Sanctions

It seems that whenever the international community seeks to punish a pariah state for some misdeed that, after the usual huffing and puffing, the only penalty ever imposed are economic sanctions. Civil war in Yugoslavia? Slap on some sanctions. (You'll recall, by the way, that among the sanctions was a UN-sponsored ban on selling arms to any of the combatants. The result, in typical gun control fashion, was that the better armed Serbs had their way with the Bosnian Muslims for several years). Iraq misbehaving? Impose sanctions. Iran pursuing a nuke? You got it: sanctions.

A report released by a human rights group last month on Burma similarly urges economic penalties to be imposed:

[We recommend that] Governments implement and maintain economic sanctions and withhold development and loan or debt assistance until significant improvement has been made in the human rights situation, particularly as regards arbitrary detention and torture, as independently verified;

Sanctions make everyone feel good, like they're actually doing something to help solve a problem. But are they really? Off the top of my head the only case of broad-based sanctions ever working is South Africa. But even then the effects are ambiguous.

In the South Africa case, however, economic sanctions were applied piecemeal over a number of years, often halfheartedly, and at their height were far from comprehensive. The most significantsanctions , embodied in the U.S. Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act (CAAA) of 1986, were imposed only after Congress overrode a presidential veto, and administrative enforcement was reportedly weak. Even the CAAA, however, affected only some trade and financial relations, and except for the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark), other countries'sanctions were even less stringent. Thus, by the summer of 1991, the UN arms embargo had been in place for over a decade, an OPEC oil embargo for a similar number of years, and expanded U.S.sanctions for over five years. Yet the white government and the two major black opposition groups (the African National Congress and Inkatha)—though closer than previously—were still struggling to find common ground on which to begin constitutional negotiations. Assuming that reform is achieved and thatSouth Africa does not degenerate into bloody civil war, sanctions will have made a modest contribution to the happy result.

South Africa, however, was somewhat unique in that it was at least a quasi-democracy, so that (white) voters could press the government for change. But what about the impact of sanctions on more autocratic governments such as Burma, Iran, Iraq, Cuba or North Korea? Can anyone really call the impact of sanctions on those countries a success?

I think the clear answer is no. Not only have sanctions not proven successful, they have actually helped those rulers maintain a tight grip on power. Saddam's power in Iraq was arguably at its zenith during the 1990s while his country was under UN sanctions. Castro has proven remarkably resilient. Iran and North Korea are battling it out for presidency of the (shrinking) Axis of Evil.

In fact, the biggest threat to such governments is not sanctions but the opposite: contact with the outside world. Look at the case of Japan in which the Tokugawa shogunate, founded in 1603, strictly regulated contact with foreigners. It wasn't until Commodore Perry arrived with his black ships that they country was opened up to trade in 1854. Fourteen years later the Tokugawa regime collapsed. Coincidence?

Despots hate outside influence. Think of the Berlin Wall, and efforts by communist regimes to jam broadcasts of Voice of America and other Western news services. Look at North Korea, which is widely known as the Hermit Kingdom:

Radio and TV sets in North Korea are pre-tuned to government stations that pump out a steady stream of propaganda ... Ordinary North Koreans caught listening to foreign broadcasts risk harsh punishments, such as forced labour.

There is reason to believe that one of the biggest threats facing the regime in Pyongyang is the arrival of DVDs from China. China, in fact, may be the biggest argument against sanctions. In the face of human rights violations by Beijing the U.S. and other countries have not only refused to impose significant sanctions, they have actually sought to more deeply integrate the country in the international trading system. Now, while China's government remains repressive, I think any sane person would say the situation is better now 40 years ago.

Economic prosperity is freedom. We don't help the oppressed by making them poorer and more dependent on their governments.