Morality of sanctions in general

[Clarkmeister]

In Iraq, sanctions were frequently justified as a combination of two things. First was punishment for the invasion of Kuwait. The other reason was to prevent the regime from having the money to rebuild and re-arm their military. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Those are rational enough reasons to me. The question is whether or not the sanctions achieve those goals. That is, do they really "punish" the regime or just the people the regime was oppressing? And does it really stop them from re-arming to the point of being a serious threat? This is also a legitimate question because even at its "peak" in 1990, the Iraqi military was still never a serious threat that the US couldn't easily counter. Those same sanctions, however, have done irreparable harm to the country's people. I'm sure others have links handy (Alger?) so I won't bother, but its been well documented the effect the sanctions had on the Iraqi people, while having minimal effect on the regime.

So my question is why ever institute sanctions? I don't want to hear about the "Oil for Food" program, since we know by experience that whatever regime is worthy of us sanctioning, also is always going to use whatever trade is allowed strictly for their own benefit. Put simply, do sanctions ever do what they are supposed to do? I don't think so, though I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

To use another example, just what is the point of our continued sanctions of Cuba? Is there really a justification at this point?

I'd like to hear from people willing to discuss this reasonably.

[MMMMMM]

Sanctions rarely if ever have the desired end result. Regime change is the better answer.

[Clarkmeister]

Regime change is obviously going to be preferable in many instances. But what about those instances where we don't have justification to invade and cause a regime change? Should we still continue sanctions?

If sanctions rarely, if ever, achieve their desired result, then aren't they inherently immoral? The one result we are sure of is that the general populace will be hit hard.

To use Cuba - We really can't just go invade and get rid of Castro. The sanctions obviously haven't worked, and may have in fact helped Castro stay in power all these years. So why continue the sanctions?

[MMMMMM]

"To use Cuba - We really can't just go invade and get rid of Castro."

Sure we can, we just have more important matters to attend to first. Like Syria, Iran, the Road Map for Israel/Palestine, North Korea, Sudan, and eventually China. Cuba can wait until around the time when we do Columbia since we'll be operating in the region anyway.

And yes, sanctions might almost never be a good thing. However embargoes on certain items--such as with dual-use high-tech military applications, are a different category.

[Cyrus]

"We have more important matters to attend to first. Like Syria, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and eventually China. Cuba can wait until around the time when we do Columbia since we'll be operating in the region anyway."

China before Cuba? You sure? I'd prefer Cuba before China. Cigars over noodles.

...To smoke a havanero on the terrace of the Riviera once more, (sigh) ay, 'at's the dream, hombre! Viva Batista! [pistol shot]

[Carlos]

It's my understanding that the South African embargo is generally considered a success. It's obviously a very different case than Iraq since the regime was responsive to the interest of a significant part of the population that in turn was hurt by the sanctions.

Carlos

[MMMMMM]

Actually it might make sense to put China last in that list. That way we'll have the greatest psychological momentum going forward.