• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do sanctions work?

Do sanctions work?

  • Total voters
    18
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Do sanctions work?

Sanctions, as a method hopeful attitude adkustment, have been around longer than I've been alive. I cannot think of a single instance where sanctions alone made a country capitulate and change their "wrong" ways. Though if my memory is short on this I will willingly accept examples of where they may have worked.

Right now I'm thinking of current examples like North Korea over nuclear stuff and general douchebaggery, and Russia over the Crimea and Ukraine. There are others, too, of course.
 
The purpose is to weaken and slow the advancement of the target regime in most cases. For that, sanctions work.

Pretending sanctions are supposed to bring about change, in the absence of other measures, is a false premise, a strawman. If sanctions alone did in fact affect change, we'd already be a free world at peace.
 
ecofarm said:
The purpose is to weaken and slow the advancement of the target regime in most cases. For that, sanctions work.

Pretending sanctions are supposed to bring about change, in the absence of other measures, is a false premise, a strawman. If sanctions alone did in fact affect change, we'd already be a free world at peace.
Click to expand...
Even for that end, do they indeed work? Not in the sense that it may slow things down for the target country, I mean, but it seems the goal is to get them to reconsider their attitude, even if only in a slow time frame. Seems that most countries just adapt and continue on.
 
radcen said:
Even for that end, do they indeed work? Not in the sense that it may slow things down for the target country, I mean, but it seems the goal is to get them to reconsider their attitude, even if only in a slow time frame. Seems that most countries just adapt and continue on.
Click to expand...

The purpose is to limit the target regime (not country, technically). It works. It reduces income and material resources for a target regime to build its military, attack its citizenry and otherwise lock down its population. For example: sanctions to prevent Saddam from conducting additional genocidal campaigns with chemical weapons.
 
radcen said:
Even for that end, do they indeed work? Not in the sense that it may slow things down for the target country, I mean, but it seems the goal is to get them to reconsider their attitude, even if only in a slow time frame. Seems that most countries just adapt and continue on.
Click to expand...

If that is the case then the sanctions were not multilateral or damaging enough. The nuclear agreement with Iran is an example of sanctions working. In the special case of N. Korea, China has made sanctions against them a moot point. They are a unique case because they depend on isolation to keep them in power and have shown they will starve millions of their own people to keep them docile.
 
ecofarm said:
The purpose is to limit the target regime (not country, technically). It works. It reduces income and material resources for a target regime to build its military, attack its citizenry and otherwise lock down its population. For example: sanctions to prevent Saddam from conducting additional genocidal campaigns with chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

Fair point.
 
radcen said:
Fair point.
Click to expand...

I think a more robust question is: how and when do sanctions work, and for what purpose. I can see an argument for narrowing their scope and objectives.
 
iguanaman said:
If that is the case then the sanctions were not multilateral or damaging enough. The nuclear agreement with Iran is an example of sanctions working. In the special case of N. Korea, China has made sanctions against them a moot point. They are a unique case because they depend on isolation to keep them in power and have shown they will starve millions of their own people to keep them docile.
Click to expand...
Another fair point.

I've also noticed that countries with heavy sanctions... North Korea, Iran, and others... tend to rely on each other as much as they can.
 
iguanaman said:
If that is the case then the sanctions were not multilateral or damaging enough. The nuclear agreement with Iran is an example of sanctions working. In the special case of N. Korea, China has made sanctions against them a moot point. They are a unique case because they depend on isolation to keep them in power and have shown they will starve millions of their own people to keep them docile.
Click to expand...

NK is a unique case, a truly hopeless scenario. Nonetheless, sanctions are the reason Kim's nuclear ICBM development has taken so long.
 
radcen said:
Do sanctions work?

Sanctions, as a method hopeful attitude adkustment, have been around longer than I've been alive. I cannot think of a single instance where sanctions alone made a country capitulate and change their "wrong" ways. Though if my memory is short on this I will willingly accept examples of where they may have worked.

Right now I'm thinking of current examples like North Korea over nuclear stuff and general douchebaggery, and Russia over the Crimea and Ukraine. There are others, too, of course.
Click to expand...

One of the most famous sanctions was pre-WWII when FDR forbide any more iron and oil to be shipped to Japan in retaliation for the Japanese invasion of China. The sanctions certainly threaten to bring to a halt Japan's military adventurism. As you know when oil and war making supplies ran very low, Japan responded by bombing Pearl Harbor. Then taking over most of the Pacific area down to Indonesia and the Dutch oil there. Did sanctions work then, they certainly evoked a response. Not the one we envisioned, but a response nonetheless.

I would say for the most part that imposing sanctions makes the country imposing them feel like they are doing something constructive. But like most other things, diplomatic initiatives and the like, it always takes something else or at least the threat of something else for sanctions to work. Usually that is military action.

We had sanctions on Cuba since the early 60's and the Castro's are still in power. Sanctions usually make life rougher and worst for the little people in whatever country they are imposed on. The elite, they don't bother. Then usually the leaders of a sanctioned country use the sanction to in stir patriotism and raise the anger of the people of that country at the country imposing the sanctions.

There are also many ways around sanctions. Another country can provide the goods and material that we or the country imposing the sanctions are denying. The old USSR took care of Cuba for decades so they wouldn't miss what we sanctioned. China is providing North Korea with what they want that we are sanctioning.

I think sanctions may slow down a country's objectives. But not stop it or them.
 
ecofarm said:
NK is a unique case, a truly hopeless scenario. Nonetheless, sanctions are the reason Kim's nuclear ICBM development has taken so long.
Click to expand...

True but it is troubling that their recent advances were reliant on Chinese parts. Either China was not aware of the transfer or they were actively involved. I doubt we will ever know which.
 
iguanaman said:
True but it is troubling that their recent advances were reliant on Chinese parts. Either China was not aware of the transfer or they were actively involved. I doubt we will ever know which.
Click to expand...

One must wonder how long a backwards regime can hold its people in starvation and ignorance.
 
Perotista said:
One of the most famous sanctions was pre-WWII when FDR forbide any more iron and oil to be shipped to Japan in retaliation for the Japanese invasion of China. The sanctions certainly threaten to bring to a halt Japan's military adventurism. As you know when oil and war making supplies ran very low, Japan responded by bombing Pearl Harbor. Then taking over most of the Pacific area down to Indonesia and the Dutch oil there. Did sanctions work then, they certainly evoked a response. Not the one we envisioned, but a response nonetheless.

I would say for the most part that imposing sanctions makes the country imposing them feel like they are doing something constructive. But like most other things, diplomatic initiatives and the like, it always takes something else or at least the threat of something else for sanctions to work. Usually that is military action.

We had sanctions on Cuba since the early 60's and the Castro's are still in power. Sanctions usually make life rougher and worst for the little people in whatever country they are imposed on. The elite, they don't bother. Then usually the leaders of a sanctioned country use the sanction to in stir patriotism and raise the anger of the people of that country at the country imposing the sanctions.

There are also many ways around sanctions. Another country can provide the goods and material that we or the country imposing the sanctions are denying. The old USSR took care of Cuba for decades so they wouldn't miss what we sanctioned. China is providing North Korea with what they want that we are sanctioning.

I think sanctions may slow down a country's objectives. But not stop it or them.
Click to expand...

So it is your contention that had we continued to supply the Japanese military with strategic materials they would not have attacked in the Pacific? That is quite a stretch.
 
iguanaman said:
So it is your contention that had we continued to supply the Japanese military with strategic materials they would not have attacked in the Pacific? That is quite a stretch.
Click to expand...

who knows since that didn't happen? I'm sure Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened, at least when it did. Japan would have wanted to lose it source of supplies. But with those supplies Japan may have concentrated on strictly China instead of moving south to gain the material they needed. It is anyone's guess.
 
I voted other. In reality, sometimes sanctions work (like the Iran nuclear deal) and sometimes they don't work (like getting Russia out of Crimea and other Ukraine districts). They have not worked with N Korea because China provides all the trade that NK could reasonably expect from the rest of the world, so sanctions don't work there. NK has nothing to lose, and their leader is so selfish and focused on his own goals, he does not care about what else he is giving up.

It depends on whether what you have to give up is worth a lot more than what you are getting, and whether you care about that difference.
 
radcen said:
Do sanctions work?

Sanctions, as a method hopeful attitude adkustment, have been around longer than I've been alive. I cannot think of a single instance where sanctions alone made a country capitulate and change their "wrong" ways. Though if my memory is short on this I will willingly accept examples of where they may have worked.

Right now I'm thinking of current examples like North Korea over nuclear stuff and general douchebaggery, and Russia over the Crimea and Ukraine. There are others, too, of course.
Click to expand...

Of course general sanctions work, if they are not undercut.
 
radcen said:
Do sanctions work?

Sanctions, as a method hopeful attitude adkustment, have been around longer than I've been alive. I cannot think of a single instance where sanctions alone made a country capitulate and change their "wrong" ways. Though if my memory is short on this I will willingly accept examples of where they may have worked.

Right now I'm thinking of current examples like North Korea over nuclear stuff and general douchebaggery, and Russia over the Crimea and Ukraine. There are others, too, of course.
Click to expand...

Good question. Sanctions actually worked on Iran and brought them to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, Obama jumped the gun and decided to let Iran have nuclear bombs in ten years when the world should have kept up the sanctions until Iran agreed to never have any nuclear weapons, ever. They outsmarted Obama. We had Iran by the balls and then we totally blew it. Now we have sold our soul to the devil for ten years of not having to worry about it. In ten years Satin owns us. Sanctions really haven't done a damn thing in any other case I can remember. Everybody's a better chess or poker player than we are - one reason Trump was elected president (not saying that that has worked out but it has only been six months).
 
Perotista said:
who knows since that didn't happen? I'm sure Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened, at least when it did. Japan would have wanted to lose it source of supplies. But with those supplies Japan may have concentrated on strictly China instead of moving south to gain the material they needed. It is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

Sometimes countries attack because they have nothing to lose. Sometimes countries attack precisely because they're afraid they're going to lose what they have. I believe the latter was the case in Japan attacking us at Pearl Harbor.
 
I am not so bothered whether or not they are fully working, it is also the message that is being sent that is one of the things that makes sanctions from time to time very appropriate.
 
ecofarm said:
The purpose is to limit the target regime (not country, technically). It works. It reduces income and material resources for a target regime to build its military, attack its citizenry and otherwise lock down its population. For example: sanctions to prevent Saddam from conducting additional genocidal campaigns with chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

Agreed, case and point, Sanctions by the UN Security Counsel against Iraq after the first gulf war are generally agreed to have prevented Iraq from rebuilding its military. Context is important though and whether they have an economic impact or just serve as a proportional response to engage the international community they are important in influencing international events.
 
radcen said:
Sometimes countries attack because they have nothing to lose. Sometimes countries attack precisely because they're afraid they're going to lose what they have. I believe the latter was the case in Japan attacking us at Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...

I think it is hard to say. I'm not sure what the Japanese archives have to say on it. We were lucky. The Japanese planned three waves, they only launched one. If our aircraft carriers had been in harbor instead of out to sea, they would have. But the uncertainty where our three carriers were, Japan decided to call it a day with one. Japan could have also destroyed our dry docks, which they didn't. That saved a couple of years off the recovery time. It really could have been much worst.

Launching all three waves, getting our aircraft carriers and destroying the dry docks would have left Japan masters of the Pacific for years. San Diego would have had to been our launching off point instead of Hawaii. Hitler wanted Japan to invade and attack the USSR from the East while he attacked from the West. Japan decided not to, that going south to obtain much needed oil and war supplies kept the USSR in the fight. So sanctions had that unintended consequence. Without the sanctions, no Pearl Harbor, no entry into WWII at that time. The USSR would have had to face Germany from the west and the Japanese from the east. A whole new ball game would have been presented. So imposing sanctions probably worked out for the best. Even with Pearl Harbor.
 
Perotista said:
I think it is hard to say. I'm not sure what the Japanese archives have to say on it. We were lucky. The Japanese planned three waves, they only launched one. If our aircraft carriers had been in harbor instead of out to sea, they would have. But the uncertainty where our three carriers were, Japan decided to call it a day with one. Japan could have also destroyed our dry docks, which they didn't. That saved a couple of years off the recovery time. It really could have been much worst.

Launching all three waves, getting our aircraft carriers and destroying the dry docks would have left Japan masters of the Pacific for years. San Diego would have had to been our launching off point instead of Hawaii. Hitler wanted Japan to invade and attack the USSR from the East while he attacked from the West. Japan decided not to, that going south to obtain much needed oil and war supplies kept the USSR in the fight. So sanctions had that unintended consequence. Without the sanctions, no Pearl Harbor, no entry into WWII at that time. The USSR would have had to face Germany from the west and the Japanese from the east. A whole new ball game would have been presented. So imposing sanctions probably worked out for the best. Even with Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...
Good analysis. I like that.
 
The sanctions worked against Russia to the point it interfered in our elections.
 
radcen said:
Do sanctions work?

Sanctions, as a method hopeful attitude adkustment, have been around longer than I've been alive. I cannot think of a single instance where sanctions alone made a country capitulate and change their "wrong" ways.
Click to expand...

Both Cuba and Iran are recent examples where the pressure over time has made a difference. Ultimately the leaders were initially too stubborn, and tried to use the sanctions as an excuse for why their countries struggled under their leadership, but over time as new leaders emerged the desire to reset relationships with the west have helped push them in the right direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom