Do ‘Sanctions’ Work?
If you read position papers and academic studies on the subject, however, it becomes immediately clear that economists and political scientists, possessed of oppressive amounts of data, still aren’t sure what conclusions to draw. One of the first casualties of the debate, I have found, is usually the distinction between an effective policy and a successful one. It is undeniable that sanctions have an effect; whether that effect helps to realize the goal determines whether the policy was successful. The two must be kept separate.
There are at least two possible outcomes to implementing sanctions against a state. The first and, in my estimation, least likely is that the measures will work as planned: the regime will either relent and go along with a diplomatic solution or, in the case of an increasingly eroded power structure, implode (this could mean civil war, which is likely in Syria). The second possible outcome is that they will not work: the regime will manage to sustain itself. It follows necessarily from this scenario that the people will bear the ill effects of halted trade and investment. This is especially true for centralized or rentier economies, which autocrats can rack and bleed even more cruelly as their palace funds run dry. Cuba is the most salient example. After more than five decades of sanctions against them we have received five decades of rule by the same Communist criminals (with all the attendant bonuses like the Cuban Missile Crisis). Iraq, too, figures in to this spotty record. Sanctions took effect almost immediately after Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait in 1990; nearly thirteen years later, he was still firmly in control of his terrorized nation, and had enough clout and wherewithal to resist the efforts of the “international community” to keep him in compliance with at least a dozen useless UN resolutions.
Indeed, the history of sanctions demonstrates a freakishly confused record, one in which conclusions, if there are any, suffocate beneath tons of conflicting statistics. Thus in the absence of scientific clarity we have mere anecdotes; each side has its own favorite examples to offer when the debate heats up. You might hear about the case of South Africa, for example — the ultimate sanctions success, so we are told. The narrative goes that the West, especially Britain, effectively subsidized the apartheid government throughout the early decades of the Cold War by refusing to sign on to a sanctions regime. Only after a large, campus-based anti-apartheid movement did people like Ronald Reagan agree to cut off Pretoria. Thanks to the sanctions, the tale goes, apartheid crumbled a few years later.
But the moral of the story is not so easily articulated. South Africa’s economic decline began before Western sanctions took effect, according to one thorough study. How much of the eventual capitulation, if any, should we attribute to sanctions? Are sanctions “good” or “bad”?
If there is a bottom line to exhuming this whole argument, it is that the most basic questions are always the most relevant. And what is more basic than moral criteria? There ought to be very real concern, therefore, that sanctions could, and probably will, significantly damage the civilian population of the target country. This has already happened in Syria. Citizens cannot complete international financial transactions, to name one unfortunate effect. This helps to destroy small businesses that finally had a chance to emerge after Bashar al Assad turned away from the harder aspects of his father’s Ba’athist socialism. The obvious effect is that the regime’s opposition is weakened.
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.