4 ms·

The most well known problem with sanctions is that they fall hardest on the people, not the government. And in most cases, those sanctioned governments are non-

The most well known problem with sanctions is that they fall hardest on the people, not the government. And in most cases, those sanctioned governments are non-democratic, meaning the people who are hit hardest by the sanctions are people that have no say in the matter at all. But the biggest problem with sanctions is that people in the sanctioning country are so removed from the problem that it never quite seems to become a priority to remove them. Americans typically don't know a thing about Iran, the people that live there, the problems that they themselves have with their own government, and the problems we cause them by sanctioning them. We cannot put a face to the name. So because it costs us nothing, we do nothing. While I do think that sanctions can be an effective tool against authoritarianism, I do think that we should be forced to put a face on those who we are sanctioning. Since in the US our sanctions are applied at the Executive Branch level, I would propose a Legislative Branch check on the issue: If we sanction a country, for whatever reason, we automatically remove all Refugee visa and green card quotas for that country. I believe this could actually enhance the power of a worthy sanctioning action: it not only causes the standard economic harm to the country's trade system, but it also imposes a brain drain on them as well. It also gives the voteless a way to vote against their country's leaders. And if the sanctions aren't actually effective or worthy enough of a cause, then we at least are exposing that via the cost of supporting a large refugee population. We've already effectively done this with Cuba, and it has turned out extremely well, IMO. Cuban refugees very quickly adapted to our country and have become an economic powerhouse of their own, while depriving undemocratic cuban leaders from the benefits of those people staying in their country. Let's make that the standard.

ruslead 5y ago
Sanctions can be effective without harming the people. You just need to apply them against the non-democratic government and its allies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28244670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28244670.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Interesting ideas! "First, the west should formulate and recognise a special category of “countries that encourage corruption”, which will enable the taking of uniform measures against groups of countries, rather than imposing sanctions on particular states. "Second, the main sanction – the main tax on corruption, if you will – for this group of countries should be “enforced transparency”. All documentation relating to contracts concluded between western companies and partners from countries representing corruption risks should be published if the contracts are to the slightest degree connected with the state, its officials, or their relatives." Frankly, I think you'd have to extend that to "the slightest degree connected with the country." Money laundering is a thing. That's going to make tourism a bit less appealing. "Third, combating corruption without combating corrupt individuals is the merest hypocrisy and undermines voters’ trust. Until personal sanctions are imposed on oligarchs, primarily those in the entourage of Putin – the role model for all the world’s corrupt officials and businessmen – any anti-corruption rhetoric from the west will be perceived as game-playing and hot air." As I said, money laundering is a thing. And at some point you're going to catch innocent people in that net. Further, at this point you are no longer in the position of one government opposing the actions of another government; you have governments punishing the actions of individuals in that country that may not have ever committed a crime outside that country. Kinda makes me nervous. "Fourth, the US, UK and Germany already have excellent tools for combating foreign corruption, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Bribery Act, and so on. Guess how many cases have been brought following reports by our Anti-Corruption Foundation, now categorised as an extremist organisation by Putin’s government? "Fifth, obstructing the export of political corruption clearly deserves the establishment of an international body or commission. Take a look at what is going on right now. By investing relatively small sums of money, the redoubtable Putin is buying up extreme-right and extreme-left movements throughout Europe – turning their politicians into oligarchs and agents of his own. Legalised bribery is flourishing, often in the form of board memberships at state-owned companies. A former German chancellor, or a former Italian prime minister, or a former Austrian foreign minister, can act as background dancers for the Russian dictator, normalising corrupt practices. All contracts linking former or current western politicians with business partners from corrupt authoritarian countries should also have to be open to public scrutiny." I absolutely agree that corruption is the major international problem. And it would be really nice to at least enforce current laws against it and even better to stop enabling it intentionally. All of those steps, in some form would likely improve the situation. But I'm not sure that targeted actions against the officials of a foreign government is the appropriate way to oppose the deliberate decisions of that government. Corruption, sure. Trying to embarrass and bankrupt Iranian government officials because they approved a project to build nuclear weapons? I'm not even sure it would be effective.
mcguire 5y ago
"And in most cases, those sanctioned governments are non-democratic, meaning the people who are hit hardest by the sanctions are people that have no say in the matter at all." Well, on the other hand... There is an Enlightenment-era principal that the legitimacy of a government comes from the assent of the governed. I know it sounds twee and "rah-rah", but it's actually a difficult position. (But consider the effects of alternatives like the divine right of kings and force majeure.) The bottom line is that the Iranian people are responsible for the behavior of the Iranian government just like the American people are responsible for the behavior of the US government---even if they don't have any official input into the choices of that government. On the other side of that coin, it means that the Iranian people are the only ones who can legitimately force change on their government. (Yes, the US's tendency to jack around with other governments is the political philosophy equivalent of a mortal sin.) It's both their responsibility and their power to do so. Yes, the attempt would suck. It would be costly and painful. As my mother said, the world wasn't created to make us happy. And on the third side, the rest of the world has exactly three options if they do not care for the behavior of a government: do nothing, diplomatic and economic sanctions, and military force. They're all flawed in various ways. Most places are taking the first option with China in response to, say, the Uyghur situation; is anyone happy and satisfied with that? The second option is applied by the US here to Iran and Cuba. Sanctions suck, yes. The military option is taken far too often by the US and previous imperial countries, who also don't tend to follow through. It's a blunt instrument, no matter what the military says. In the best case, it causes as many problems as it addresses. But anyway, those are the choices; pick your option. What about those in Iran protesting their government's actions? They get punished by their government as well as by the sanctions. I have a lot of respect for those willing to protest what they consider unjust. I do not have a lot of respect for those don't agree with their government's actions but just want to go along with it for various reasons. "While I do think that sanctions can be an effective tool against authoritarianism, I do think that we should be forced to put a face on those who we are sanctioning. Since in the US our sanctions are applied at the Executive Branch level, I would propose a Legislative Branch check on the issue: If we sanction a country, for whatever reason, we automatically remove all Refugee visa and green card quotas for that country." That is a brilliant idea! "We've already effectively done this with Cuba, and it has turned out extremely well, IMO. Cuban refugees very quickly adapted to our country and have become an economic powerhouse of their own, while depriving undemocratic cuban leaders from the benefits of those people staying in their country." On the other hand, the Cuban refugee community in the US is one of if not the most important power blocs maintaining sanctions against Cuba, particularly after the death of Fidel Castro. So, yeah.

ruslead 5y ago

Sanctions can be effective without harming the people. You just need to apply them against the non-democratic government and its allies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28244670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28244670.

mcguire 5y ago
Interesting ideas! "First, the west should formulate and recognise a special category of “countries that encourage corruption”, which will enable the taking of uniform measures against groups of countries, rather than imposing sanctions on particular states. "Second, the main sanction – the main tax on corruption, if you will – for this group of countries should be “enforced transparency”. All documentation relating to contracts concluded between western companies and partners from countries representing corruption risks should be published if the contracts are to the slightest degree connected with the state, its officials, or their relatives." Frankly, I think you'd have to extend that to "the slightest degree connected with the country." Money laundering is a thing. That's going to make tourism a bit less appealing. "Third, combating corruption without combating corrupt individuals is the merest hypocrisy and undermines voters’ trust. Until personal sanctions are imposed on oligarchs, primarily those in the entourage of Putin – the role model for all the world’s corrupt officials and businessmen – any anti-corruption rhetoric from the west will be perceived as game-playing and hot air." As I said, money laundering is a thing. And at some point you're going to catch innocent people in that net. Further, at this point you are no longer in the position of one government opposing the actions of another government; you have governments punishing the actions of individuals in that country that may not have ever committed a crime outside that country. Kinda makes me nervous. "Fourth, the US, UK and Germany already have excellent tools for combating foreign corruption, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Bribery Act, and so on. Guess how many cases have been brought following reports by our Anti-Corruption Foundation, now categorised as an extremist organisation by Putin’s government? "Fifth, obstructing the export of political corruption clearly deserves the establishment of an international body or commission. Take a look at what is going on right now. By investing relatively small sums of money, the redoubtable Putin is buying up extreme-right and extreme-left movements throughout Europe – turning their politicians into oligarchs and agents of his own. Legalised bribery is flourishing, often in the form of board memberships at state-owned companies. A former German chancellor, or a former Italian prime minister, or a former Austrian foreign minister, can act as background dancers for the Russian dictator, normalising corrupt practices. All contracts linking former or current western politicians with business partners from corrupt authoritarian countries should also have to be open to public scrutiny." I absolutely agree that corruption is the major international problem. And it would be really nice to at least enforce current laws against it and even better to stop enabling it intentionally. All of those steps, in some form would likely improve the situation. But I'm not sure that targeted actions against the officials of a foreign government is the appropriate way to oppose the deliberate decisions of that government. Corruption, sure. Trying to embarrass and bankrupt Iranian government officials because they approved a project to build nuclear weapons? I'm not even sure it would be effective.

mcguire 5y ago

"And in most cases, those sanctioned governments are non-democratic, meaning the people who are hit hardest by the sanctions are people that have no say in the matter at all." Well, on the other hand... There is an Enlightenment-era principal that the legitimacy of a government comes from the assent of the governed. I know it sounds twee and "rah-rah", but it's actually a difficult position. (But consider the effects of alternatives like the divine right of kings and force majeure.) The bottom line is that the Iranian people are responsible for the behavior of the Iranian government just like the American people are responsible for the behavior of the US government---even if they don't have any official input into the choices of that government. On the other side of that coin, it means that the Iranian people are the only ones who can legitimately force change on their government. (Yes, the US's tendency to jack around with other governments is the political philosophy equivalent of a mortal sin.) It's both their responsibility and their power to do so. Yes, the attempt would suck. It would be costly and painful. As my mother said, the world wasn't created to make us happy. And on the third side, the rest of the world has exactly three options if they do not care for the behavior of a government: do nothing, diplomatic and economic sanctions, and military force. They're all flawed in various ways. Most places are taking the first option with China in response to, say, the Uyghur situation; is anyone happy and satisfied with that? The second option is applied by the US here to Iran and Cuba. Sanctions suck, yes. The military option is taken far too often by the US and previous imperial countries, who also don't tend to follow through. It's a blunt instrument, no matter what the military says. In the best case, it causes as many problems as it addresses. But anyway, those are the choices; pick your option. What about those in Iran protesting their government's actions? They get punished by their government as well as by the sanctions. I have a lot of respect for those willing to protest what they consider unjust. I do not have a lot of respect for those don't agree with their government's actions but just want to go along with it for various reasons. "While I do think that sanctions can be an effective tool against authoritarianism, I do think that we should be forced to put a face on those who we are sanctioning. Since in the US our sanctions are applied at the Executive Branch level, I would propose a Legislative Branch check on the issue: If we sanction a country, for whatever reason, we automatically remove all Refugee visa and green card quotas for that country." That is a brilliant idea! "We've already effectively done this with Cuba, and it has turned out extremely well, IMO. Cuban refugees very quickly adapted to our country and have become an economic powerhouse of their own, while depriving undemocratic cuban leaders from the benefits of those people staying in their country." On the other hand, the Cuban refugee community in the US is one of if not the most important power blocs maintaining sanctions against Cuba, particularly after the death of Fidel Castro. So, yeah.