Do ‘Sanctions’ Work?
Politically charged words, over the slow course of their use, have a funny way of emptying themselves of all meaningful content. A “neoconservative” used to be a Cold War liberal who, having witnessed the dry rot of Great Society economics and Soviet appeasement, moved somewhere to the right of center. In its literal meaning of “new conservative,” the word made sense. But consider the evolution: It has been nearly four decades since Michael Harrington’s once-useful term has evolved, or perhaps devolved, into a cheap slur and a newer, more oblique way of asking the Jewish question.
There are other subtle ways in which nuance can be erased. In policy debates, certain words don’t become meaningless tags so much as placeholders for the wider, deeper argument that should be taking place. These days, amid the democide in Syria and the legitimate fear of a nuclear Iran, the word to replace all thought is, once again, “sanctions.” Think of all the relevant questions about sanctions — what they are, how best to implement them, when and against whom they would be most effective — and try to recall when you have ever heard these questions actually asked, much less answered, by our elected representatives and unelected pundits.
This debate, such as it is, might best be described as stillborn; in its place we have the comfort of partisan orthodoxy. “Sanctions never work!” yell the committed leftists. A more extreme corollary of this argument, which you can hear hissed in the pages of The Nation and on Democracy Now! (or perhaps later, if you consider the range of its guests’ views), is that sanctions are tantamount to murder or even genocide. This murder, of course, is always greater than or equal to that committed by the sanctioned country’s rulers. Thus in the early years of the Iraq war, the only relevant question for men like Ramsey Clark and George Galloway was not what effect three decades of Ba’athism had had on Iraqi civilians, but how many people the United States had already killed, even before the first bomb was dropped, by prohibiting trade with Saddam Hussein. (Oddly, in all other instances, it is free trade that is condemned as murderous and imperialistic, and the same who oppose sanctions against anti-Western states are usually those who have led their own efforts to “divest” from Israel.) On the other side of this tarnished coin are the sanctions true-believers, those who are convinced that simply calling for vague, unspecified trade restrictions will work just splendidly, no questions asked.
sanctions do wonders for the poor saps/plebs already getting theirs from the tyrants inside; as for the tyrants themselves–not so much; in fact, it usually encourages them to act worse
I’m waiting for Iran to get the next “Oil-for-food” program, just like Iraq did. Because, you know, we wouldn’t actually want to hurt anyone with sanctions. Oil-for-food was such a “success” with Saddam Hussein, right? In fact, people working at the UN made a fortune off of it through kickbacks and just plain greed. What a waste of time.
Politically charged words, over the slow course of their use, have a funny way of emptying themselves of all meaningful content.
Like racist?
That one sure doesn’t work on me anymore. I’m cured.
We did intervene in Libya…. in 1969. Not sure about Syria, but I have a feeling it’s a similar game in nearly all of those countries.
“We intervened in Libya,” they glibly observe, “so why are we not intervening in Syria?” The question seems apt, however, your response seems both glib and childish; “Libya and Syria, to remind those who have forgotten, are two different countries — ” The reason for the difference has nothing to do with geography, and everything to the ability to fight back. We knew for years that The Daffy did not have the military punch to resist a determined US assault. The Syrians have the ability to put up an air defense against an air attack they know is coming. In Libya the US, UK and France ganged up to murder a midget. In Syria someone other than Assad could get hurt.
When it comes to sanctions it’s a way of doing something without doing anything!
Comparing sanctions to open intervention is like this: a person walk their dog and hold their nose while the dog is pooping and just walks around it, or rather taking out a plastic bag and cleaning up the dog poop so it can be disposed of. In either case the poop is still the problem.
Sanctions are simply a way to avoid the real problem while acting like you’re dealing with it. It’s sort of like trying to manage conflict with a really nasty and possibly violent employee – you nervously have meetings with him and the HR people (several people in a meeting are harder to attack), until you become sick from the avoidance and worry. Finally you are forced to suck in your breath and close your eyes and cross your fingers and just DO IT – and you fire his worthless ass – and feel so damn good for the first time since you met the awful bully….
Sanctions are also a way for political types to feel sanctimonious and self-righteous — they don’t have tp get their hands dirty trading with whoever is being sanctioned.
I know a way to sanction Iran thats super secret.It’s so far out there that nobody speaks about it.America’s secret weapon.It’s called a Helicopter Ben Bernanke.Helicopter Ben lives in n.y.c in a place called the Federal Reserve Bank.Both Ben & the Fed,and our beloved Obama as well,are owned by some very heavily leveraged characters known as Central Banksters.Ben has at his disposal a printing press which he uses to print Federal Reserve Notes.these I.O U.’s are confused by many with real money!Bens owners are in deep financial doodoo & need Ben to print Zillions of dollars in funny-money to inflate their way out of bankruptcy.(Ben,by the way,is the only known counterfeiter in the USA who is not in jail).All the funny/money that the Fed prints causes super price inflation sending food prices into the stratosphere.It just so happens that the US Dollar is the reserve currency used around the world for international trade for food & other commodities.Iran,for the most part, must pay for imports with more & more inflated-debased dollars.When the price in dollars for imported goods goes thru the ceiling the great mass of poor,starving, Iranians(Arabs also) are going to have to drink oil,eat sand,or eat each other.When the starving mobs hit the streets it will be the end for the Regime & it’s nuclear ambitions!
P.S. You may say that the Iranian gov’t could make it back by raising the price of their oil,& they can!But who will they sell it to?Their customers in Europe are going down the financial drain & EU itself may soon be history.Besides,there are other parties like the Russians who will be more than happy to meet whatever energy demands there are as the Global economy sinks into Depression.
Isn’t it crazy that where sanctions & threats of war could not budge the ayatollahs from their sacred mission,little Ben Bernanke & his printing press will do the trick!
Sanctions sparked a war between the United States and Japan. Was that a success or a failure?
You historians will recall that at one time we were concerned about Japan’s invasion of China and prospective invasion of Asia. We certainly aren’t worried about that anymore. Now its China that wants to invade the Philippines and not Japan.