The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) has experienced a gradual loosening of sanctions over a 48-year period from initially very strict U.S. sanctions designed to isolate North Korea economically and politically: U.S. citizens were not allowed to visit North Korea or to engage in any type of financial transaction with North Korea. More recently visits by US citizens were permitted if permission were sought, and even unauthorized visits were not prosecuted. By the1980's U.S. citizens were allowed to spend up to $100 a day for hotel and other accommodations. Since 1996 no limits have been placed on humanitarian assistance-related expenditures, but direct cash contributions are still not allowed nor are technological transfers, including farm equipment.

The people of North Korea view sanctions as a vestige of war and a barrier to improving relations with the U.S. Our partner, the Korean Christians Federation, has repeatedly urged us to lobby the U.S. government to lift sanctions and normalize relations. Moreover, restrictions on the type of assistance that can be provided, together with the reluctance of the North Korean government to allow access by representatives of U.S. aid agencies on grounds it cannot guarantee the safety of U.S. citizens, has slowed down relief efforts during the current food emergency.

Within the framework of the 1986 NCCCUSA policy statement on the peace and reunification of Korea, CWSW has undertaken conflict prevention as well as aid initiatives in North Korea. The policy statement has proved a useful tool to prod U.S. officials toward normalizing relations and has given the NCCCUSA visibility as a force for reconciliation. CWSW's organization of seminars and two-way visits has helped create a more human image of North Korea.

During his first visit to the U.S. as head of state in June 1998 South Korean President Kim Dae Jung called on the U.S. to lift the existing sanctions. President Clinton responded that he was prepared to recommend so to Congress if the relationship between North and South Korea improves with the resumption of the Inter-Korean talks. Both heads of state acknowledged that lifting sanctions would provide a conducive climate for peace on the Korean peninsula.

Iraq is an example of a complex system of comprehensive multilateral sanctions based on UN Security Council resolutions. The sanctions against Iraq govern virtually all Iraq's relations with the international community and offer perhaps the best current example of the problems inherent in imposing and implementing comprehensive sanctions. On the one hand, it can be reasonably argued that sanctions have been instrumental in bringing about considerable compliance with UN resolutions concerning weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, the cost in human suffering among those who are already politically impotent has been enormous, whereas sanctions have had little impact either on the hold on power or on the material conditions of life of Saddam Hussein and the ruling elite.

Moreover, there has been substantial confusion, caused in large measure by U.S. policy, about the objectives of sanctions. The U.S. government has been criticized for manipulating and politicizing aspects of the implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions on sanctions, including those pertaining to weapons inspections, the provision of humanitarian assistance, and "oil-for-food." While maintaining that sanctions will remain in place only until Iraq is certified as having complied with UN Security Council resolutions, U.S. government representatives have also suggested that the goal of U.S. policy is the removal of President Saddam Hussein, which is nowhere stated in UN resolutions.

Sanctions against Iraq have also had serious negative impact on third countries, especially Jordan and Turkey. Even though certain specific arrangements were drafted into the UN resolutions on behalf of Jordan, the Jordanian economy has suffered heavily from loss of trade. Turkey has suffered billions of dollar of losses annually in fees for the use of an oil pipeline to the Mediterranean. Iraqis within and outside Iraq, including the opposition movement, have expressed opposition to the sanctions. Responding to the churches in Iraq and to human suffering, CWSW's Middle East partner, the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC), has sharply criticized the sanctions and called for their removal. CWSW, in turn, has advocated the lifting of non-military sanctions with the U.S. government.

The sanctions imposed on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) by the UN Security Council before their partial lifting under the terms of the December 1995 Dayton Peace Accords illustrate a number of the problems inherent in implementing sanctions in a highly politicized atmosphere. The UN Security Council Sanctions Committee referred decisions on implementing sanctions to member states, in the case of the U.S. the Departments of State and Commerce. Although sanctions allowed the delivery of humanitarian assistance, CWSW colleagues working in the region found it virtually impossible to get approval from the U.S. government for relief supplies to Serb areas. Similarly, the arms embargo against all parties to the Bosnian conflict was vigorously applied against the FRY but not against other parties.

One result of this uneven application of sanctions was the ability of the FRY government to use the sanctions experience to persuade its citizens that the world was against them and that they were engaged in a sacred struggle to preserve their nation. Sanctions also created tremendous hardship, especially among the most vulnerable people.

CWSW partners in the region viewed the sanctions primarily as a response to the guilt of the UN and Western governments over their inability to come up with a creative solution to the violence in the Balkans. The churches were themselves caught up in the nationalism generated by political leaders. One lesson for CWSW from the experience was the need to work more closely with member churches who have experience in conflict resolution in order to be better able to assist the efforts of partner churches to address historic conflicts in their countries.

Cuba has suffered significantly under the long-term U.S. trade embargo, especially since the tightening of the embargo under the Cuban Democracy Act adopted in 1992. A recent study by the American Association for World Health concluded that the U.S. embargo has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cubans,1 a result confirmed on NCCC/CWSW visits to Cuba. The stringent nature of the embargo under this Act is unmatched; it includes a ban on the sale of food and very sharp restrictions and licensing requirements on the donation of food and on the donation or sale of medicine and medical equipment. Tragically from the humanitarian perspective, a comprehensive, excellent health care system has been severely eroded by the harshness of the long-lasting U.S. trade embargo.

Subsidiary trade is now banned, which has severely constricted Cuba's ability to import medicine and medical supplies from third countries. Licensing requirements for medicines and medical supplies are so strict that few companies apply, and among those who do licenses are frequently denied on grounds that these exports "would be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests." Ships are prohibited from loading or unloading cargo in U.S. ports for 180 days after delivering cargo to Cuba. Humanitarian aid, also subject to licensing and other requirements, is far from adequate to cover humanitarian needs.

CWSW's partner in Cuba, the Cuban Council of Churches, has called for lifting the embargo. CWSW has provided substantial humanitarian aid to Cuba but at the same time has consistently pointed out the inadequacy of aid and called for loosening and lifting of the embargo. CWSW is currently working for passage of a bill in Congress that would exempt the sale of food and medicine from the embargo and in opposition to another bill that would further undermine efforts to respond to human need by placing serious additional restrictions on the humanitarian activities of non-governmental organizations.