Sanctions
Sanctions to change another countries policy have never worked in recorded history, but they are still valid as punishment.
~ Aristotle Sabouni |
Rule #1: Sanactions never work
We've tried sanctions against Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, Turkey, Syria, Venezuela, Lebanon, Nicaragua, and so on. They have successfully changed a countries direction or policies in exactly none of those examples.
Imagine you are in a country that hates their leadership, and things get scarce because of sanctions -- are you really going to go up against the government with tanks and secret police or fight with the mafia that is rich and armed because of the black market, all because inflation sucks and things you want cost more? It doesn't happen.
We have no evidence of them ever working because the ruling class is insulated from the consequences. And the underclass just does without or pays more on the black market.
Rule #2: Sanactions are inhumane[edit | edit source]
What sanctions have done is they have denied food/medicine (driven up costs) and caused a humanitarian crisis that killed hundreds of thousands of kids in Iraq. It contributed to civil wars that hurt stability but often strengthened the power of the ruling class. And it empowered warlords by creating profitable black markets, creating more crime/brutality -- but that doesn't change policies in the way that we want. They just make life worse in those countries, and that makes them resent the country that's causing their pain -- not their own leadership any more than they already dislike them.
Rule #3: Sanactions are sometimes valid[edit | edit source]
While they don't work prophylactically to change a country from doing something (like getting nukes), they still might be moral/ethical.
If the country is torturing or enslaving it's own people, or attacking your economy first (through currency manipulation, stealing IP, unequal access to markets), and so on -- there are things so egregious that you might deny your business/individuals access to their markets and vice versa.
Why?
Well it might hurt the underclasses more than the elites, but it does slow the growth, reduce their power/influence slightly, and it reduces your country from being involved in the activity. E.g. I might not be able to stop a rape or murder, but I'm not going to sell the guy the kit/things he needs to do it. (The tape, bleach, shovel, etc). Yes, he might get those things somewhere else, and I can't stop that -- but that doesn't mean it is moral to overlook it.
But the point is there can be a line. But trying to use it to stop Nuclear proliferation? Moronic. But denying them working with our tech companies because they enslave their minorities? That might be valid.
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
Democrats/left almost always uses/advocates for using sanctions backward. Republicans are more hit and miss. Just like laws and regulations. But in order to know how to use a tool effectively, you need to look at what a tool can and can't do, based on what it has done in history.
So rule #1 is that they are inhumane policies that virtue signal to the clueless left, but doesn't change anything for the better.
That does
🔗 More
| |
| |
🔗 Links
