7 ms·

Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good. Fro

Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good. From that perspective, sanctions aren’t meant as “torture for fun,” (as you put it) but as a way of creating pressure so governments change their behavior without having to resort to war. They’re basically a tool to raise the cost of bad actions and make it more attractive to adjust course. At the same time, sanctions also work in other ways: they punish governments that break international norms, they send a signal to the world about what’s considered unacceptable, and they reaffirm shared values. That’s why they’re still used despite the harsh effects on ordinary people. They aren’t a perfect solution, but in Western thinking their role is to combine pressure, deterrence and symbolism, rather than just collective punishment for its own sake.

tsimionescu 1y ago
The poster above was pointing out that this is a double standard. You don't expect a US citizen to risk their livelihood to help an Iranian, but you then expect an Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood AND life to topple a regime that is doing things that the USA doesn't like. So, you either take personal responsibility for enforcing sanctions yourself, or you admit that sanctions are a form of collective punishment for no reason. You can't have it both ways.
- abc123abc123 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - dontlaugh 1y ago
    "Leftists" are against sanctions. Ask your local socialist, anarchist or communist.
  - torben-friis 1y ago
    >If you don't like it, move to another country, and then it is not your responsibility any longer. I’m not sure you understand how authoritarian regimes work. Or that you care about understanding, for that matter.
  - aniviacat 1y ago
    > Wokeness and leftist logic just has to stop before is destroys the planet. Go Trump! This addition is entirely unnecessary in a discussion about the validity of sanctions. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
- im3w1l 1y ago
  This goes into what is meant by "expected". There isn't a strong expectation on any one Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood and life. There is small encouragement, that they may choose to act on or ignore.
- kelnos 1y ago
  I don't think that's the premise, though. The idea is that the sanctioned government will, under pressure from the sanctions, change without the need for regular citizens to start some sort of armed uprising. (Though certainly an armed uprising is a possible outcome.) Maybe the government will do this because the sanctions hurt their people enough to the point where things are too unstable for their liking. Maybe their economy becomes so trashed that the quality of the leaders' lives is impacted too much. Etc. I don't think anyone in the West genuinely believes that sanctions will lead to citizen uprisings and overthrown governments. At least not after decades where no such successful uprisings have taken place in long-sanctioned countries like Iran. But it should also be pretty clear that sanctions on countries like Iran aren't causing their governments to choose to change their behavior either. But I think arguably sanctions on Russia since they invaded Ukraine have had a useful effect. While the war hasn't stopped, it's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit. Not sure what the alternative is, though, aside from just giving up, lifting sanctions, and letting things develop where they may.
  - wartywhoa23 1y ago
    >It's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit. They did slow down all kinds of progress in Russia except the progress towards the full blown fascism and the progress of the military complex at the expence of its citizens
- zokier 1y ago
  It is far less of double standard than what you think. The key question is the legitimacy and mandate of the government. Western governments can claim legitimacy and mandate through democratic process (even if it is not perfect), which forms a social contract for their citizens to follow their laws. But if government is tyrannical and does not enjoy legitimacy then it's very different situation
  - xg15 1y ago
    I've never understood how that legitimacy extends to foreign policy though, especially the "coercive" kind. Like, democratic elections obviously give the elected legitimacy to govern the populace that just elected them. But sanctions (or military interventions or wars) by their very definition are enacted on a different population, that had no democratic means to influence that decision. UN sanctions are at least somewhat different because they are supposed to be decided by vote of the constituent countries. But US sanctions are essentially "some people elected the President because they liked his views on domestic tax policy or trans people, therefore he gains the right to call airstrikes on some place halfway across the world or forbid the entire world from doing business with that place". It makes no sense.
- dh2022 1y ago
  I think Western leaders are clear headed enough to understand that sanctions do not cause people to raise against their leaders. This has been known since bombing Germany and Japan in WWII (a different, more violent kind of sanctions). However sanctions weaken the adversary technologically, economically, and ultimately militarily. This is a pragmatic reason to enforce sanctions on the adversary.
  - xg15 1y ago
    That's reasonable for a "short term" military conflict, but if you keep a country under sanctions for decade and deliberately reduce the quality of life in that country, that's essentially a message to the population that they don't count.
ivell 1y ago
The leadership of countries under sanctions rarely change their behavior due to sanctions. However the effect on the population of the countries is that they turn against the countries applying the sanctions. It becomes easier for the leaders to sell the sanctions to their populace as the enemy action. If the West is expecting any revolution due to sanctions, I have not seen it. However, sanctions do have a symbolic value. And I also can't think of anything else short of military action to express displeasure.
- Seattle3503 1y ago
  Sanctions diminish a counties capacity to wage war.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Cite? Russia and Iran seem to not be giving too much of a shit. NK became a nuclear power under sanctions.
    - kelnos 1y ago
      Would Russia perhaps have already conquered Ukraine without sanctions? Would Iran have destroyed Israel by now without sanctions? Would NK have become a nuclear power much earlier, and have a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons today, were it not for sanctions? I don't know the answers to those questions, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was "yes".
      - lazide 1y ago
        Russia lost (in a real sense), when their blitzkrieg of Kiev failed. From that point on, it’s just how much they turn the crank on the meat grinder that is trench warfare. It’s the nature of the bet that is inherent in Blitzkrieg. Ukraine/Russia is about who is going to lose more after that, not who can win. No one can win anymore. Sanctions or lack thereof definitely impacts quality of life, but Putin put everything on a war economy footing pretty quickly anyway, and in that environment (especially in Russia), it’s suffering all the way down. And Russia excels at Suffering. Russia has oil too, and plenty of minerals, so if anything I expect by now they’re just getting stronger (economically), barring Ukraine wrecking their shit from time to time with a well placed drone strike. Iran/Israel is an interesting question, but near as I can tell, Iran doesn’t really want to destroy Israel. They just want to make them as miserable as possible, and show they can ‘do harm’ to them when they need to prop up domestic support among the hardliners. Israel provides a good scapegoat for the Iranian leadership. With Israel gone, who is the Ayatollah going to use as the big bad? The Great Satan (USA) isn’t as tractable a target when they don’t have a designated ‘local’ they can go after, and if Iran actually meaningfully hurt the US (nuked the White House?), Iran is glass regardless of how otherwise strong they are. NK got sanctions because they love playing the crazy-dude-with-a-gun-that-just-wants-a-handout, which is also why they eventually got nukes. They might have gotten nukes a little faster without sanctions, but sanctions definitely gave the hardliners huge leverage in the country. Hard to be friendly with the west (as a civilian!) when the west is literally openly starving the country, even if the leadership of your country is egging them on eh? Near as I can tell, the USSR fell because of jeans and rock and roll. So yes, I think the ‘good guy’ sanctions BS is ultimately self defeating. It can work if someone is either a) in a tenuous economic position, and b) the ‘sanctioningish’ behavior is not existential. But any good authoritarian would rather throw their entire population under the bus ‘for the greater good’ than give in on something important for them… And countries know how to deal with being at war (generally), even if it’s a weird only-semi-economic one.
542354234235 1y ago
>Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good. I would say it is a bit more realpolitik than that. An "Evil" leader doesn't care about the common good, but all leaders need subordinates to carry out their orders, security forces to carry out their rules, etc. Sanctions are meant to put pressure on all those people. So either A; the leader changes their actions so as not to risk losing the people that turn their will into action, or B; those subordinates put someone else in charge that will play ball.

tsimionescu 1y ago

The poster above was pointing out that this is a double standard. You don't expect a US citizen to risk their livelihood to help an Iranian, but you then expect an Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood AND life to topple a regime that is doing things that the USA doesn't like. So, you either take personal responsibility for enforcing sanctions yourself, or you admit that sanctions are a form of collective punishment for no reason. You can't have it both ways.

abc123abc123 1y ago
[flagged]
- dontlaugh 1y ago
  "Leftists" are against sanctions. Ask your local socialist, anarchist or communist.
- torben-friis 1y ago
  >If you don't like it, move to another country, and then it is not your responsibility any longer. I’m not sure you understand how authoritarian regimes work. Or that you care about understanding, for that matter.
- aniviacat 1y ago
  > Wokeness and leftist logic just has to stop before is destroys the planet. Go Trump! This addition is entirely unnecessary in a discussion about the validity of sanctions. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
im3w1l 1y ago
This goes into what is meant by "expected". There isn't a strong expectation on any one Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood and life. There is small encouragement, that they may choose to act on or ignore.
kelnos 1y ago
I don't think that's the premise, though. The idea is that the sanctioned government will, under pressure from the sanctions, change without the need for regular citizens to start some sort of armed uprising. (Though certainly an armed uprising is a possible outcome.) Maybe the government will do this because the sanctions hurt their people enough to the point where things are too unstable for their liking. Maybe their economy becomes so trashed that the quality of the leaders' lives is impacted too much. Etc. I don't think anyone in the West genuinely believes that sanctions will lead to citizen uprisings and overthrown governments. At least not after decades where no such successful uprisings have taken place in long-sanctioned countries like Iran. But it should also be pretty clear that sanctions on countries like Iran aren't causing their governments to choose to change their behavior either. But I think arguably sanctions on Russia since they invaded Ukraine have had a useful effect. While the war hasn't stopped, it's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit. Not sure what the alternative is, though, aside from just giving up, lifting sanctions, and letting things develop where they may.
- wartywhoa23 1y ago
  >It's possible that sanctions have slowed down Russia's progress quite a bit. They did slow down all kinds of progress in Russia except the progress towards the full blown fascism and the progress of the military complex at the expence of its citizens
zokier 1y ago
It is far less of double standard than what you think. The key question is the legitimacy and mandate of the government. Western governments can claim legitimacy and mandate through democratic process (even if it is not perfect), which forms a social contract for their citizens to follow their laws. But if government is tyrannical and does not enjoy legitimacy then it's very different situation
- xg15 1y ago
  I've never understood how that legitimacy extends to foreign policy though, especially the "coercive" kind. Like, democratic elections obviously give the elected legitimacy to govern the populace that just elected them. But sanctions (or military interventions or wars) by their very definition are enacted on a different population, that had no democratic means to influence that decision. UN sanctions are at least somewhat different because they are supposed to be decided by vote of the constituent countries. But US sanctions are essentially "some people elected the President because they liked his views on domestic tax policy or trans people, therefore he gains the right to call airstrikes on some place halfway across the world or forbid the entire world from doing business with that place". It makes no sense.
dh2022 1y ago
I think Western leaders are clear headed enough to understand that sanctions do not cause people to raise against their leaders. This has been known since bombing Germany and Japan in WWII (a different, more violent kind of sanctions). However sanctions weaken the adversary technologically, economically, and ultimately militarily. This is a pragmatic reason to enforce sanctions on the adversary.
- xg15 1y ago
  That's reasonable for a "short term" military conflict, but if you keep a country under sanctions for decade and deliberately reduce the quality of life in that country, that's essentially a message to the population that they don't count.

ivell 1y ago

The leadership of countries under sanctions rarely change their behavior due to sanctions. However the effect on the population of the countries is that they turn against the countries applying the sanctions. It becomes easier for the leaders to sell the sanctions to their populace as the enemy action. If the West is expecting any revolution due to sanctions, I have not seen it. However, sanctions do have a symbolic value. And I also can't think of anything else short of military action to express displeasure.

Seattle3503 1y ago
Sanctions diminish a counties capacity to wage war.
- lazide 1y ago
  Cite? Russia and Iran seem to not be giving too much of a shit. NK became a nuclear power under sanctions.
  - kelnos 1y ago
    Would Russia perhaps have already conquered Ukraine without sanctions? Would Iran have destroyed Israel by now without sanctions? Would NK have become a nuclear power much earlier, and have a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons today, were it not for sanctions? I don't know the answers to those questions, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was "yes".
    - lazide 1y ago
      Russia lost (in a real sense), when their blitzkrieg of Kiev failed. From that point on, it’s just how much they turn the crank on the meat grinder that is trench warfare. It’s the nature of the bet that is inherent in Blitzkrieg. Ukraine/Russia is about who is going to lose more after that, not who can win. No one can win anymore. Sanctions or lack thereof definitely impacts quality of life, but Putin put everything on a war economy footing pretty quickly anyway, and in that environment (especially in Russia), it’s suffering all the way down. And Russia excels at Suffering. Russia has oil too, and plenty of minerals, so if anything I expect by now they’re just getting stronger (economically), barring Ukraine wrecking their shit from time to time with a well placed drone strike. Iran/Israel is an interesting question, but near as I can tell, Iran doesn’t really want to destroy Israel. They just want to make them as miserable as possible, and show they can ‘do harm’ to them when they need to prop up domestic support among the hardliners. Israel provides a good scapegoat for the Iranian leadership. With Israel gone, who is the Ayatollah going to use as the big bad? The Great Satan (USA) isn’t as tractable a target when they don’t have a designated ‘local’ they can go after, and if Iran actually meaningfully hurt the US (nuked the White House?), Iran is glass regardless of how otherwise strong they are. NK got sanctions because they love playing the crazy-dude-with-a-gun-that-just-wants-a-handout, which is also why they eventually got nukes. They might have gotten nukes a little faster without sanctions, but sanctions definitely gave the hardliners huge leverage in the country. Hard to be friendly with the west (as a civilian!) when the west is literally openly starving the country, even if the leadership of your country is egging them on eh? Near as I can tell, the USSR fell because of jeans and rock and roll. So yes, I think the ‘good guy’ sanctions BS is ultimately self defeating. It can work if someone is either a) in a tenuous economic position, and b) the ‘sanctioningish’ behavior is not existential. But any good authoritarian would rather throw their entire population under the bus ‘for the greater good’ than give in on something important for them… And countries know how to deal with being at war (generally), even if it’s a weird only-semi-economic one.

542354234235 1y ago

>Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good. I would say it is a bit more realpolitik than that. An "Evil" leader doesn't care about the common good, but all leaders need subordinates to carry out their orders, security forces to carry out their rules, etc. Sanctions are meant to put pressure on all those people. So either A; the leader changes their actions so as not to risk losing the people that turn their will into action, or B; those subordinates put someone else in charge that will play ball.