Exactly as the title suggests. Are sanctions an act of warfare? Especially if the level of sanctions hurts the common people of the nation targeted. Would we consider sanctions against us, that had a real and intolerable impact on our economy and citizenry, an act of warfare?
Nah, a country can trade goods and services if they want to, there is no mandate to do so in my mind. I wish we’d sanction china, I am sick of all their cheap poor quality crap.
As Clausewitz observed, war is just the continuation of politics by other means. Sanctions fall on the same continuum.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Exactly as the title suggests. Are sanctions an act of warfare? Especially if the level of sanctions hurts the common people of the nation targeted. Would we consider sanctions against us, that had a real and intolerable impact on our economy and citizenry, an act of warfare?[/quote]
No. They were pioneered by Jefferson and Madison as an alternate to war, being the political equivalent of “we’re mad at you so we aren’t talking now.” There is an interesting and very disheartening story of the first application of this during the War of 1812…
This presupposes that the population has some control over the government so that leveling sanctions makes the opposing population foment change. Many countries we try it against (e.g. Iraq under Saddam) have zero popular consent so all that happens is privation for the country.
It also really only matters from a practical perspective if there is some practical level of trade between parties. Has North Korea slapped sanctions on the US? How would we even know?
Now, a far better way to control rogue states is to cut off foreign aid to their governments. The way a lot of rogue states operate is to depend heavily on foreign subsidies to pay their henchmen (Kenya, Zimbabwe, Egypt, etc.). Normally the US approach is to pay no matter what, so we can end up in the ludicrous situation of slapping sanctions on a country while coughing up millions daily to the despot.
Maybe we need enunciate a new US policy, fully in line with our commitment to diversity and consonant with our multi-cultural sensitivity: If we have to deal with your country, we will treat you like you treat your citizens. Think of it! We get to behead terrorists in Iraq, torture them (and any pesky journalists), round up and gas Baathists in Syria starve Kim Jong Il and his family down a few pants' sizes.. The list just goes on and on!– jj
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Exactly as the title suggests. Are sanctions an act of warfare? Especially if the level of sanctions hurts the common people of the nation targeted. Would we consider sanctions against us, that had a real and intolerable impact on our economy and citizenry, an act of warfare?[/quote]
Using our military to block other sovereign nations from trading is an act of war. If China blocked us from trading with its military we would consider that an aggressive act. Using the legislative powers of government to sanction trading with specific nations is not an act of war but it is counterintuitive to individual liberty.
Why should individual businesses not be allowed to voluntarily trade with nations such as Cuba, for example? This hurts our economy more than it punishes Cuba since other nations are free to trade with them.
All exchanges must be voluntary for it to be considered moral. We cannot force trade nor can we stop other nations from not trading with us if they choose not to.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Using our military to block other sovereign nations from trading is an act of war. If China blocked us from trading with its military we would consider that an aggressive act. Using the legislative powers of government to sanction trading with specific nations is not an act of war but it is counterintuitive to individual liberty.
[/quote]
But but but but you changed the topic. A naval blockade is not the same as sanctions. In the former they are undertaken in time of war (e.g. the German blockade of England in WW I and WW II, US mining of Vietnamese harbors) or in exceptional circumstances (e.g. of Iraq before the US invasion). Peacetime blockades are aimed at preventing certain specific items (e.g. Cuban blockade during the missile crisis in the 1960’s, where we expressly interdicted anything related to nuclear missiles.)
Sanctions are prohibitions against firms and individuals from carrying out commerce. Now, you can certainly make an argument against the US government being able to impose this on businesses since it normally does not regulate commerce in this way. The argument in favor of it is that the ability for the government to regulate its interactions with other sovereign countries trumps individuals concerns – or the government would effectively not be in control of its foreign policy since any individual could subvert it. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s visit to the Middle East last year? She made a ninny of herself (did she ever!) and we could largely ignore her simply because she was a citizen and had no bearing on national policy.
And I could be wrong…
– jj
If said sanctions are causing deaths, then it’s safe to say that it is perceived as warfare by the people enduring it.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
But but but but you changed the topic. A naval blockade is not the same as sanctions. In the former they are undertaken in time of war (e.g. the German blockade of England in WW I and WW II, US mining of Vietnamese harbors) or in exceptional circumstances (e.g. of Iraq before the US invasion). Peacetime blockades are aimed at preventing certain specific items (e.g. Cuban blockade during the missile crisis in the 1960’s, where we expressly interdicted anything related to nuclear missiles.)
[/quote]
There is no such thing as a “peace time blockade”. This is warfare. Using the military prop up a nation’s foreign interests – even if they are only perceived interests – is warfare.
[quote]
Sanctions are prohibitions against firms and individuals from carrying out commerce. Now, you can certainly make an argument against the US government being able to impose this on businesses since it normally does not regulate commerce in this way. The argument in favor of it is that the ability for the government to regulate its interactions with other sovereign countries trumps individuals concerns – or the government would effectively not be in control of its foreign policy since any individual could subvert it. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s visit to the Middle East last year? She made a ninny of herself (did she ever!) and we could largely ignore her simply because she was a citizen and had no bearing on national policy.
And I could be wrong…
– jj[/quote]
Sanctions are merely legislation. In order to execute these sanctions military force is necessary. You ever try floating to Cuba from Miami with some good ol’ “Made In The USA brands”?
Question: Is government subverting individual liberty really necessary for our foreign policy since trade is usually between individuals and not other governments which our policy is directed at? For example, do we really care if a farmer in Cuba buys US made tractors to help feed his countrymen? How does this help our foreign policy in the least?
Nanci Pelosi has nothing to do with this topic of conversation.
SANCTIONS =/= WAR
BLOCKADE = WAR
BLOCKADE + SANCTIONS = WAR
Everybody clear?
ElbowStrike