Sanctions Feel Good--But Do They Work?

Americans and (at least some of the time) Europeans have a love affair with economic sanctions. There seems to be some sort of deep rooted genetic belief that somehow economic sanctions will prove to be the sovereign remedy for all sorts of international contretemps. It's as if we are all a passel of Marxists, certain that economic man will prevail.

The Geek would like to think that, regardless of reality and wilfully ignoring historical experience, this time sanctions will prove effective. When that happens he has to slap his face and shout, "Get a grip!"

Sanctions can inflict economic discomfort on a state. They can hurt people. They can make life for a government marginally more difficult.

At the same time sanctions serve as a propaganda focus assuring popular discontent is aimed at the Outsider instead of being directed at the government and its offensive conduct. Sanctions can increase the political will and drive of the government to continue the actions which have led to sanctions. Sanctions can make a government and society more creative in finding effective means of neutralising the sanctions and continuing the decried behavior.

To have even the slightest chance of success several realities have to exist. The target government must be effectively isolated globally. The target society must have a politically significant middle class. The target government must be ineffectively repressive. The target government must lack a significant internal propaganda capacity. Smuggling and other sanction evading mechanisms must be susceptible to total and prolonged interdiction.

Ask yourself, "How often are these criteria met?" (Met, that is, in the real world, not some fantasyland of policy makers or the High Minded.)

Yeah, that's right. Zero percent of the time.

Now, ask yourself, "When was the last time in US history that economic sanctions accomplished a positive policy outcome?"

That will take you awhile. And, you've got to remember that the operative word is "positive."

(Sound of the Geek drumming his fingers as he waits for an answer.)

Try the Stamp Act Crisis. The Colonies did gain a retraction of the Stamp Act after embargoing all trade with England. The embargo wasn't leak proof but it was complete enough to inflict real distress on the merchant interests of England which in turn put the right screws on Parliament. Of course the seeming victory was undercut by Parliament's simultaneous declaration that it could pass any law any time binding on the Colonies. It was a way station on the road to war.

If you're old enough you might remember Operation Just Cause conducted by George H.W. Bush. This operation turned the US military into the world's largest SWAT team kicking in the doors of Panama to arrest Manuel Noriega.

The invasion was quick, low cost and eventually saw the crater faced dictator hauled off in handcuffs, shackles, and disgrace to a US slammer. But, why was it necessary?

Because sanctions failed. Even though Panama had a large and vocal, pan-banging middle class and even used the Yankee dollar as its circulating mechanism, the sanctions were not leak proof enough to put sufficient pressure on the Panamanian National Guard to evict the jefe grande.

If you're a bit younger you no doubt recall the decade of sanctions imposed by the UN on Iraq in the wake of the Gulf War. These sanctions hurt the Iraqi population quite a bit, crippled the country's infrastructure and did other undesirable things to the people and nation alike.

They also introduced corruption on a massive scale. Made a great deal of money for smugglers, financial thaumaturges and relatives of the then UN Secretary General.

The sanctions did not cause the Iraqi army to rise up and cast out the demons of the Saddam Hussein regime. That took a war--and its years of aftermath. And, a lot of dead bodies both Iraqi and foreign.

More often than not sanctions have been what they were back in the days of the Stamp Act. A way station to war.

Sanctions are the means of choice right now with respect to Zimbabwe and Iran. In either case sanctions have not and will not bring about a positive policy outcome.

Zimbabwe's Thug-in-Chief For Life, Robert Mugabe knows all about sanctions. Sanctions applied in the wake of Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence were widely supposed to have the power to bring the White minority regime to its knees--quickly and bloodlessly.

The global sanctions did have some effect over the next twenty years. They were a minor factor in the final collapse of political will on the part of Ian Smith and his government. But, the sanctions never undercut the Rhodesian economy. Never ruined the White middle class. Never drove the export oriented White farmers from their large and profitable holdings.

Never destroyed the Rhodesian economy.

No. Robert Mugabe did that all on his own little lonesome in a fit of political-economic stupidity that ranks high on the list of all time blunders.

Today, Zimbabwe has no export oriented agriculture, no middle class and no economy. (It does have an inflation rate that threatens to top that of Wiemar Germany at its worst.)

What's left to hurt? What's left to sanction? Putting pressure on Mugabe and his supporters by sanctions ranks with the egotism of a dog thinking he can raise sea level by lifting his leg.

Then there is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The sanctions have been in place for quite awhile now. They have been "toughened." They have failed in the intent of ending the presumed Iranian nuclear weapons program even though the effect of the economic squeeze has hurt the Iranian economy, hurt many Iranians and made life ever so slightly more difficult for the Iranian government.

Why?

Easy. The sanction regime has been leakier than the Titanic after kissing the iceberg. Not just the usual Global Bad Boy, China, but presumed allies in the cause led by Germany and Italy have busted the sanctions time and time again. All the soothing mood music from Berlin, Rome or, for that matter, Paris doesn't change the reality.

On top of that smuggling, remittances and financial legerdemain have abounded with great benefit for the mullahocracy and its visions of nuclear backed potency. Human ingenuity knows no limits when self-interest and state interest (to say nothing of religious interest) coincide.

"But wait," you object, "one of our guys is going to meet face-to-face with their chief nuclear negotiator."

"So bloody what?" replies the Geek.

There is always time for one more round of diplomacy before the bombs start falling. The Iranians have already--well before the scheduled meeting date--made their position clear. The centrifuges will keep spinning.

Given the vast quantity of political investment the mullahocracy has made so publicly regarding the nuclear project over the past months, backing down now would take the direct, open intervention of the Hidden Imam himself. This is unlikely. The mullahocracy has invested the totality of its Revolutionary Islamic legitimacy in keeping the centrifuges spinning.

We can always hope for a peaceful solution to the problem. We can even pray for one if we are of such an inclination. We can hope for some time buying exercise that will push the final decision into the haze of the future.

But, we have to remember that, more often than not, economic sanctions have been but a way station on the road to war.