News Are sanctions and condemnation effective in curbing unruly nations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter khemist
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the effectiveness of sanctions and condemnations against "unruly" nations, questioning their actual impact beyond the immediate moral stance they represent. It highlights that sanctions can often strengthen authoritarian regimes while harming the general populace, citing Iraq's experience under UN sanctions as a key example where millions suffered without undermining Saddam Hussein's power. In contrast, the sanctions imposed on South Africa during the apartheid era are debated; while some argue they contributed to ending apartheid, research suggests their role was minimal, with significant political change attributed to other factors, such as the influence of the communist bloc. The conversation emphasizes that sanctions may primarily serve to create a political consensus among the nations imposing them, rather than achieving direct economic or political outcomes. Overall, the effectiveness of sanctions is questioned, with a focus on their psychological impact and the legitimacy they provide to global dissent against oppressive regimes.
khemist
Messages
247
Reaction score
0
Besides wasting oxygen, what effect do sanctions and condemnations towards "unruly" nations actually have?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Last edited:
When they're imposed against a brutal regime, they actually empower the regime whilst making its citizens suffer - take Iraq for example: millions of children died as a result of UN sanctions whilst Sadam Hussein hold of power was immeasurably strengthened.

They did however work in South Africa - they were a contributing factor to the ending of Apartheid.
 
vertices said:
They did however work in South Africa - they were a contributing factor to the ending of Apartheid.

Not so ..

SANCTIONS ON SOUTH AFRICA: WHAT DID THEY DO?
Philip I. Levy (Yale University)
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...Eb9eG0_DA&sig2=TI2WcBTs22bfoY5aC2LvRg&cad=rja

Abstract
This paper considers the economic sanctions that were applied in the mid-1980s to
pressure the South African government to end apartheid. It asks what role those sanctions
played in the eventual demise of the apartheid regime and concludes that the role was
probably very small. An alternative explanation for the regime change is offered: the
communist bloc combined to bring about the change. If one is to argue for the efficacy of
sanctions, two key obstacles are their limited economic impact and the substantial lag
between the imposition of sanctions and the political change. Since sanctions preceded
the change of government, it is impossible to rule them out as a determinant. However,
their principal effect was probably psychological. The implication is that the South
African case should not serve as the lone major instance of effective sanctions.
 
Condemnations craft political consensus within the nation(s) issuing the condemnation.
And that need not be a bad thing at all.
 
vertices said:
When they're imposed against a brutal regime, they actually empower the regime whilst making its citizens suffer

You have to consider the maginal amount of extra empowerment, not the absolute level. Almost by definition, a brutal regime has already "empowered" itself to do whatever it feels like doing.

But I tend to agree with Arildno, it may be more about giving the rest of the world legitimacy to express its opinions freely, and ostracizing the overt or covert supporters of the unuily regime, rather than the direct economic consequence of the sanctions.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
37
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
9K
Back
Top