Do ‘Sanctions’ Work?
How best, then, to make it all more palatable? Here’s where it gets muddy and the sophistry begins. Sanctions can be successful, but only when their implementation is handled with surgical rigor. The next time you hear someone, whether on the left or the right, talk about “sanctions,” be sure to ask him what type he is referring to. You might be greeted with a pale stare or some befuddled indignation, but the question is not purely a rhetorical one. Targeted sanctions, for instance, work better under certain circumstances than under others; comprehensive sanctions are usually the way to go. Evidence also suggests that multilateral sanctions are more effective than unilateral ones. Put differently, it’s better for a large number of nations to gang up on another nation’s entire economy than for one or two nations to target only certain sectors of the economy. The restrictions have a greater chance of working this way; thus they are more likely to be over with more quickly, the population being spared years of hardship. These are just a few variables in the polynomial calculus of economic prohibition.
This last point reminds me of a question I hear clever types ask all too often. “We intervened in Libya,” they glibly observe, “so why are we not intervening in Syria?” The question is supposed to demonstrate the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the West. It also serves as a reminder that the “war for oil” leitmotif is still booming in the minds of those who seek comfort in old tropes and slogans: What possible reason could there be, the logic goes, to intervene in selected places if not for the black gold? But only when the debate is left at the level of pure abstraction is this a coherent question. Libya and Syria, to remind those who have forgotten, are two different countries — with different geostrategic implications, different locations, different military capabilities, different population densities, etc. All military interventions are not created equal. To illustrate this point using an extreme example, consider how enforcing a no-fly zone over a place like Gambia would differ from, say, leading a ground invasion of inner Russia.
So with sanctions. Are they unilateral or multilateral? Targeted or comprehensive? What is the nature of the state’s economy? What is the condition of the ruling regime? What works on Syria, after all, might not work on Iran. See? Now you’re getting it. As usual, however, the political pressure to “do something,” or the equally idiotic impulse to stop others from doing something at all costs, has obscured these basic questions.
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.