Since U.S. Sanctions Fail, Cause Suffering, And Are Acts of War: Who Will Sanction the Sanctioner?

Not only have U.S. economic sanctions rarely achieved their desired results, but, in effect, they’ve taken another country’s civilian population hostage in order to get its leaders to acquiesce.(1) Madeleine Albright perfectly expressed this Washington consensus when she told “60 Minutes” that, yes, the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were worth it in the complex calculus of sanctions. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein remained in power until the U.S. twisted intelligence information to launch its preemptive war against Iraq. Both lessons of sanctions and preemptive wars have largely gone unlearned, including the latest ones against Venezuela.

Unlearned Lessons: Then and Now
Another thing that’s gone unlearned is the history of economic sanctions. Going back to the naval and land army blockades, in which a harbor or city of an opposing state would be prevented from trading with third parties or allowing food and supplies in, the blockade was always considered an act of war. The most famous example was the British blockade of Germany during World War I. Although it did not prevent the German from launching a huge military offensive during the last year of the war that almost drove the British army off the Continent, it did manage to kill 250,000 civilians, including starvation and malnourishment of children. (Some estimate 2 million.)

As for the U.S., the imposition of economic sanctions on North Korea in 1950, the Cuban embargo in 1960, sanctions against Iran after the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979-and more recent one’s to deter Iran’s nuclear enrichment program being monitored by the UN, and that of Russia have failed . None of these economic blockades, one of which is in its seventh decade, had the desired effect of forcing the target state to align its policies with U.S. desires. In fact, and as targeted leaders remained/remain in power, they managed to cause impoverishment among civilian populations and in some cases, malnutrition and starvation.

Economic sanctions moreover led to increased resentment towards the U.S. and a weakening of alliances. Targeted leaders and most people considered sanctions as an affront to national sovereignty, even a punitive act of war. They often bolstered the power of the ruling cliques, using them as an excuse to crush dissent or attack opposition groups. Military and trade alliances were tested, especially with NATO and Europe. What’s more, Cuba remained communist, North Korea still obtained nuclear weapons, Iran is just defiant as ever, and President Vladimir Putin hardly seems impressed by American-led Western sanctions against his country.

Of What Price in Venezuela
It’s no secret the U.S. has wanted to takeover Venezuela, mainly for its oil and to use it as another launching pad for military incursions across Latin America. After staging a series of CIA attacks against President Nicolas Maduro, and despite Venezuela’s worsening humanitarian crisis fueled by political unrest and economic sanctions, the Trump Administration has just announced new sanctions targeting the government and companies that transport oil to Cuba. Recognizing that “oil is the lifeblood” of the government, this comes in the middle of blackouts and food shortages. It’s a reminder that sanctions hold a country’s people hostage, that they are acts of war.

It's also a reminder of how far the U.S. is willing to go, to destroy an entire society. Known as sociocide, it’s illegal and immoral by any account. In other words, will the U.S kill just as many children in Venezuela as it did in Iraq-which was more children than died in Hiroshima? Or will these new sanctions simply be another precursor to a preemptive invasion followed by a long-term military occupation, both of which are an embarrassment to a county that pays lip service to diplomacy and human rights? Consequently, questions about U.S. sanctions should’ve always been: How much blood? How much damage to a society? And of what price morally?

Although U.S. sanctions have failed and caused enormous pain and suffering for millions of civilians, why does Washington persist in telling itself and the American people they’re successful? The obvious answers are that the president gets to project a “tough guy” image, and that it appeases the many political, financial, corporate, and military interests which governs Washington and dominates foreign policy. But there’s another, a more insidious reason. And it doesn’t only pertain to America’s authoritarian and sadistic nature-of wanting to rule the world through economic warfare and finding pleasure in the suffering of those who resist.

The Question Still Remains
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. and ruling class went rogue. In suggesting that some countries to not possess enough legitimacy to give them a legal and moral right to complain about economic coercion or military invasion, they were trying to hide their own illegitimacy at home and abroad. There are now twenty-six countries from Russia and Burma to Zimbabwe and Venezuela, under various forms of nefarious U.S. economic sanctions. Considering that sanctions have failed miserably, cause suffering, and are acts of war, we are forced to ask: “Who will sanction the Sanctioner?” It’s consequently an answer which demands a very active response.

Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the Context of John’s Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.WN.com. You can read more of Dallas’ writings at www.beverlydarling.com and www.WN.com/dallasdarling.

(1) Lofgren, Mike. The Deep State. New York, New York: Viking Press, 2016., p. 117.