The United States and the United Nations put sanctions on misled countries in order to attempt to direct them to the right path. The act is analogous to taking away an errant child's food until it behaves.
1) Sanctions by the United States are unjustified. If a country's government is faulty, another nation has no right to interfere with its national sovereignty. It may criticize policies, but actions to change them must remain within the compass of the nation itself and the United Nations. Controlling and coercing another nation, whether through military or economic means, is only a loose or preliminary form of imperialism or colonialism. The United States cannot make decisions for the rest of the world any more than any other country could for the United States. If there is a problem so severe that it must be changed through economic sanctions, then the United Nations should have the jurisdiction to enforce a change.
2) Sanctions cause damage to the innocent. Since sanctions are often simply restrictions of trade and commerce with the chosen country, the people who supposedly are being oppressed or wronged in that country are then subjected to depleted supplies that can only further worsen their situation. Regardless of whether the policy is ultimately changed, sanctions are detrimental to the society. Additionally, sanctions on a country can cause related nations to suffer enormously, depending on the scope of the sanction.
3) UN sanctions are often unable to be enforced. The whole purpose of sanctioning is to enforce a change in law, but in international sanctions there must also be enforcement of the sanctions themselves. However, there is no non-military method of enforcement beyond mere political scorn, so the purportedly non-military tool of sanctioning often requires force to be effective.
4) Sanctions simply have a low rate of achievement. Sanctioning or subjecting a nation to external force in any case can frequently result in favor of the faulty government for which the sanction was intended. An excellent example of this phenomenon is Fidel Castro in Cuba. Known to the rest of the world as a scoundrel and a plague on society, he has nevertheless been able to blame the rampant poverty on neighboring and sanctioning nations, causing the population to rally around him. In Iraq, Sudan, and Myanmar(Burma) have hurt these nations potentially even more than the cause of the sanctions.
Although changes could(should) be made to sanctioning, currently they are an overestimated and detrimental tool for Civil Liberties.
http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/sanction/anlysis2.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=10070
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree broadly with your evaluation of the issue of 'sanctions' in today's world. The composition of the UN Security Council, as constituted today, is highly unbalanced and illogical. No wonder it is mostly ineffective in solving global problems and it does not inspire confidence.
Did you mean Iran and not Iraq in your last point?
And anyway, yeah, I agree with everything too. Encouraging trade with bad countries instead of isolating them and making them hate the West may not help the political situation in the country (sanctions rarely do either), but at least companies and citizens of both countries would benefit, and the increased wealth might possibly undermine the bad government.
No, I meant Iraq. They started in 1990 and were finally lifted in May 22, 2003. The Iranian sanctions are definitely detrimental too though. :(
Post a Comment