Economic sanctions

Economic sanctions are commercial and financial penalties applied by governments against another government, group, or an individual. They are a form of warfare, similar to siege warfare. The stated purpose of sanctions is typically to apply economic pressure on a country, in order to influence the government's decision-making, and is often portrayed as a peaceful alternative to armed conflict. However, the material function of sanctions is to create widespread economic hardship, desperation, and destabilization in the targeted country, typically to pave the way for the overthrow of the government or prevent their economic development. The outcome of economic sanctions is mass suffering and death amongst the targeted population. Often, the suffering and death and economic underdevelopment resulting from the sanctions are then publicized as being inherent to the targeted government's own policies and blamed on the government, and disingenuous human rights investigations are subsequently launched to further isolate and destabilize the country, and even used as a justification for increasing the severity of the sanctions.

When asked about half a million Iraqi children who died due to US sanctions, Madeleine Albright said in 1996, "the price was worth it."

U.S. officials have written that creating "disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship" through denying money and supplies to Cuba would be a method they should pursue in order to "bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government" in that country.

In an article for The Guardian, David Adler writes of the embargo on Cuba, that "the US embargo impacts every aspect of life on the island – and that is the precisely the point" and goes on to state that "Both the Biden administration and its Republican opposition claim that these measures are targeted at the regime, rather than the Cuban people. But the evidence to the contrary is not only anecdotal. The UN estimates that the embargo has cost Cuba over $130bn in damages" and says that the embargo "fails the test of its own logic" pointing out that "the Biden administration argued that the embargo aims to 'support the Cuban people in their quest to determine their own future'. But the Biden administration does not dare to explain how making Cuba poorer, sicker and more isolated supports their quest for self-determination."

In times of natural disaster, progressives often call for temporary lifting or easing of sanctions in affected countries. However, as sanctions are a form of warfare that are generally used to purposely cause death and suffering in the targeted countries, natural disasters tend to boost the intended deadly effects of sanctions on the targeted countries' populations, as well as create a window of increased plausible deniability for the aggressor countries responsible for imposing the sanctions, the incentive to ease or remove sanctions is low.

Use for destabilization and overthrow of governments

An example of the rationale behind the use of economic pressure to destabilize and overthrow governments can be found in a 1960 memorandum between U.S. officials under the Secretary of State for Inter-American affairs, discussing obstacles in overthrowing the government of Cuba. The author of the memo notes that "the majority of Cubans support Castro" and that there was "no effective political opposition". In light of there being widespread support for the government and no effective opposition for the U.S. to back and empower, and also noting that "Militant opposition to Castro from without Cuba would only serve his and the communist cause" the author wrote that the "only foreseeable means of alienating internal support" would be "through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship" and that "every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba" and to "call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government." The U.S. State Department's Office of the Historian notes that the recipient of the memorandum initialed the "yes" option in reply to moving forward with these ideas. This is one example of the logic behind the use of economic pressure to destabilize and overthrow governments, and shows that is an option that may be taken when local support for the government is high and explicit external opposition would create a disadvantageous propaganda situation for the aggressor country and strengthen the resolve of the targeted country, and therefore an "inconspicuous" policy of bringing about hunger and desperation is a preferable avenue of attack.

Kim Ji Ho, author of Understanding Korea: Human Rights, observes the deadly, criminal effects of U.S. sanctions on DPRK's citizens, and writes of their ultimate goal of destabilizing the country with the purpose of overthrowing its system:

The economic sanctions and blockade the US, in collusion with its vassal states, has imposed on the DPRK have been unprecedented in their viciousness and tenacity. These moves are aimed, in essence, at isolating and stifling the country and destabilizing it so as to overthrow its system. The moves the US resorts to by enlisting even its vassal states are a crime against human rights and humanity, which check the sovereign state’s right to development and exert a great negative impact on its people’s enjoying of their rights, a crime as serious as wartime genocide.

Opposition to economic sanctions

Opposition to sanctions can be found among various ideological camps. Even critics and opponents of governments targeted by sanctions frequently point out the ineffectiveness of the sanctioning in achieving their stated goals and point out the disastrous inhumane effects of sanctions on the general population, even if these critics do not draw the conclusion that the disastrous effects are in fact the purpose of the sanctions. For example, correspondent Ryan Cooper of The Week writes of "America's brainless addiction to punitive sanctions regimes" which "virtually never achieve the desired effect and too often inflict pointless suffering on innocents" and which have not achieved "any major U.S. policy goal in this century" giving examples of U.S. sanctions on Iran, Russia, DPRK, and Venezuela all failing to achieve the goals they were said to be implemented for, and refers to U.S. sanctions on Afghanistan as "miserable and useless economic seige". The journalist goes on to describe how sanctions are often used to bolster the image of the politicians who call for and impose them:

As Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman write in The New York Times, American imperialists can't resist the temptation to use U.S. control over the dollar funding system to economically strangle perceived adversaries. Presidents use sanctions to signal they're tough by inflicting pain on "enemies" (most often innocent civilians) who are helpless to fight back from thousands of miles away. Presidents don't remove sanctions because that would be "weak," or because the Kafkaesque imperial bureaucracy only goes in one direction, or because it would be humiliating to admit error.