Sanctions, do they even work?

It is a subject-like the rest- that I have only casual knowledge of.

Off the top, I cannot think of where sanctions have actually worked. IIRC, the EU threatened sanctions on a south-east Asian nation, a complete embargo unless they bought aircraft from Airbus. As I read that on-line a number of years ago, I'm not sure that wasn't some early form of fake news or not.( or whether it worked or not).

I do see little progress when it came to Saddam, Iran or NK.

One would think sanctions hurt the average persons in those nations rather than the leadership it's intending to sway. Perhaps it's now working in Iran to some extent, but as we receive little information on the current protests in Iran and they could be for completely different reasons than any sanctions- or threats of more sanctions by the U.S., I fail to see any positive in them beyond the fact that they act as pressure/political effort short of war.

If war was/is the only other means of enforcing outside pressures, then I suppose sanctions are worth the attempt.

Does anyone recall or have knowledge of sanction/s that actually worked? Even to some degree, if not fully?

A last thought is it seems sanctions tend to be directed to dictatorships or democracies, in name only. Has there been sanctions on what is generally accepted to be democratic nations?

A last, last thought, one would think economic sanctions on nuclear capable nations have a completely potential consequence than on non- nuclear capable nations. Does that make sanctions more desirable or more 'dangerous'? Or both?

Thoughts?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Great question. I think they have an effect, but that effect may not be the one intended...IE the poor people do the suffering. When countries like China speak out both sides of their mouth and trade with countries they have agreed to sanction anyway...I feel it bolsters the stance of the sanctioned country.

Also, most of the countries we in the industrialized West sanction, have their own allies, who don't give 2 squats about our sanctions and continue trade as usual.

I would like to know what gives a nation authority to dictate what another nation can do.

is there an international law that gives the US the authority to do such things?

if Russia sanctioned another country then what?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
I would like to know what gives a nation authority to dictate what another nation can do.

is there an international law that gives the US the authority to do such things?

if Russia sanctioned another country then what?

Good question. The other end of it is any country can do what they want, when they want?

Consequence of action is part and parcel of the mechanism that restrains both individual and national acts. Yes, that includes the U.S..

a reply to: nwtrucker

Off the top, I cannot think of where sanctions have actually worked.

In olden times armies of conquest surrounded and cut off every city they encountered. This was called a siege, depriving the inhabitants of food, water, goods, in an effort to get them to surrender, to weaken them to such a degree that the surrounding army could then invade take them because they were so weakened by hunger and disease.

Nowadays we 'lay siege' to other nations that don't comply with our global agenda thru electronic means, by restricting payment for certain goods like hospital supplies, for instance. This has the direct effect on the people not the gubment. The siege is directed at people, to make the gubment surrender.

Once sanctions have done their work, embargo and blockades follow, then full on invasion if necessary.

Turning off the water, power, sewage, food transport etc. during the bombing campaign of Iraq, Libya, Syria, for instance. The bombing campaign is over pretty quickly, then the people are left to starve and die of thirst and disease. This takes time. Thats why NATO invaded Iraq twice...

The "First" Gulf war turned off the utilities, then ten years later, the ground army rolled in.

Thats a siege, nowadays.

a reply to: odzeandennz

is there an international law that gives the US the authority to do such things?

No. Sanction are enforced at the highest level, the Banks. When a funds transfer request comes into the bank from a company who's products are on the sanction list, the Bank simply refuses to pay. So the goods are never delivered.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room are the banks.

a reply to: intrptr

Good point. A lot of city-states, in the day.

On Iraq? sorry, but not buying it.
On global agenda? Not buying.
On banks behind them? NK? Sorry, not buying that one either.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrptr

Good point. A lot of city-states, in the day.

On Iraq? sorry, but not buying it.
On global agenda? Not buying.
On banks behind them? NK? Sorry, not buying that one either.

Saddam wanted to trade oil for gold instead of Petrodollars, so did Qaddafi. See what happened?

As far as modern siege measures, taking out the telecommunications center in Baghdad shut down TV, radio, phone conversation. Information flow goes dark. This was a siege measure...

image

When NATO forces first began the assault on Tikrit, Iraq, they destroyed the marshaling yards and bridges for transport used to supply food and goods to the city, effectively cutting off food distribution to a million plus populations center. The were so proud of this they released DOD film of the airstrikes.

The first bomb hits one of the bridges across the river , the second and third hit the Marshaling and dock yards. This is laying siege to a modern city by destroying infrastructure to starve whole city populations into submission.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

Off the top, I cannot think of where sanctions have actually worked.

In olden times armies of conquest surrounded and cut off every city they encountered. This was called a siege, depriving the inhabitants of food, water, goods, in an effort to get them to surrender, to weaken them to such a degree that the surrounding army could then invade take them because they were so weakened by hunger and disease.

Nowadays we 'lay siege' to other nations that don't comply with our global agenda thru electronic means, by restricting payment for certain goods like hospital supplies, for instance. This has the direct effect on the people not the gubment. The siege is directed at people, to make the gubment surrender.

Once sanctions have done their work, embargo and blockades follow, then full on invasion if necessary.

Turning off the water, power, sewage, food transport etc. during the bombing campaign of Iraq, Libya, Syria, for instance. The bombing campaign is over pretty quickly, then the people are left to starve and die of thirst and disease. This takes time. Thats why NATO invaded Iraq twice...

The "First" Gulf war turned off the utilities, then ten years later, the ground army rolled in.

Thats a siege, nowadays.

Exactly. Sanctions are used to weaken countries prior to invasion. In that respect, they work pretty well. That's why the US wants to make it illegal to boycott Israel. Or, more accurately, that's why Israel wants the US to make it illegal for US companies to boycott Israel. If sanctions didn't work, no one would care.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Exactly. Sanctions are used to weaken countries prior to invasion.

We can always tell who's on the hit list by the sanctions levied against their economy. It is the first phase of the multiphase operation to subjugate Sovereign Nations.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: intrptr

Good point. A lot of city-states, in the day.

On Iraq? sorry, but not buying it.
On global agenda? Not buying.
On banks behind them? NK? Sorry, not buying that one either.

Saddam wanted to trade oil for gold instead of Petrodollars, so did Qaddafi. See what happened?

Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Qaddafi's removal was run by Britain and France, not the U.S..

Besides, the thread is about the effectiveness of modern sanctions, not the source or motive of them, yes?

a reply to: nwtrucker
When I was at school, white-run Rhodesia declared independence (UDI). The British government of the day dealt with the problem by imposing sanctions. Harold Wilson claimed that they would bring down the rebellion "in a matter of weeks rather than months". Our History teacher expressed the opinion that sanctions never work, citing the example of what happened after Mussolini invaded Ethiopia.They had no effect on Rhodesia either, partly because the adjacent Portuguese colonies were not co-operating.
The only counter-example I can think is Roosevelt imposing oil-sanctions on Japan, with the result that the Japanese got desperate enough to launch an attack on Pearl Harbour. I suppose that sort-of worked.
History seems to be against the idea.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Might.

Not that it's moral or anything, but this is how/why nations act the way they do.

Probably goes back to some primal #.

a reply to: nwtrucker
Just from what I've seen in the news and such, sanctions seem to only hurt those already hurting: the citizens, the poor, those without any options.

Those in charge are the rich. The elite. Those with money to weather the sanctions and be just fine. Take a look at many of the countries put under sanctions. The people are already suffering. They're already poor and struggling to survive. Sometimes they're already being oppressed by their own governments over culture and religion, so the takeaway is that the government already has few cares to give that the people will suffer more.

Even if aid is rendered by outside sources such as the red cross, those supplies are often confiscated by the government and never get to the people.

In my opinion/view, sanctions don't do much except fuel further hate of western countries for interfering in their business. Sadly, I haven't a clue what would work either.

No. You essentially force hardship onto the common people of the target country, and the leadership of said country will merely use them as a way to rally support and fuel the ever-growing anti-west sentiment.

Some western-imposed sanctions are nothing short of genocidal. Such as those imposed on Iraq in the 90s, or the ones on the DPRK. Saddam was not ousted by popular uprising thanks to western sanctions, and Kim won't be either.

I've long held the belief that those who support sanctions and officials who impose them should be forced to live in conditions similar to Iraq in 1995. Have fun.

originally posted by: intrptr
As far as modern siege measures, taking out the telecommunications center in Baghdad shut down TV, radio, phone conversation. Information flow goes dark. This was a siege measure...

image

When NATO forces first began the assault on Tikrit, Iraq, they destroyed the marshaling yards and bridges for transport used to supply food and goods to the city, effectively cutting off food distribution to a million plus populations center. The were so proud of this they released DOD film of the airstrikes.

The first bomb hits one of the bridges across the river , the second and third hit the Marshaling and dock yards. This is laying siege to a modern city by destroying infrastructure to starve whole city populations into submission.

There IS a distinction between sieges and sanctions, even though it approaches semantics. Trade is agreement between two or more parties or in this case, nations.

If one such entity invokes that level angst then one or many have the right to withhold/cancel their side of the agreement.

Sieges are outright war.

originally posted by: Ohanka
No. You essentially force hardship onto the common people of the target country, and the leadership of said country will merely use them as a way to rally support and fuel the ever-growing anti-west sentiment.

Some western-imposed sanctions are nothing short of genocidal. Such as those imposed on Iraq in the 90s, or the ones on the DPRK. Saddam was not ousted by popular uprising thanks to western sanctions, and Kim won't be either.

I've long held the belief that those who support sanctions and officials who impose them should be forced to live in conditions similar to Iraq in 1995. Have fun.

Just a hypothetical, let's suppose Chamberlain and fellow European leaders had imposed sanctions on Germany prior to say WWII. Let's say 1935.

Strong sanctions. Oil, war making materials, so on, 'could' that have worked to prevent, at least in part, the events of WWII?

There is a strong sense that Chamberlain was a major player in empowering Hitler via appeasement.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Good point. Yet the U.S. was equally criticized for NOT cutting oil off from Hitler via Franco in Spain. Of course, the U.S. garners equal for cutting oil from Japan...go figure.

Japan made a decision. Period. They could have opted out of their 'All East-asian co-prosperity sphere' war once the oil and scrap metal was cut off. They chose other-wise. Big mistake.

a reply to: DISRAELI

P.S. Yet in the long run Rhodesia lost. It no longer exists.

Different means were used....