What's new

opinion: Sanctions don’t work —Brian Cloughley

ajpirzada

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
6,011
Reaction score
11
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Washington can sanction away as much as it likes. And the rest of the world can follow suit. But the only people who will suffer are the unfortunate citizens of North Korea. So what is Washington going to do about North Korea’s nukes? Nuke them?

According to a media report, “The US defence secretary, Robert Gates...forced home America’s view that North Korea’s recent nuclear test and missile launches were seen as a direct threat. ‘We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in the region or on us...we will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state,’ he said.”

The assertion that North Korea poses a direct threat to the mighty United States is dismally reminiscent of the rubbish spoken by Bush and Cheney before their disastrous war on Iraq. (And the malignant and unrepentant Cheney is still repeating many of the absurd lies that Washington cooked up before the invasion.)

Certainly North Korea is run by a psychotic freak whose leadership, to use the word loosely, is irrational and bizarrely ineffective in running a country. Many of his people are driven to eat grass, bark and leaves, while he, according to the BBC, “is known to have a taste for Hennessy VSOP cognac”.

The thought of regime change is most attractive, as almost any sort of government would be preferable to that currently in Pyongyang. But when the chips come down, what is the world’s largest nuclear power going to do about puny North Korea’s nuclear programme or missile tests? What options are open to the nation that has over 9,000 nuclear weapons and 700 military bases worldwide, along with 14 nuclear-armed submarines ready to fire 336 nuclear missiles at who-knows-where?

Sanctions are not the answer. The effect of US sanctions on Pakistan was to convince generations of young movers and shakers that Washington could not be trusted. Many of these people are now in positions of considerable responsibility, and they know that sanctions don’t work, except counter-productively.

Sanctions on Pakistan were lifted whenever it seemed that Washington’s interests would be served. There was no question of morality or consistency. The US was well aware that Pakistan had a nuclear programme in the 80s. In 1985 I saw US aerial photographs that showed without doubt that there was a nuclear capability.

So were sanctions imposed? Not a chance, because at that time Pakistan was of value to America in its contest against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. But when the Soviets left and Pakistan suddenly became of no use to America, sanctions were clapped on again. They were intensified when Pakistan went tit-for-tat after India’s nuclear tests in 1998. Then they were lifted in 2001 when Pakistan again became useful following the terror attacks in New York and Washington. It is a painful and pathetic story.

Iran has been subject to US sanctions since 1979. In a public display of support for Saddam Hussein, they were intensified when he invaded Iran in 1980, and civil aircraft spare parts are among items forbidden to be exported. Since then 1,500 Iranians have died in aircraft accidents (not including the 290 killed when an Iranian airliner was shot down by a US warship in 1988). The only effect on Iran’s leadership has been to make it measurably more hostile to America.

Sanctions are imposed try to change a nation’s behaviour by inflicting hardship. But who suffers most?

They penalise the poor, and not their leaders. One only has to look at the appalling situation in Zimbabwe, where President Mugabe, a corrupt and brutal dictator, is disgustingly rich (as are his evil henchmen), while the majority of citizens are starving.

Human Rights Watch records that “The deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe is the continuation of a consistent pattern of human rights abuses over the past three years...the Zimbabwean government has created a culture of impunity, intolerance, and injustice. The dismantling of this culture is necessary before Zimbabwe can begin political and economic recovery.”

So how could the most powerful nation on earth “dismantle” the culture of domestic terrorism in Zimbabwe?

President Obama declared in March that Zimbabwe’s “actions and policies pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States,” which is a quaint and self-centred assertion that the main problem about Mugabe’s despotic regime is not that it is killing thousands of Zimbabweans, but that it is vexing for Washington.

As the BBC reported, “Zimbabwe is facing chronic food shortages, economic stagnation and an outbreak of cholera that has killed nearly 4,000 people.” Most of the chaos is the fault of Mugabe — but US and EU sanctions are also much to blame.

And remember the effect of international sanctions on Iraq before the invasion by the Bushniks and their misguided, hoodwinked allies. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked if she thought that sanctions were worthwhile when, after all, they had caused the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children. In a chilling and barely believable enunciation of policy, she declared that “‘I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”

You can hardly imagine that an intelligent human being could say such a thing.

And Albright’s point of view about sanctions included the ludicrous statement that “We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.”

Might that apply, all these years later, to North Korea?

The South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg as stating “The United States will pursue independent financial sanctions against North Korea.” But although the North Korean leadership is criminal and lunatic it isn’t so stupid as to ignore the message of US policy over decades.

Washington can sanction away as much as it likes. And the rest of the world can follow suit. But the only people who will suffer are the unfortunate citizens of North Korea. So what is Washington going to do about North Korea’s nukes? Nuke them?
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
.
i found it quite interestin.
espacially zimbabwae example. Mugabe is still rich and is not being effected by any amount of sanctions. its common zimbabwae ppl who are sufferin. if this is true then the question is that are the sanctions worth it?
have they ever achieved anything?
incase of pakistan, iran, iraq, zimbabwae, somalia, afghanistan etc etc these sanctions never achieved anything
 
.
I reckon they will work, sort of......

The screws are now pretty tight on NK, more of their resources are going to dry. Money is power, money that would otherwise be diverted into the military. NK's economy is now basically a lemonade stand, but the kid running that stand has an ak47 under the counter. Crazy dude that Kim bloke.



...but yeah the sanctions are gona hurt the innocent civilians most.
 
.
Sanctions = delusional concept of international politics

North Korea will happily continue. The people will starve ad try to exit to China and the elite will continue eating and drinking.

Kindly note China does NOT want refugees from NK.
So to keep things on a safe level there will be sufficient movement of aid through that section. Yes China is “against” NK’s nuclear program, but that will not stop China looking after China.
China is not going to be the only nation “breaching’ sanctions. BUT understand the reason.

As for
The thought of regime change is most attractive, as almost any sort of government would be preferable to that currently in Pyongyang.

Not going to happen. Youngest son Jong Un has been reported as being nominated as successor. Also if it is not Kim Jong-il or family member it will be some military general.
Change = No Change.
 
.
NK's economy is now basically a lemonade stand, but the kid running that stand has an ak47 under the counter.

YOu gotta be kidding.. Not in NK mate. Too politically dangerous for the kid running the stand.
 
.
The word 'sanction' is rather loaded. When Iraq was under 'sanctions', Iraq was allowed to sell oil for food. The problem was that Saddam ended up abusing this allowance. Sanctions can have as many or as few allowances as those imposed them can think up. So before anyone jump to conclusions, as the author of the article seemed to have done, the particulars of the sanction should be examined before making a judgement.
 
.
The word 'sanction' is rather loaded. When Iraq was under 'sanctions', Iraq was allowed to sell oil for food. The problem was that Saddam ended up abusing this allowance. Sanctions can have as many or as few allowances as those imposed them can think up. So before anyone jump to conclusions, as the author of the article seemed to have done, the particulars of the sanction should be examined before making a judgement.

well so far even the strictest of sanctions havent produced desired results anywhere.
i have got some family members livin in zimbabwae and to get petrol for ur car tank u have to wait for days. same goes for many other things includin normal bread.
world may wanna improve conditions of locals livin there but knowingly or unknowignly a total opposite of that is happenin. now imagine urself when ppl have to fight for their daily livin y on earth will they think about risin against mugabe. such rulers can only be removed by ppl of that country and for that you need to strengthen the ppl. this will never be achieved through sanctions.
lets see if more sanctions will tame NK or not.
 
.
North Korea facing tougher UN sanctions | World news | The Guardian

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 June 2009 21.11 BST

The UN security council is expected to vote on Friday in support of new sanctions deepening the existing arms embargo against North Korea, in response to its second nuclear test carried out last month.

The new resolution – agreed yesterday by the permanent five council members, and Japan and South Korea – imposes a complete ban on North Korean arms exports, a principal source of foreign exchange earnings for the Pyongyang regime.

It also bans the sale of all arms except light weapons to North Korea, and calls on governments to enforce the embargo by inspecting ships suspected of breaking the arms ban.

Any such ships should be denied refuelling or other port services in third countries.

The resolution was agreed after two weeks of negotiations among the permanent five security council members following the nuclear test on 25 May.

China and Russia argued against severely punitive sanctions out of fear that it would trigger the collapse of the regime and a humanitarian disaster.

(This I have alluded to in my previous post. It is a serious concern for China in particular. China has a problem with refugees escaping from NK as it is.)

The new resolution does not permit the use of force in its implementation, but western officials said it would be hard for North Korea to trade arms if its ships were denied refuelling and docking rights around the world.

"It is far stronger than anything in existence so far," one official said.

It significantly broadens a 2006 resolution, passed after North Korea's first nuclear test, which blocked the trade in specific types of heavy weapons and military equipment, such as tanks, helicopters and artillery.

UN member states are also called on to deny the Pyongyang regime any form of financial support except humanitarian aid.

North Korea has reacted furiously to the looming threat of sanctions. The main state-run newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said on Monday that Pyongyang would consider any new sanctions as a declaration of war, and that it would respond to them with "appropriate self-defence measures".

North Korea has declared it no longer feels bound by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean war and warned it would wage a "merciless offensive" with nuclear weapons if necessary, if it was provoked.

The Associated Press reported today that the draft resolution also calls on all member states and international financial and credit institutions not to authorise new grants, financial aid, or concessional loans to North Korea "except for humanitarian and developmental purposes directly addressing the needs of the civilian population or the promotion of denuclearisation".

It also, said reports, calls on all member states not to provide public financial support for trade with North Korea that could contribute to its banned weapons programmes, including granting export credits, guarantees, or insurance to companies or individuals involved in such trade.

Sanctions need to be looked at in light of the above for NK and consider some issues such as ship inspections and what NK may do as a counter reaction.
Times are delicate, but not dire yet.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom