3 ms·

Sanctions can be effective without harming the people. You just need to apply them against the non-democratic government and its allies: https://news.ycombinato

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.
- ruslead 5y ago
  > 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. Most of the officials take holidays in Europe and US spending their dirty money. They will definitely suffer from personal sanctions disallowing them the entrance or money storage there.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > the west should formulate and recognise a special category of “countries that encourage corruption" Would "The West" then impose sanctions on itself? Sanctions, as imposed on various countries in the Middle East, are a form of warfare. They aren't imposed "for corruption", they are imposed for being an enemy. After all, all of the USA's friends are at least as corrupt as Iran. Does "the export of political corruption" include covert operations to overthrow duly-elected governments in faraway places? Who arranged the overthrow of Mossadeq, I wonder?

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.

ruslead 5y ago
> 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. Most of the officials take holidays in Europe and US spending their dirty money. They will definitely suffer from personal sanctions disallowing them the entrance or money storage there.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> the west should formulate and recognise a special category of “countries that encourage corruption" Would "The West" then impose sanctions on itself? Sanctions, as imposed on various countries in the Middle East, are a form of warfare. They aren't imposed "for corruption", they are imposed for being an enemy. After all, all of the USA's friends are at least as corrupt as Iran. Does "the export of political corruption" include covert operations to overthrow duly-elected governments in faraway places? Who arranged the overthrow of Mossadeq, I wonder?