the effectiveness of sanctions

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Considering that sanctions ‘failed’ in Iraq, should they still be used in containing other rogue states in the world, as an alternative to overt action? The humanitarian effects of sanctions can be devastating as seen in Iraq, but the possible effects of the recent war are said to be worse than those experienced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why did the US wait for 10 years before attacking Iraq, during which the sanctions remained well in-tact and only allowing Iraq little breathing space through the oil-for-food program.
How and when do you think sanctions should be used? Do you think the UN was initially justified in implementing sanctions in Iraq, baring in mind that they did not predict the negative outcome? Should sanctions only be a multilateral effort endorsed by the UN or should countries be able to choose who they are going to impose sanctions against?

Your thoughts and comments please.

2

When you say failed, we have to be careful. The sanctions were brutally effective in killing a large number of children in Iraq. They were also systematically effective in weakening Iraq's defense forces so that in 12 years they were so weak that when US finally decided to attack, it took them all of three weeks to get into Baghdad.

Yes, sanctions didn't make Saddam regime fall by itself, but they were a very important factor in why Iraqis were unable to defend themselves in a befitting manner against the invasion. There were other reasons too, lack of will being one (possibly).

I think if you look at it from US' point of view, sanctions were extremely successful. They first put sanctions, then sent the weapons inspectors to destroy all the missiles, and then attacked and took over the country. Like clockwork, as they say.

3

I think the peoples of Iraq defended themselves as angels. I find them honest, sweet and kind.

And deserving of much more than they got.

4

In the beginning sanctions were viewed as a more "humane" alternative to war. Saddam has shown us that a dictator with an unlimited capacity for supression of his people can beat sanctions. People can be so subjugated by levels of internal repression that any rebellion, dissent or opposition could be brutally beaten down. The realization that this level of repression can be tolerated by a populice is shocking in and of itself.

In the beginning you would have imagined the educated and intelligent people of Iraq would realize that Saddam is leading them down the drain. In the end, those people were either killed, co-opted into Saddams ruling elite, or cowed into oblivion.

But Saddam had significant advantages.

He had a oil wealth that he could direct to the most loyal and brutal followers. He had a degree of control over the country that allowed him control of the political process, all of the wealth and economic activity, all of the media, control over visitors to the country, and control over the military and the security apparatus of the country. In the end this was enough to subjugate the masses, and to prevent overthrow, either political or military.

Whether this same formula of resistance could be perpetuated and controlled by other bad actors on the world stage is debatable. Ultimately sanctions are intended to evoke a change in the behavior of the targeted regime. While other "bad actors" on the world stage have mellowed in the face of world pressure (Libya), the "success" of Saddam in resisting sanctions, and indeed deflecting blame to others, spells limited success for sanctions in the future.

Could North Korea endure the same level of hardship as Saddam with no political purge, hard to tell. North Korea has no oil wealth that can be eagerly smuggled to surrounding countries. Does North Korea have a political opposition that could enforce change? Doubtful, as the country is isolated in virtually every way from the outside world. The brain washing is so so complete, that civilians would be starving by the thousands before political change occured. Certainly the spector of a starving Korea lashing out with nuclear weapons as people starved in the street would be the worst possible outcome.

The best hope for sanctions as a motivation of change is for countries where the dictator is vulnerable and has internal opposition that will reason with the population and work for change from within. In the end there appears to be only a limited future for non-violent coersion. Unfortunately sharp and shocking violent intervention may ultimately be more humane. Sad but true.

5

^ Yes, that is right blame it all on Saddam. US did not have any alterior motives behind the sanctions. Oh I forgot, We do things by the law. Law of the Wild West that is. Sanctions only lasted a long time because of the countless changes made to the final outcome (needed) by US and UK. As soon as Saddam started complying with one, they introduced something new and even more restrictive. Sanctions resulted in death of many Iraqi citizens including children. I am sure the rest of my fellow american citizens are really proud of this accomplishment.

6

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
In the beginning sanctions were viewed as a more "humane" alternative to war. Saddam has shown us that a **dictator* with an unlimited capacity for supression of his people** can beat sanctions**. ....
[/QUOTE]

when did you learn that? in 1991, 1992, 1993, .... 2003?

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
The best hope for sanctions as a motivation of change is for countries where the dictator is vulnerable and has internal opposition that will reason with the population and work for change from within. In the end there appears to be only a limited future for non-violent coersion. Unfortunately sharp and shocking violent intervention may ultimately be more humane. Sad but true.
[/QUOTE]

So what u r saying is sanctions don't work for in countries where the dictator has a stranglehold on the population?

IMO as a 'positive' or as an incentive for change, sanctions are useless. The only good it will do is to destroy the economy and the civillian population at large. If you destroy that, there is no way for 'change from within'. I mean how are you going to get an opposition or an alternative group strong enough to challenge and initiate change in a country internally when you weaken and destroy the very population and people who are supposed to do that?

In any case those countries that have had sanctions imposed have got around that whether it was saddam dealing illegally or whether it is North Korea 'blackmailing' with their Nuclear knowledge and then in the end all you get is hate and opposition to those that enforced sactions in the first place. The only intervention that will work is diplomacy.

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
....I mean how are you going to get an opposition or an alternative group strong enough to challenge and initiate change in a country internally when you weaken and destroy the very population and people who are supposed to do that?
....
[/QUOTE]

Call international 911 I'm sure you'll get help.

9

Bush Sr. stopped the 1991 War for a few reasons. First, he had no UN mandate to go all the way to Baghdad. Second, he was convinced by other Arab states, (and probably France and Russia) that Saddam provided stability. The Saudis were scared to death of radical Islam coming from Iran, and they thought that Iraq was a buffer. In the end of course they got it anyway. Third, the visual images of the US rolling over Saddams army were disturbing, and the US was worried about appearing the bully. And lastly, sanctions, were percieved at the time to be a more "humane" approach than war, infact sanctions were all the buzz of the anti-war crowd including Chomsky. Everyone thought that Saddam would be overthrown, or would become the next Qaddafi, not very palatable, but acceptable.

The ultimate irony is that Saddam ended up being far more brutal in supressing his opposition that anyone expected, he resisted inspections for years, he survived coups, and he flourished by finding routes of smuggling and kickbacks. Not only that, his propaganda machine was very effecive at deflecting the balme from him to the US.

In light of this, he has written the handbook on "how to survive sanctions". Because he has shown others the way to outlast the community will, I would endeavor to say that sanctions are dead as a doornail. Undoubtedly some other bad actor will come upon the world stage, and sanctions will be proposed again, and we will be told why, "this time it is different". I can't imagine that debate going too far.

The US has carried away the lesson that you should only fight once. Prior to this century going into battle and NOT fully defeating your foe would be laughable. I think that the US will never again accept a mandate for anything less than full victory. Given the fact that most western countries have military spending that is an all time low in comparison to their GDP, the US military will bear the brunt of any "world effort".

In the end Rhia, you are absolutely correct, diplomacy and war are the only proven methods of international change. Since only the US has the war machine that is proven, that means that big dollar bribery is going to be the method of choice short of war.

10

this as we learned doesn’t stop the USA.

hogwash.. there can be no Islam as radical as the one the Saudis have imposed on their population. They were only pissing their pants cuz the US showed them doctored photos of an Iraqi advance and once the bases were allowed the mission was completed and Saddam had his use.. to stay there as a threat while the US strenghtened it’s direct presence in the Middle East.

:hehe: … :rotfl:

Sanctions served the purpose of ‘softening’ up the enemy and the US went for it.. coupled with the illegally imposed No-Fly Zones.

He allowed inspectors.. and he disarmed. Ask Scott Ritter who wrote that Iraq had disarmed 95%. Saddam’s son-in-law escaped and told the same story .. but the US administration sat on the choice info and deluded the American public that Iraq had a weapons program that was thriving and undisturbed.

To this day we’re still hunting for those invisible weapons which couldn’t even secure Saddam from an invasion.

The sanctions did nothing but erode the quality of life of the individual.. had anyone been serious in curtailing Saddam’s regime, they’d have asked for free fair elections with UN monitors and UN forces on the ground.