3 ms·

What non-violent (yes, there is violence inherent in sanctions, but it is a rather different scale than war) alternative would you suggest for punishing a forei

What non-violent (yes, there is violence inherent in sanctions, but it is a rather different scale than war) alternative would you suggest for punishing a foreign country? EDIT: I see this question has been asked in other threads, but not answered. Whether Iran should be punished is a separate question (one on which I am personally too ignorant to hold an opinion about) from how should one country punish another.

umvi 6y ago
Well in the case of authoritarian regimes, I would imagine trying to pump more information from the free world into it would be a more effective "punishment" that restricting information. In practice though that's hard. Most authoritarian regimes have state censors/firewalls to filter only information that is advantageous for the state.
- falcolas 6y ago
  China (hell, vaccinations/flat earth too) has shown that this isn’t terribly effective. The ‘west’ has been pursuing a policy of “if we enlighten them, they will revolt”, and it ain’t happening. Some have been enlightened, others have had their own biases strengthened, and the government has simply continued unchanged.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    On the other hand, a presidency term without a few foreign coups is considered a dull affair.
einpoklum 6y ago
> What non-violent alternative would you suggest for punishing a foreign country? It is not for the US to "punish" other world states, even if "Iran should be punished". If you, or your state, believe some kind of sanctions are in order, there are international bodies and forums where this can be discussed and decided upon: The UN security council, international courts, and other more specialized bodies, some of which can make decisions which constitute sanctions.
- golemiprague 6y ago
  Why discussing it in the UN is better? Why involving other non democratic countries in the decision making? The UN is not some magical entity where every decision is better than whatever decision the US can take by themselves. If anything it is the opposite, since many of the countries there are not democratic, corrupt or just plain backward and their decision have no consequences to their leaders.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Why should one country not allowed to enforce a policy for companies/individuals who live in/are incorporated in that country against another country, without the UN being involved? This whole article is about a US company enforcing US rules.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    > This whole article is about a US company enforcing US rules. Not really. GitLab is an international entity regardless of where it is registered, because it presumes to be a platform for (some forms of) interaction and information sharing for people in many countries. It is implicitly agreed between users and the entity behind the website that it is accessible and usable by everyone. > Why should one country not allowed etc. It is not about "allowing", in the sense that I'm not in control of the US and what it does, we are discussing what is morally acceptable. And it is not morally acceptable for individual states to disrupt people's lives using the aspects of inter-dependency of people, groups and organizations across state boundaries - except according to norms which are accepted and defensible at the global level.
loup-vaillant 6y ago
Countries are not people (they are made of people). Punishing them makes little sense. If one wants a country to behave some way, one should think of how to make it happen, and what's the cost to everyone involved. Sanctions should never be part of a punitive system, which at the level of a whole country is inevitably unjust. They should only be part of an incentive system, where you hope to steer the other country to the direction you want. Looked at it this way, we wouldn't ask ourselves whether sanctions are warranted. We'd ask ourselves how effective they are. Oh, and there's this question of whether a country should have the right to influence another country to begin with. Not gonna answer that one here.
- falcolas 6y ago
  > there's this question of whether a country should have the right to influence another country to begin with Are sanctions influencing another country, or limiting how companies and people from the sanctioning country interact with foreign entities? > They should only be part of an incentive system Has an incentive system between countries ever been implemented and worked? For a specific what-if, is there a way that we could have realistically "incentivized" Cuba to disassociate with the USSR?

umvi 6y ago

Well in the case of authoritarian regimes, I would imagine trying to pump more information from the free world into it would be a more effective "punishment" that restricting information. In practice though that's hard. Most authoritarian regimes have state censors/firewalls to filter only information that is advantageous for the state.

falcolas 6y ago
China (hell, vaccinations/flat earth too) has shown that this isn’t terribly effective. The ‘west’ has been pursuing a policy of “if we enlighten them, they will revolt”, and it ain’t happening. Some have been enlightened, others have had their own biases strengthened, and the government has simply continued unchanged.
- judge2020 6y ago
  On the other hand, a presidency term without a few foreign coups is considered a dull affair.

einpoklum 6y ago

> What non-violent alternative would you suggest for punishing a foreign country? It is not for the US to "punish" other world states, even if "Iran should be punished". If you, or your state, believe some kind of sanctions are in order, there are international bodies and forums where this can be discussed and decided upon: The UN security council, international courts, and other more specialized bodies, some of which can make decisions which constitute sanctions.

golemiprague 6y ago
Why discussing it in the UN is better? Why involving other non democratic countries in the decision making? The UN is not some magical entity where every decision is better than whatever decision the US can take by themselves. If anything it is the opposite, since many of the countries there are not democratic, corrupt or just plain backward and their decision have no consequences to their leaders.
falcolas 6y ago
Why should one country not allowed to enforce a policy for companies/individuals who live in/are incorporated in that country against another country, without the UN being involved? This whole article is about a US company enforcing US rules.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > This whole article is about a US company enforcing US rules. Not really. GitLab is an international entity regardless of where it is registered, because it presumes to be a platform for (some forms of) interaction and information sharing for people in many countries. It is implicitly agreed between users and the entity behind the website that it is accessible and usable by everyone. > Why should one country not allowed etc. It is not about "allowing", in the sense that I'm not in control of the US and what it does, we are discussing what is morally acceptable. And it is not morally acceptable for individual states to disrupt people's lives using the aspects of inter-dependency of people, groups and organizations across state boundaries - except according to norms which are accepted and defensible at the global level.

loup-vaillant 6y ago

Countries are not people (they are made of people). Punishing them makes little sense. If one wants a country to behave some way, one should think of how to make it happen, and what's the cost to everyone involved. Sanctions should never be part of a punitive system, which at the level of a whole country is inevitably unjust. They should only be part of an incentive system, where you hope to steer the other country to the direction you want. Looked at it this way, we wouldn't ask ourselves whether sanctions are warranted. We'd ask ourselves how effective they are. Oh, and there's this question of whether a country should have the right to influence another country to begin with. Not gonna answer that one here.

falcolas 6y ago
> there's this question of whether a country should have the right to influence another country to begin with Are sanctions influencing another country, or limiting how companies and people from the sanctioning country interact with foreign entities? > They should only be part of an incentive system Has an incentive system between countries ever been implemented and worked? For a specific what-if, is there a way that we could have realistically "incentivized" Cuba to disassociate with the USSR?