The key hope in sanctions

With Obama going to Cuba, a tighter economic embargo on North Korea, and a partial lifting of sanctions on an improved Iran, now is the time to examine why sanctions often succeed. They rely on a hopeful view of people.

Reuters
Trucks move across the bridge linking North Korea with the Chinese border city of Dandong March 3.

The act of imposing a trade boycott or similar sanctions on a country for its misbehavior has long been used as a substitute for war. Sanctions, while hostile, can be a tool for peace. Yet they come with an article of faith: that the people in a targeted country also want better behavior from their leaders and will accept the hardship of sanctions as both necessary and an opportunity.

This faith in the power of sanctions to tap the inherent goodness of people – even their activism – is now being tested as never before.

On March 2, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to tighten sanctions against North Korea for its latest tests of a nuclear weapon and a long-range missile. One sanction requires all countries to inspect North Korean cargo ships passing through their territorial waters. The country’s mineral trade and financial transactions will also be affected.

The hope is that enough well-meaning people inside the regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will demand change, if not the people themselves. Previous sanctions have failed to accomplish that. But perhaps this time, with China’s unusual cooperation and a tightening of the economic screws, the world’s most isolated state might shift its policies out of popular pressure from below.

In contrast, President Obama is trying to lift many of the cold-war-era sanctions on Communist-run Cuba. He will even travel to the island nation in late March to cement a reopening of official relations – but without a full lifting of sanctions by a reluctant Congress.

Mr. Obama claims economic engagement with Cuba is now a better tool for stimulating change than continuing sanctions of more than half a century against the harsh rule of the Castro regime.

Will he be proved right?

Engagement with Communist-run China and Vietnam has done little to change their human rights records. Yet sanctions against Vietnam in the 1980s did help end its occupation of Cambodia. And sanctions against Myanmar (Burma) also helped push its ruling generals to allow an opening for full democracy.

Perhaps the strongest case for the use of sanctions to deter or compel behavior was the international isolation of South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) during the 1980s to end white minority rule. Each country’s majority blacks clearly wanted change and outside help.

Yet the weakest case for sanctions today are the ones imposed on Russia for its taking of Crimea and military meddling in eastern Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin’s popularity has only risen as a result of the West’s actions. Yet, along with a fall in oil revenue, the Russian economy is stagnant. The regime, worried about rising protests, has tightened its political grip.

One strong case that shows the value of sanctions in current affairs may be those placed on Iran. As the international community ganged up on Tehran over its nuclear program in recent years, the West waited for domestic pressure to mount. In 2012, then-CIA Director David Petraeus said: “What we have to see now is ... what is the level of popular discontent inside Iran – does that influence the strategic decision making of the supreme leader and the regime?”

The answer was mostly yes. The regime was not only forced to negotiate a deal to suppress its nuclear ambitions, but sanctions were credited for the election of many reformists in 2013 and again last month. The Iranian people clearly want change in their regime’s behavior, at home and abroad.

Sanctions on one country can serve a secondary purpose. They send a strong signal to other misbehaving countries to follow international agreements and norms. And new types of sanctions, ones that target the personal finances of select leaders, are more common. They are often necessary when sanctions against an entire population may work against the goal of sanctions.

Sanctions would be more effective if they were seen as less of a stick and more as a carrot. The prospect of lifting sanctions plays to the desire of a country’s people to join the international community and practice its civilized ways.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.