With the discussion about sanctions against Iran it is good to remember how ineffective sanctions usually are. Yet proponents of sanctions keep asking for more - claiming effectiveness that on closer look doesn't hold. In fact moral arguments work much better than blackmail.
Stratfor recently even claimed that the Apartheid had been beaten by sanctions. In fact there were sanctions for many years against South Africa - without much effect. The advocates of sanctions knew that but it didn't bother them as their real goal was to further discussion on the moral basis of apartheid. The South African regime defended Apartheid with the argument of "separated development". In a world where many white parents would be deeply shocked when the children would marry blacks such an argument certainly had its appeal. By shifting the discussion to the way this "separate development" reserved the best jobs and best lands for the white people the apartheid adversaries succeeded in making apartheid look bad morally. That did the job.
A similar argument can be seen in the demise of communism. The Macchiavellians like to claim that the fomenting of war in Afghanistan in 1979 by Carter and Brzezinski and the the start of a new arms race that the Soviet Union couldn't keep up with did the job. But Gorbachev has said that it was the detente that had convinced him that the West wasn't as bad as communist propaganda preached. Reagan's moral appeals ("mr. Gorbachev, tear does this wall" and calling the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire") did the rest.
In Milosevic's Serbia and Saddam's Iraq sanctions enriched a clique closely connected to the ruler. They strengthened rather than weakened his control over the country. Milosevic was in the end brought down with a "color revolution" - a foreign sponsored semi-coup. And Saddam was brought down with force.
Given this background one would expect stronger support for a moral approach. Yet the Macchiavellians manage to keep monopolizing the discussion when it comes to disagreeable regimes like Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Birma, etc. In my opinion a moral approach would be much more fruitful. Unfortunately Obama seems incapable to shed the shadow of the immoral Cheney.
5 comments:
"In Milosevic's Serbia and Saddam's Iraq sanctions enriched a clique closely connected to the ruler. They strengthened rather than weakened his control over the country."
Are you sure this is so? How do you know that the dictators' control over the country wouldn't have still strengthened (and even more so) without sanctions?
One need to look no further than mainland China, a nation not beseiged by sanctions at all, but the dictators there still maintain an iron grip.
One thing is certain: the sanctions keep the dictators relatively impoverished. The Castro family is worth several billion. Without sanctions/embargo, they'd be much much richer.
For large scale smuggling you need help on the inside of the border. That gave Milosevic and Saddam control over the smuggling. The traders became dependent on them. In addition these rulers don't have to take blame for adverse conditions in their country as they can blame the embargo for them. If you have free trade the traders form an independent power. When they with their money turn against a government it will find it very difficult to stay in power. They were for example a crucial factor in the fall of the Shah of Iran.
Do you really believe that the Chinese would be better of when it had "free" elections. I doubt it. Most probably it would be much more corrupt and so it would be less democratic in the strict meaning of the word - that a country is ruled according to the will of its people. Now I have the impression that China is developing in the right direction and might well end up democratic.
As or Cuba, the richness of the Castro family is just rumors. Anything that is known about Fidel says that he is living an austere life. And it is well known that he has been very adroit in blaming the US embargo for bad economic conditions.
China would be better off it if had free elections. No quotes around free.
"As or Cuba, the richness of the Castro family is just rumors."
Forbes Magazine has actually documented the specific riches of this family several times. Add on to that the fact that they have almost all of a vast Caribbean island as their personal fiefdom. Their properry.
" And it is well known that he has been very adroit in blaming the US embargo for bad economic conditions."
True. What are socialists good at if not effectively lying? In Cuba, it is essentially illegal for all but the tiny ruling elite to live in anything but poverty. Any additional money into the Cuba would swell the coffers of the dictators: no average Cuban would see anything of it.
There are benefits to keeping the rich dictators from being super rich. When the Castros were flush with money (from their Soviet masters pre- 1989) they waged war against Africa (sending concripts to kill African nationalists in Angola who were rebelling against the Soviets) and Latin America also.
Forbes documented nothing. They just stated without proof that Castro was rich. It looks like you have been reading too much propaganda from the Bacardi family. They did themselves under the Batista regime what they now accuse Castro of.
"What are socialists good at if not effectively lying?"
Socialists are humans - just like the rest of us. Power corrupts, but that applies to rich businessmen just as well.
"Forbes documented nothing."
Actually, they document and prove it in detail.
"It looks like you have been reading too much propaganda from the Bacardi family."
I've read none. Did you pull the Bacardi reference from thin air? And does your working definition of "propaganda" mean "views/opinions/facts you just happen to dislike" ?
"Socialists are humans - just like the rest of us."
Socialists just happen to be exceptionally greedy and rapacious, and they number most of the world's worst mass-murdering dictators among their ranks.
Post a Comment