The Economic Weapon
July 25, 2024 9:31 AM Subscribe
“The mentality, almost a weird reflex, in Washington has just become: If something bad happens, anywhere in the world, the U.S. is going to sanction some people. And that doesn’t make sense.
We don’t think about the collateral damage of sanctions the same way we think about the collateral damage of war. But we should.” From the Washington Post: How Four US Presidents Unleashed Economic Warfare Across the Globe.
"...failed to oust..." If the goal is to oust someone, then sanctions are not a sound method, because it relies on a civil conflict, which doesn't happen as predicted because nobody under the gun has the means. The old way of ousting is considered taboo as well because it wasn't transparent and often corporate sponsored. If sanctions are never applied, it might cause the problem to spread to neighbors, and in Iran and North Korea's case, the fear is nuclear weapons development. Sanctions are everyone's second choice, between doing nothing and doing something to oust or contain.
posted by Brian B. at 9:58 AM on July 25 [5 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 9:58 AM on July 25 [5 favorites]
The entire essay uncritically accepts an unstated foundation for the use of sanctions: noblesse oblige and American exceptionalism.
The claim that sanctions aren't working only makes sense if you accept the framing that it is our responsibility to make other countries better. If, instead, you accept sanctions as a way to avoid moral contagion (we don't want to work with governments willing to do X), then the putative problem of ineffectiveness goes away. It is not the tool, e.g. sanctions, that is the problem, it's the belief that we have a duty to fix other countries. (Note, I'm not advocating for isolationism. )
The response that, regardless of the intent, sanctions still cause more harm than good and in that sense they are a failure accepts a consequentialist ethical framework and succeeds or fail in proportion to how you feel about consequentialism.
posted by oddman at 10:34 AM on July 25 [18 favorites]
The claim that sanctions aren't working only makes sense if you accept the framing that it is our responsibility to make other countries better. If, instead, you accept sanctions as a way to avoid moral contagion (we don't want to work with governments willing to do X), then the putative problem of ineffectiveness goes away. It is not the tool, e.g. sanctions, that is the problem, it's the belief that we have a duty to fix other countries. (Note, I'm not advocating for isolationism. )
The response that, regardless of the intent, sanctions still cause more harm than good and in that sense they are a failure accepts a consequentialist ethical framework and succeeds or fail in proportion to how you feel about consequentialism.
posted by oddman at 10:34 AM on July 25 [18 favorites]
One fundamental reasons sanctions are ineffective is that it is eminently rational for a target of U.S. sanctions to assume that, whatever the stated goal of the sanctions, the real goal is at best economic subservience, and at worst, totally incoherent. The sanctions levied on Iran and Iraq, ostensibly related to weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and non-democratic governance, ended up having nothing to do with any of that. Part of the issue is the impossibility of defining "terrorism" in a way that makes it: (1) apply to our desired enemies; (2) match up to our common sense notions of terrorism; and, most importantly, (3) not apply to us and our allies. Foreign autocrats should simply wonder to themselves, how do we angle for the Saudi Arabian treatment, where we're allowed to use U.S. weapons to starve the civilian populations of our neighbors for our own economic benefit, rather than the Iranian treatment, where that is not allowed?
Sanctioning Cuba for terrorism is laughable, sure. But I also want to point our the goal of the original sanctions in Cuba wasn't to oust a "communist" regime. It was to protect U.S. oil (and sugar) business interests. Castro -- not a communist or Marxist at the time and not allied with the Soviet Union -- nationalized oil facilities in Cuba in 1960 after their American owned companies refused to let the revolutionary government use them. He offered payment but Eisenhower preferred a blockade.
Castro could have just been a sort of Cuban-nationalist liberal economic populist if the U.S. had treated him differently. He was prudent and understood it would benefit him and the Cuban people to keep the U.S. as a sugar trading partner, and specifically avoided appearing as a communist sympathizer as a result. But he interfered with American business interests, and that has the same effect as communism, so what's the difference really? The blockade, followed by the funding and training of a cat's paw group of ousted ruling class war criminals to reinstate the old military dictatorship, are what caused him to publicly declare himself a socialist and seek military protection from the Soviets.
posted by Hume at 10:42 AM on July 25 [28 favorites]
Sanctioning Cuba for terrorism is laughable, sure. But I also want to point our the goal of the original sanctions in Cuba wasn't to oust a "communist" regime. It was to protect U.S. oil (and sugar) business interests. Castro -- not a communist or Marxist at the time and not allied with the Soviet Union -- nationalized oil facilities in Cuba in 1960 after their American owned companies refused to let the revolutionary government use them. He offered payment but Eisenhower preferred a blockade.
Castro could have just been a sort of Cuban-nationalist liberal economic populist if the U.S. had treated him differently. He was prudent and understood it would benefit him and the Cuban people to keep the U.S. as a sugar trading partner, and specifically avoided appearing as a communist sympathizer as a result. But he interfered with American business interests, and that has the same effect as communism, so what's the difference really? The blockade, followed by the funding and training of a cat's paw group of ousted ruling class war criminals to reinstate the old military dictatorship, are what caused him to publicly declare himself a socialist and seek military protection from the Soviets.
posted by Hume at 10:42 AM on July 25 [28 favorites]
There is definitely a very strong "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done" logic behind sanctions.
This is sometimes at the state level, in that a really ineffective policy is still moving you towards a goal, or perhaps keeping things from getting worse (as with countries seeking nuclear weapons.) Sometimes it's for domestic consumption, in which you know it will have no impact but you want to be able to sound tough on the Sunday talk morning shows.
My non-expert reading is that sanctions are most effective when they have limited goals and you are willing to lift them when the goals are met. (The Iranian sanctions kind of worked, leading to the agreement under Obama.) Unfortunately, it becomes politically difficult to "reward" an obnoxious regime just for one very tepid compromise; you don't sound tough anymore if you say some limited success is the most we could accomplish.
The response that, regardless of the intent, sanctions still cause more harm than good and in that sense they are a failure accepts a consequentialist ethical framework and succeeds or fail in proportion to how you feel about consequentialism.
There are plenty of deontological worldviews in which immiserating a people because you are worried about your own "purity" is repugnant.
posted by mark k at 10:50 AM on July 25 [4 favorites]
This is sometimes at the state level, in that a really ineffective policy is still moving you towards a goal, or perhaps keeping things from getting worse (as with countries seeking nuclear weapons.) Sometimes it's for domestic consumption, in which you know it will have no impact but you want to be able to sound tough on the Sunday talk morning shows.
My non-expert reading is that sanctions are most effective when they have limited goals and you are willing to lift them when the goals are met. (The Iranian sanctions kind of worked, leading to the agreement under Obama.) Unfortunately, it becomes politically difficult to "reward" an obnoxious regime just for one very tepid compromise; you don't sound tough anymore if you say some limited success is the most we could accomplish.
The response that, regardless of the intent, sanctions still cause more harm than good and in that sense they are a failure accepts a consequentialist ethical framework and succeeds or fail in proportion to how you feel about consequentialism.
There are plenty of deontological worldviews in which immiserating a people because you are worried about your own "purity" is repugnant.
posted by mark k at 10:50 AM on July 25 [4 favorites]
" There are plenty of deontological worldviews in which immiserating a people because you are worried about your own "purity" is repugnant."
I take this to mean that there are deontic views in which a result is more important than abiding by a duty. That is to say that the action is justified based on the result and not by acting out of principle. If I've misread you, please correct me. If that is what you meant, can you provide some examples, because I'm not aware of any.
posted by oddman at 10:56 AM on July 25
I take this to mean that there are deontic views in which a result is more important than abiding by a duty. That is to say that the action is justified based on the result and not by acting out of principle. If I've misread you, please correct me. If that is what you meant, can you provide some examples, because I'm not aware of any.
posted by oddman at 10:56 AM on July 25
I guess we could discuss whether there is a duty to be ideologically pure or something like that and different deontic frameworks would have different takes on whom you can associate with (e.g. a duty of beneficence vs a duty of non-maleficence).
But my point was that saying sanctions are a failure because of certain consequences (or the lack of certain consequences) is an inherently consequentialist view, and if you aren't a consequentialist than you would reject that reasoning about the success or failure of the action.
posted by oddman at 11:02 AM on July 25
But my point was that saying sanctions are a failure because of certain consequences (or the lack of certain consequences) is an inherently consequentialist view, and if you aren't a consequentialist than you would reject that reasoning about the success or failure of the action.
posted by oddman at 11:02 AM on July 25
I don't want to derail this, so I'll just clarify that what I'm saying there are conflicting duties here. You might believe you have a strong duty to help alleviate, or not take actions which exacerbate, suffering; this is more important than what you believe a weak duty to not make a purchase from someone you disapprove of. (This leads to a similar outcome, but is fundamentally different, than consequentialist reasoning.)
posted by mark k at 11:12 AM on July 25 [6 favorites]
posted by mark k at 11:12 AM on July 25 [6 favorites]
I just read Parfit's biography, which examines his (controversial) view view that consequentialiats and Kantians/contractualists/deontologists are ultimately in agreement, climbing the same mountain from different sides. Talking about that would be a thread derail for sure but I do feel the need to echo mark k's point.
I generally agree with Oddman's point, but I'm not sure means/ends reasoning is a tell for consequentialist thinking. It could just be a regular feature of human rational agency / common sense morality: we all think about whether the effects of our actions are good or match with what we intended. Perhaps a deontological way of putting the article's general objection to sanction would be:
We have conflicting sets of duties in what we owe. We owe it to ourselves not to participate in morally repugnant political arrangements, but we also owe, due to our special position of global dominance, a duty to those affected by our economic activity both directly and indirectly. I think it's fair to say we're treating people affected as mere means if we don't consider their potential starvation, immiseration, or well being at all when making a choice.
posted by Hume at 11:25 AM on July 25 [11 favorites]
I generally agree with Oddman's point, but I'm not sure means/ends reasoning is a tell for consequentialist thinking. It could just be a regular feature of human rational agency / common sense morality: we all think about whether the effects of our actions are good or match with what we intended. Perhaps a deontological way of putting the article's general objection to sanction would be:
We have conflicting sets of duties in what we owe. We owe it to ourselves not to participate in morally repugnant political arrangements, but we also owe, due to our special position of global dominance, a duty to those affected by our economic activity both directly and indirectly. I think it's fair to say we're treating people affected as mere means if we don't consider their potential starvation, immiseration, or well being at all when making a choice.
posted by Hume at 11:25 AM on July 25 [11 favorites]
Don't know what all this philosophy stuff is about, but if American hegemony endows America with some special moral responsibility, and if we've demonstrated repeatedly that we will always shirk that responsibility, maybe that's an indication that American hegemony ought to be gotten rid of.
posted by jy4m at 1:42 PM on July 25 [11 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 1:42 PM on July 25 [11 favorites]
America sanctions 1/3 of all countries, including 60% of poor countries. Imho that second part sounds more interesting.
Ain't worried about sanctions though, often economies become more resiliant & diverse under sanctions. Afghanistan otoh suffers from climate change but does not receive the climate hush money.
We've 50% odds of a “synchronous maize crop failure” during the 2040s, so after climate worsens somewhat further then we'll determine who lives & dies using export restriction.
Food & Fertilizer Export Restrictions Tracker
Ain't bad right now, only 16 countries have export bans on 22 products, with only 8% of globally traded callories under export restrctions: 1% bans, 1% restrictive licensing, and 6% just taxes. It's actually less if you exclude exports bans on typically imported products.
In 2022, the Ukraine war triggered food export bans by 16 nations which covered 17% of globally traded calories, with 12% coming from Russia and Ukraine alone.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:18 PM on July 25 [4 favorites]
Ain't worried about sanctions though, often economies become more resiliant & diverse under sanctions. Afghanistan otoh suffers from climate change but does not receive the climate hush money.
We've 50% odds of a “synchronous maize crop failure” during the 2040s, so after climate worsens somewhat further then we'll determine who lives & dies using export restriction.
Food & Fertilizer Export Restrictions Tracker
Ain't bad right now, only 16 countries have export bans on 22 products, with only 8% of globally traded callories under export restrctions: 1% bans, 1% restrictive licensing, and 6% just taxes. It's actually less if you exclude exports bans on typically imported products.
In 2022, the Ukraine war triggered food export bans by 16 nations which covered 17% of globally traded calories, with 12% coming from Russia and Ukraine alone.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:18 PM on July 25 [4 favorites]
What gets me about the length and the breadth of the sanctions is how, thanks to imbalanced and imperfect execution or understanding even of who is being sanctioned, it actually undercuts the hegemonic leverage that a country like the US does depend on, especially as it recedes from the world economy as a manufacturing hub, and that carries into other realms of international diplomacy. What becomes a tool for economic threat becomes a path for isolationism (e.g. Huawei and now the knock-on effect on mobile connectivity while the sector in China is now incentivized to be not as dependent and have the means to do so). I don't have a pithy solution that's not already been stated before though.
posted by cendawanita at 7:04 PM on July 25 [6 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 7:04 PM on July 25 [6 favorites]
And why that matters to countries like mine is in trying to chart a path within conditions with confined diplomatic options - sure, China gets sanctioned, but the workaround is really benefiting our semiconductor industry. But we don't want to look like we're profiting too much, or else local companies will also be blacklisted as the eye of the state dept swivels around. (None of this is theoretical; also, this explains the various Pacific Islands states votes at the UN)
posted by cendawanita at 7:08 PM on July 25 [3 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 7:08 PM on July 25 [3 favorites]
« Older Mind The Snap! | Charts and tables, pyramids and grids, circles... Newer »
posted by latkes at 9:57 AM on July 25 [3 favorites]