanctioning two issues should be considered. First, what kind of society is the sanctioning state? Some may argue that by considering Rawls maximum definition of liberal societies, there may not be any liberal states in the actual world. However, this is not the subject of this research. Rawls emphasizes that his concern is what 2 John Rawls, The Law of People, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002), Ibid., 23 & Ibid., Ibid., 66 & Ibid., 63.

3 Nazmi 3 the foreign policy of a reasonably just liberal people should be. 7 Thus, this paper s assumption is that a liberal society would like to identify whether imposing economic sanctions on another society would be ethical in Rawls framework or not. Secondly, the sanctioned country should be examined as well. Since, for Rawls imposing sanctions on some societies is ethical and is unethical for the others. Rawlsians and Economic Sanctions Well ordered people do not engaged in any war, aggression, or sanction toward each other. They enjoy peaceful and respectful relations. Notably, liberal states respect decent societies. Rawls explains that if liberal societies impose sanctions on decent people, they will be denied a due measure of respect, which may lead to great bitterness and resentment. 8 However, denying respect to other societies need strong reasons to be justified. 9 In short, a liberal society does not impose sanctions on other liberal or decent peoples. Rawls approach toward the other three societies varies. For burdened states he emphasizes that well ordered societies have a duty to assist. 10 Although his explanation of the assistantship is ambiguous, it is quite clear that it does not include sanctioning. Moreover, the main trait of benevolent absolutism is their respect to most human rights. However, Rawls argues that fulfilling the basic human rights excludes any justification for intervention, including sanctions Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. 10 Ibid., Ibid., 80.

4 Nazmi 4 Next are outlaw societies which have a significant role in Rawls theory for various reasons. First, these states are aggressive and are dangerous for the stability and security of the well ordered societies. Second point is the importance of international peace and justice for Rawls. Outlaw states violate human rights ruthlessly, and they deeply affect the international climate of power and violence. 12 Thus, well ordered societies have the right, under the Law of Peoples, not to tolerate outlaw states. 13 Although Rawls suggests that the Society of Peoples should establish a new institution to constrain outlaw states when they appear, 14 he emphasizes that how to control outlaw states is mainly a matter of political judgment. Nevertheless, he provides a few suggestions. One of which is promotion of human rights as a fixed concern of liberal societies. 15 In addition, well ordered societies can put pressure on outlaw states. However, Rawls argues that most likely the pressure, per se, would not be enough. Thus, the next step is imposing economic sanctions, as well as putting restriction on mutually beneficial collaboration. 16 This argument gives an ethical justification for sanctioning outlaw states. Rawls gives a limited role to the consequences. However, he emphasizes that liberal states should not cross certain lines unless during a supreme emergency. He argues war plans and strategies and the conduct of battles must lie within the limits they specify. The only exception is in situation of supreme emergency. 17 Moreover, Rawls emphasizes that liberal peoples only go to war with outlaw states when such a state s policies threaten their security 12 Ibid Ibid. 14 Ibid., Ibid. 16 Ibid., Ibid., 96 & 97.

5 Nazmi 5 and safety since they must defend the freedom and independence of their liberal culture and oppose states that strive to subject and dominate them. 18 Thus, since liberal societies are allowed to start war with outlaw states, by implication they may also impose sanctions on them. However, Rawls in his argument about justified war highlights some limitations, wellordered peoples must carefully distinguish three groups: the outlaw state s leaders and officials, its soldiers, and its civilian population. 19 The reason is since the outlaw state is not well ordered, the civilian members of the society cannot be those who organized and brought on the war, he emphasizes that civilians are not responsible. 20 This argument also can be applied on sanctioning case. While, the states officials are the ones that should be held responsible, economic sanctions mainly punish civilians, who, as Rawls explains, are often kept in ignorance and swayed by state propaganda. 21 Although Rawls does not talk explicitly about mild or comprehensive sanctions, from this discussion it can be concluded that he would reject comprehensive sanctions, given that they have enormous negative impacts on the lives of ordinary people. Rawls also considers the possibility of unaggressive outlaw state which severely violates human rights. His definition of severely is slavery and threat of human scarifies and emphasizes that it is the responsibility of well ordered societies to intervene in such cases Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., 94 & Ibid., Ibid., 94, fn.

6 Nazmi 6 Case Study: Iran This section applies Rawls framework to the case of Iran. For Rawls, only outlaw states can be sanctioned; it is immoral to sanction the other four societies. Thus, it is important to illustrate what type of society Iran is. The country s lack of respect for human rights, liberal, and democratic values makes it clear that Iran is not one of the liberal society, decent peoples, or benevolent absolutism. Therefore, we have to explore whether Iran is a burdened or an outlaw state. A burdened society suffers from conditions that prevent it or make it extremely difficult to respect liberal values. These conditions can be cultural, traditional, religious, or natural. Abass Milani 23 divides main barriers to democracy in Iran into two groups: natural and cultural. The main natural barrier is oil and the main cultural one is its autocratic interpretation from Shia a Islam. 24 Because of oil the government is not dependent to its own people and has become a rentier state without a need for people s approval. Meanwhile, discovering oil in Iran was concurrent with the time that Iranians were becoming familiar with the new political concepts such as democracy. However, the government s satiety prevented the new concepts from growing. In addition, the main cultural obstacle in Iran is the autocratic interpretation from Shia a which currently is in power. This interpretation is not consistent with Rawls conditions for well ordered societies. Moreover, the history of the country s political tradition based on patriarchal culture is another barrier. Hence, Iran best fits in definition of a burdened society in Rawls theory. Thus, all imposed sanctions on Iran are unethical. 23 Stanford University : Professorhttp://abbasmilani.stanford.edu/ 24 "BBC - موانع دمکراسی در ايران برنامه ھای تلويزيون فارسی ".پرگار BBC Homepage. 20 July Web. April, 11, <

7 Nazmi 7 Although, it is illustrated that Iran is a burdened society but not an outlaw one, an extra attention is needed, since the outlaw states are the only ones that can be sanctioned in Rawls theory. Here the presumption of Iran as an outlaw state will be discussed in more details. The outlaw state has two main factors: it is aggressive and severely violates human rights. Rawls examples of outlaw states in the modern period are Spain, France, and more recently Germany. They all tried at one time to subject much of Europe to their will; they hoped to spread their religion and culture and sought domination and glory, not to mention wealth and territory. 25 Given that most of imposed sanctions on Iran are for preventing the country from obtaining nuclear weapons, Rawls view about such weapons is important but is not equally as important as whether or not Iran is an outlaw state. He argues that nuclear weapons can be effectively banned among liberal peoples. However, they have to keep some to be able to prevent outlaw states from obtaining as well as using nuclear weapons. He does not suggest certain ways for reaching this goal. 26 If it can be proven that Iran is an outlaw sate, the country s nuclear ambitions are dangerous and liberal peoples should prevent Iran from obtaining such weapons. However, all of Rawls examples of outlaw states are ones that actually started wars, such as Germany during World War II. To illustrate the gravity of the situation, Rawls emphasizes that: Churchill really did not exaggerate when he said to the House of Commons on the day France capitulated that, if we fail [to stand up to Hitler], the whole world including the Unites States will sink into a new Dark Age. This kind of threat, in sum, justifies 25 Ibid., Ibid., 9.

8 Nazmi 8 invoking the supreme emergency exemption, on behalf not only of constitutional democracies, but all well ordered societies. 27 The question now is: if sanctioning countries do not stand up to Iran, will the whole world including the US sink into a new Dark Age? I deeply doubt it. I have a few reasons for this opinion. First of all, unlike Hitler, the Islamic regime has not started any war. The Iran Iraq war ( ) was defined as self defense under the international law. Secondly, Iran is an isolated country which is surrounded by the US army, the only country in history that has actually used the nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime is aware of the danger of any aggressive move as well as opening wars with its neighbors. This was not the case for Germany. In addition, Germany s military as well as its political power at the time are incomparable with Iran s current situation. Moreover, Rawls criticizes the US for not considering negotiation with the Japanese before any drastic steps such as using atomic bombs. 28 A comparison between Japan s situation during WWII and Iran s current position highlights the importance of negotiation. If Rawls argues that the US government failed to meet the standards of statesmanship because it did not negotiate with Japan, then have the US and other sanctioning countries tried all possible negotiation processes before imposing drastic sanctions on Iran? There may not be a solid answer for this question. However, there are various analysts that say no and argue that the US needs to start serious bilateral and direct negotiations with Iran. In addition, in Rawls theory, outlaw states are not trusted to be part of international treaties. However, one of the goals of imposed sanctions on Iran is to put pressure on the country to sign additional treaties for its nuclear program. Thus, if Iran is an outlaw state then 27 Ibid., Ibid., 101.

9 Nazmi 9 imposing sanctions for this purpose is not reasonable. This is a vicious circle: if Iran is an outlaw state, and outlaw states cannot be part of international agreements, then liberal states are sanctioning Iran to be part of an agreement that they know Iran would not observe because that is the nature of outlaw states and consequently would receive more sanctions that would be pushing towards the same end goal which is doomed to continue to fail. For Rawls, human rights are a special class of universal rights, which are distinct rights from values of liberal societies. However, it is important to remember that most of the imposed sanctions on Iran are not because of human rights violations, but rather its controversial nuclear program. In Rawls framework a grave situation of human rights can justify intervention. 29 Some may argue that the human rights situation in Iran gives a more reasonable ground for imposing sanctions on the country than the potential pursuit of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, although Iran s government violates the human rights of its people, these abuses may not be as grave as Rawls examples of urgent rights, such as slavery, mass murder and genocide. 30 Conclusion This paper explored the various schools of thought and their position toward imposing economic sanctions on a country. The main focus was on Rawls theory and its application to the Iran case. The research illustrated that Rawls allows sanctions only on what he considers outlaw societies. However, by definition, Iran is not an outlaw state. Thus, the imposed sanctions on Iran are not ethical in Rawls framework. 29 Ibid., 93 & 94, fn Ibid., 79.

10 Nazmi 10 Work Cited Amstutz, Mark R. International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, And Cases in Global Ethics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., "BBC پرگار - موانع دمکراسی در ايران برنامه ھای تلويزيون فارسی." BBC Homepage. 20 July < (accessed April 09, 2013). Charles A. Rarick, and Martine Duchatelet, "An Ethical Assessment of the Use of Economic Sanctions as a Tool of Foreign Policy," Institute of Economic Affairs (2008): Gordon, Joy. "Smart Sanctions Revisited." Ethics & International Affairs. no. 3 (2011): (accessed April 04, 2013). Hyunseop Kim. What s the Point of Rawls Extensions? Yale University. (2012). < (accessed April 09, 2013). John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002).