The US Congress has voted almost unanimously (418 to 2 in the House of Representatives and 94 to 1 in the Senate) to tighten trade and financial sanctions against Myanmar, whose despotic regime harasses and repeatedly imprisons the country's rightful leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. She won the presidential election in 1990 but the military prevented her from taking power.
But sanctions are the wrong approach, for international marginalization hurts ordinary citizens far more than it hurts dictatorial regimes. It's time to curtail the use of economic sanctions and to make them better targeted at despots.
The most famous sanctions in recent history were those imposed on South Africa during the apartheid era. Much of the world community stopped trading with South Africa, and stopped making investments in South African-based enterprises. Those sanctions did, it seems, help speed the demise of that barbaric system. But one great success does not negate the many failures. Moreover, it is quite possible that the world community could have supported the overthrow of apartheid in other ways.
Of course, sanctions can be effective in hurting the economy of the target country. Economic development in today's global economy depends on each country being integrated into the worldwide network of production, trade, and investment. A national economy that is excluded by sanctions is likely to stagnate or even collapse.
Thus, the South African economy experienced an absolute decline in per capita output during the years of widespread sanctions. But sanctions were not the only reason for decline. Political unrest also devastated the economy, as did a fall in world gold prices that coincided with the anti-apartheid movement in the final years. Still, South Africa was hurt badly by sanctions, and the same has been true for many other countries.
Cuba bears a heavy economic burden today not only as a result of its own internal economic mistakes but also because of the barriers to trade and investment imposed by the US since the 1960s. Haiti went into an economic tailspin when America imposed sanctions in the 1990s, ostensibly to re-establish democracy. Even today, the US blocks aid for Haiti because some right-wing US Congressmen are intent on toppling President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, whom they abhor.
Iraq and North Korea have likewise been battered by sanctions. In Iraq during the 1990s, millions of children suffered repeated illnesses and vast numbers died because international sanctions contributed to ruining the country's economy. North Korea's economy utterly collapsed in the 1990s, leading to widespread famine. Once again, this results from a combination of North Korea's political despotism, atrocious economic policy, and international sanctions.
Myanmar has already paid an extremely high price for its isolation. International organizations have cut back or eliminated their work in the country, and much bilateral foreign aid has been eliminated, too. One result is that HIV/AIDS has run rampant, and the country has received almost no help in getting the epidemic under control. Myanmar's HIV/AIDS crisis is now by far Southeast Asia's worst.
Although sanctions clearly create suffering in many places, how often have they achieved the desired goal? In Myanmar, Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba, despotic regimes not only survived the imposition of sanctions, but became more despotic. These regimes were able to blame foreigners for domestic hardships, even when it was their own policy mistakes and human rights abuses that caused the crises.
Indeed, sanctions weaken an economy and public health, but do not necessarily make it more likely that a despotic regime will collapse. Sanctions purportedly undermine the regime by causing widespread unrest and by reducing the government's power base and tax collections. But sanctions also weaken the ability of the private sector to finance an opposition, tend to cut off the domestic opposition from international sources of support, and reduce, rather than increase, international awareness of the abuses taking place.
Some additional effects are even more pernicious. When legal means of business are outlawed, illegal means become more attractive. Many countries under sanction, such as Myanmar, become sources of global illegal trafficking in drugs, arms, money laundering and forced labor. Drug trafficking or other illegal activities can overtake the whole government, turning it from despotism to international organized crime.
Does this mean that the world should do nothing about despotic regimes? There is no easy answer, but to the extent that it is possible to weaken a government without weakening an economy, such steps should be taken. For example, so-called ``smart sanctions'' focus more narrowly on the political leadership.
Smart sanctions include denial of international travel privileges to despots and their families, and subjecting those despots to the risk of international prosecution. Leaders can thus be made prisoners in their own countries. Smart sanctions can also specifically target the trade in military goods, cutting off despotic regimes' armed forces. Moreover, foreign aid can be shifted away from government towards non-governmental organizations, strengthening the civil societies in such countries.
It is easy to vote against Myanmar's government, but it is harder to foster political change. Starving Myanmar's economy is unlikely to help, but it is certain to deepen the suffering of its people. Of course, countries that embrace the use of sanctions do not intend this, but that does not lessen their responsibility for the outcome.
Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing