3 ms·
Based on reading a lot of foreign policy literature, experts see sanctions as a specific tool for specific situations, but very over-used. The following is what
by hackuser 11y ago
Based on reading a lot of foreign policy literature, experts see sanctions as a specific tool for specific situations, but very over-used. The following is what a well-read amateur has absorbed (in the absence of anyone with actual expertise - that would be very welcome!):
Governments and publics tend to see sanctions as a solution to every problem, especially where they don't want to have to actually pay or sacrifice anything. They think it's a freebie, a way to get something done witout putting any skin in the game: 'We don't want to risk any lives or have to give anything up to get what we want - let's use sanctions!' Note that you won't see sanctions where it will have a serious economic impact on the sanctioning country; for example, the U.S. isn't going to enact significant trade sanctions on China.
Also, sanctions tend to have the harshest effects on the most vulnerable. In the kinds of countries that are sanctioned, the poor starve and their unelected oppressors continue to live affluent lives.
That's why in the the last decade or two, the U.S. and others have used the tactic of targeted sanctions, aimed specifically at the people in power. Sanctions freeze their personal assets in overseas banks (where they often stash their money), deny access to western markets and financial services for the businesses run by them and their leading supporters, etc. Apparently, denying the leaders travel visas to the west has a real impact (perhaps they lose status when then can't take their families on vacation to Paris and New York?).
It seems to have accomplished something in Iran (but at what cost to the poor and oppressed there?). It hasn't worked yet in North Korea, and their population already is starving. Cuban sanctions are, I think, the old-fashioned non-targeted sanctions and have been ineffective or at least clearly insufficient. Also, as I said, it's not the right tool for every job.
- baudehlo 11y agoI agree completely. It has made the people suffer, not those higher up. However I think Iran could see another uprising on the horizon, which I guess is the point of making the people suffer. Sad it had to be that way.
- hackuser 11y ago> I agree completely. It has made the people suffer, not those higher up. My point was the opposite: Sanctions in Iran worked because they were targeted at the higher ups and made them suffer. (Edit: I'm not trying to go back and forth with you, just clarifying what I meant because it seemed misunderstood.) > I think Iran could see another uprising on the horizon, which I guess is the point of making the people suffer. I believe that research shows that this never works. I don't want to say never, but I can't think of a situation when it has worked.