user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
The efficacy of sanctions depend on the relatioship between the leadership of the country under sanctions and its people. As the people suffer, either the leadership has to relent and give in to the demands of the international community, or the people have to get rid of the leadership. It has generally been the case that the goverment that inspire sanctions against themselves are rotten enough to be oblivious to their impact on the population, so they generally cause a great deal of suffering. They are a bad thing, but the question that remains is if open war is worse. Sanctions are relatively easy to impose, and much more likely to gain support than war, but they are essentially the same thing.
by aeco on Thu Aug 12, 04 1:57pm
[+]
They have been shown to be far worse than War. Did 1,211,285 children die in the 2003 invasion?
But ofcourse its not about life, its about money. Sanctions allow you to cripple a country and not get your hands dirty, and without opening your wallet.
aeco - If it is generally the case that sanctioned governments, are oblivious, or ignorant to their populations fate, then surely it is the U.N's responsibility to recognise this fact and not implement sanctions in the first place. Surely they must have known that Saddam wasn't the type of guy to feed the masses and dish out his own personal coffers when times get hard.
Yes, but sanctions also make it more difficult to build an army, I think that is the main purpose.
by ABC on Thu Aug 12, 04 2:21pm
[+]
ABC - True, but a country can get all the weaponry and man power it needs with or without sanctions. Surely halting shipments of medicine and food doesn't prevent an army from bieng built.
I don't think we've toppled any government with sanctions. They aren't effective.
All sanctions and embargos do is starve the main population and set the country back a decade. Look at Iraq just before the US attacked. If you went to Iraq on Ferbuary 2002 you'd feel like you stepped into the 80's when it had the nuber 1 economy.
They're not very effective, The U.S. has been playing this game with Cuba for what? 40+ years, and while they're not happy they continue to chug along.
I think its high time that the U.S. normalized relations with Cuba.
Get Castro drunk, sign some paperwork and be done with it already!
Cuba isn't under international sanction, only US sanction which means American products can't come into Cuba and vice versa.
Sanctions just punish the poor, who usually haven't done anything wrong in the first place. Hardly their fault if they have a filthy corrupt government, so why should they be doubly punished? Look what happened to the Iraqi population between the end of the last Gulf War and the beginning of this one. 500,000 children dead from malnutrition and the effects of depleted uranium, while Saddam Hussein kicked back in his palaces enjoying the fruits of his crooked 'food for oil' deal with the UN.
Sanctions never work.
Apologies, I didn't read all that you'd written at the top before I added comments. Your figures (re Iraq) are much more of an accurate reflection than mine.
Zig - I have seen sources that have stated less from anywhere between 500,000 and 1,200,000. Either way, it still alot of dead people.
Far too many, and the killing goes on. And on And on.
I agree sanctions are worse than war, but as long as the UN remains a debating club devoted to blaming the world's problems on America's economic and political sucesses, they will continue to be used. In most cases, they are intended to be destabilizing, not just a "time-out" for bad leaders. They are aimed at encouraging "regime-change" without killing off American or European soldiers.
We have toppled a government with sanctions - South Africa.
Sanctions are a substitute for the international will to intervene in terrible situations. Without sanctions, you either have to coutenance more "imperialistic" war or wash you hands of the human suffering you are in a position to end.
by aeco on Fri Aug 13, 04 12:48pm
[+]
South africa was toppled by internal reform, nelson mandela and his supporters, not sanctions.
I agree in part Herzog, but the internal reform was triggered by the economic community devastated by sanctions. How else could you imagine sanctions working? "Sanctions" are not going to declare victory, they are going to destabilize the earlier power structure and split the interests of the economic community from the leadership. The publicity surrounding Mandela generated the international public will for sanctions. It wasn't just economics, but the will of the international community to impose sanctions was an extension of the general moral diapprobation toward the political structure there. The government of South Africa was "good enough" to respond.
by aeco on Mon Aug 16, 04 4:03pm
[+]
I'll agree that the sanctions had some effect, but they would have been worthless without internal reform movements. Which really only makes them effective, and marginally at that, in relatively free democratic nations, which aren't out major concern. In dictatorships, north korea and iraq, they are pretty much useless. If we feel the need to stick a nation with sanctions we ought to go the next step and just remove the government in power, it's alot less costly in the long run.
|
|
