February 18, 2012
Sanctions Don’t Promote Democratic Change
Natasha Bahrami and Trita Parsi in the Boston Review:
Come July, Iran’s oil will no longer flow to Europe, thanks to an EU embargo announced on January 23. That same day the United States approved sanctions on the country’s third largest bank, Bank Tejarat, which the Treasury Department says “has directly facilitated Iran’s illicit nuclear efforts.” Twenty-two other Iranian banks face U.S. sanctions.
The official objective of the sanctions is to compel Iran to negotiate with the West toward the implementation of existing UN Security Council resolutions calling for Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program. Unofficially, there are hints that the sanctions are aimed at collapsing the Iranian regime and bringing about democratic change.
Supporters of the policy assume that there is a positive relationship between broad economic sanctions and democratization. The policymakers responsible for these measures either are ignorant of or are simply ignoring the empirical evidence: broad sanctions—total financial and trade embargoes—do not have a good track record of changing target countries’ policies or of pushing them toward democracy.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 10:36 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Breaking the ice?
One needs the wayback machine to understand U.S.eh? modern foreign policy:
"The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells."
(Quote from 1944 book).
Posted by: Dredd | Feb 18, 2012 12:46:37 PM
Sanctions worked in South Africa.
Posted by: Mike Cope | Feb 18, 2012 1:23:26 PM
There is so much nonsense talked about the Iranian nuclear threat. If one of the Republican candidates gets bellicose on the subject of Iran - instant applause meter time. Only Ron Paul has shown some realism in addressing the issue.
Why are we targeting Iran with sanctions and threats and what leads us to believe this might work? Consider a hypothetical. How about we target Israel with sanctions until they give Palestinians a fair shake, abide by international law and human rights commitments? That would lower the heat in Iran and the rest of the region. The source of our problems may be more local than we care to admit.
Iran hasn't been known as a war starter. The war with US-backed Saddam Hussein was essentially a war of defence. If anything Iran looks pretty good compared to the American and Israeli track record. The reaction you are seeing now from Iran is because they are being pressed and provoked.
To be honest if a war occurs it will be a war initiated in bad faith by the West who see no other avenue where Iran is concerned except demonization. Will sanctions lead to democracy? No. It will only add to paranoia and repression. In answer to a comment above... Iran is a very different proposition from apartheid South Africa.
Posted by: j_93 | Feb 18, 2012 3:33:35 PM
Obama needs to pull a "Nixon Goes to China" and go to Teheran. Seriously.
Posted by: SeizeTheTimeline | Feb 19, 2012 10:13:02 PM
Post a comment