“Sanctions kill”: Forbes explained why a favorite weapon of the United States was not humane

Although it is believed that the sanctions to change the behavior of opponents of the US without war, in practice, punitive measures may apply to ordinary people did less damage than direct hostilities, writes Forbes. According to the magazine, the example of North Korea shows how the comprehensive sanctions that should skip the Essentials, impose a ban on the supply of related products, which leads to the fact that the hostages, Washington is actually the population of an entire country.

«Санкции убивают»: Forbes объяснил, почему любимое оружие США оказалось совсем не гуманным

ReutersЭкономические sanctions are one of the main tools of American foreign policy. This tactic allows you to without a war to change the behavior of the real and perceived enemies of the United States — from Russia and Venezuela to Iran and North Korea. However, according to the report of the movement “Give peace in Korea,” large-scale sanctions can have on the civilian population, the damage is not worse than fighting, writes Forbes.

This document entitled “the Humanitarian impact of gender and the impact of sanctions against North Korea” shows that austerity measures imposed on that country over its nuclear and missile programs, has claimed thousands of lives among which are children under the age of 5 years. This problem is partially due to the fact that over the last few years “smart sanctions” against the North Korean elites and the defence sector severely tightened. In the words of the authors of the report, this resulted in “almost complete ban on investments, financial transactions and trade with North Korea“. Theoretically, these sanctions should make an exception for necessities, but due to bureaucracy and red tape, in practice, fall under the prohibition of the supply of vital things. This applies, for example, the ban on transportation of industrial equipment, vehicles and supplies of such resources as iron and steel. This often prevents the import of agricultural and medical products. As a result, the volume of agricultural production and exports are falling, and the inability to access resources on Essentials like fuel seriously hinders people to get to health facilities. However, while these measures interfere with the lives of the North Korean population, they hardly changed the behaviour of “mode“. One of the authors of the report, Henry Feron described the situation as follows: “In its current form, sanctions, apparently, play the role of opposites of international law and, in particular, contrasts of human rights and humanitarian norms. The sanctions also raise moral issues, as they actually capture the population of an entire country hostage“. So what to do? The final output is a broader range of issues in the sphere of security on the Korean Peninsula by lifting the sanctions, coupled with the nuclear programs of North Korea and forge a peace agreement that will put an end to the Korean war. While this did not happen, should take all necessary steps to revise those elements of the sanctions, which have caused the most disastrous humanitarian consequences. While North Korea is not the only example of a situation where the strategy of “maximum pressure” does more harm than good. In Iran the working and middle classes took the brunt of the sanctions impact the administration of the trump. However, these measures did not cause the regime any political damage; on the contrary, they intensified anti-American sentiment and strengthened the “hawks” in the government, seriously complicated the work of supporters of democracy and human rights. However, targeted sanctions can take its place in the progressive foreign policy. In particular, this concerns the ban on arms supplies to repressive regimes like the Saudi government in the context of the war in Yemen or global economic boycott of the apartheid regime in South Africa. “However, as the example of North Korea, these sanctions need to be used judiciously so that they do not lead to the aggravation of the situation and did not serve as an obstacle to tackle entrenched problems in the field of security, “concludes Forbes.Source

Share