Monday, June 22, 2020

US Sanctions versus Iran’s fight against COVID-19 pandemic

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Aditi Mohta

Article Title

US Sanctions versus Iran’s fight against COVID-19 pandemic

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

June 22, 2020

URL

Coronavirus patients at Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran

Coronavirus patients at Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran | Source: Mohsen Atayi via Wikimedia

Iran is the hardest-hit country by the coronavirus pandemic in the middle east. The contagion was first detected on 19 February 2020 in the holy city of Qom, and thereafter spread quickly across the country. As of 18th June 2020, it had over 9000 coronavirus related fatalities. The virus attacked all the 31 provinces of the country not discriminating between the common man and the people at high places including the members of the Parliament, religious leaders and senior ministers. The crisis touched most parts of the country, but it most severely impacted working and the poor class. 

The Iranian government has been criticized for its response towards the pandemic. The health care policy, which has been politicized, has preferred denial and misinformation as a response to the crisis the pandemic brought with it. Questions have also been raised about the role of US sanctions in crippling Iran’s economy, public health facilities and public health facilities. All these factors, when combined, have disabled Tehran (the capital of Iran) from providing the best response to the pandemic. 

What do the sanction laws say?

According to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the US has “consistently maintained broad exceptions and authorizations to support humanitarian transactions with Iran.” The first significant sanctions were imposed in 1995 by Bill Clinton, and in 2001 exemptions for medical goods and medicine first came into effect. These sanctions have periodically widened the scope of products for exemption, and by 2012, the exclusions included agricultural products and most foods. After the world powers, including the US, reached a deal with Iran on its nuclear programme in 2015, the sanctions were lowered against Iran. This approach was abandoned after Trump withdrew the US from the deal and sought to force Iran’s leaders to change their anti-US policy. .

The US sanctions are enforced through a wide array of instruments. Financial sanctions prohibit US banks from transacting with Iran, which limits Iran’s access to dollar-denominated transactions. Secondary sanctions measures also target non-US entities that have dealings with Iran, thus at a risk of facing prosecution in the US. These sanctions make transactions with Iran lengthy and complicated, and even impossible in some cases

There are some exemptions from sanctions for humanitarian assistance (sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine and agricultural services). Despite these exemptions, sanctions have severely impaired Iran’s ability to be able to finance humanitarian imports. Given the volume of complexity and due diligence involved, most banks are reluctant to deal with Iran. This makes it difficult to find a way to pay for purchases difficult for Iran. Also many items require additional authorization because the US considers them as “dual-use” (the things might also be used for defence- for example, the sort of oxygen generators that are needed in life support machines used to treat coronavirus cases). Lastly, the sanctions on Iran’s oil exports led to a decline in revenue, further weakening Iran’s currency, which has left the country vulnerable and with fewer resources to pay for non-sanctioned items as well. 

All these put together have directly caused shortages of medical equipment and impacted Iran’s health sector negatively. This has also impacted the capability of Iranian healthcare sector to effectively manage the COVID-19 situation.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 5:06 PM

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 2020: Why the draft is being opposed in India?

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) sent a shockwave through the country when it released the Environmental Impact Assessment 2020 draft notification on March 12, 2020, amending the 2006 version.

The EIA serves as a means for the industries to obtain environmental clearances for their projects. The proposed projects are brought in front of the concerned public to be discussed and debated. If the projects proposed by the industries disturb the ecology and people living in that particular area to a large extent, then the Government cannot give permission for the project to continue.

There are several things included, or excluded, in the 2020 version which have enraged environmentalists, nature lovers and numerous concerned citizens across India.

Firstly, it includes post-facto approval. This means that any factory which has already begun with construction, will get a clearance, irrespective of the environmental damage it has already caused. However, the owners of the concerned factory will have to pay a fine of a certain amount.

Secondly, the new draft notification is released only in Hindi and English. Considering the lingual diversity of India, the communities which are not fluent in either languages will not know what the notification is about. This will reduce transparency and the livelihoods of such communities might get demolished without any warning.

The 2006 notification made it mandatory for every company involved in a project to submit a report every six months, verifying that the company is working within the terms of the granted permission and not going overboard with the available resources. The 2020 draft has extended the timeline of report submission once in twelve months. Moreover, certain projects like expansion of highways and road construction through forests are exempted from getting clearances.

Himalayan foothills, Sikkim, India | Source: Flowcomm via Flickr

Such features of the 2020 draft violate norms of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA, 1986) and also indicate that the scales are tipping dangerously towards the big industries, at the cost of our planet’s health. Livid cries have erupted from the people, especially those living in North-Eastern India and foothills of the Himalayas.

Himalayan ecology is at the brink of fragility and it requires stringent monitoring laws, the opposite of what EIA 2020 offers. "The Himalayan region today is in the most vulnerable position with massive climate-induced disasters, increasing deforestation, loss of biodiversity etc. Amending environmental norms will accelerate the ecological crisis in the Himalayas" says Ravi Chopra, a renowned environmentalist from Dehradun.

Since the draft has not come out in regional languages, the Karnataka High Court restrained the government from publishing the final document till it was accessible to a wider audience.

Although the government extended the deadline from June 30 to August 11, 2020, for the general public to pool in their opinions through emails, it shut down three main online websites on which youngsters of this country protested against EIA 2020. “We reasonably have a clear basis, based on our correspondence as well as our technical analysis, that this was a domain seizure by the government of this website” says Apar Gupta, executive director of Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF).

The EIA 2020 amendment does not do justice to the fundamental principles of environmental impact assessment and is more focussed in easing the clearance for the industries than the protection of the environment.

Economic growth, no doubt is important, more so at this trying time. However we should also bear in mind the cost which is to be paid for it, sooner or later.

Read More