Kieran Lawrence looks at autonomous weapons and the effect they could have on modern warfare
Continuing a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Angela Merkel
Ben Bland examines the fallout from the Iowa caucuses and looks forward to the New Hampshire primaries.
In the first of a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Nicholas Sarkozy
However, reports indicate that despite the vote, nations including France, the UK and the US in particular have found the sanctions wanting. The suggestions have very much been that these countries would have preferred tougher, more economically crippling measures.
Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was flippant and dismissive in his response to this development. He asserted that the sanctions were “not capable of hurting the Iranians” describing the measures as “a handkerchief fit for the dustbin”.
While designed to deter Iran from continuing its nuclear programme, the sanctions seem unlikely to prevent the enrichment of uranium. Considering this, it seems unlikely that this fourth round of sanctions will be the last.
It is not the first time that trade sanctions have been used by the UN or the West as a deterrent, punishment or means of exerting influence over other nations. Indeed, Iran’s neighbour Iraq was subject to far harsher trade sanctions during the 1990s following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. These sanctions were only lifted following the US/UK led invasion in 2003.
However, perhaps the most famous example of trade sanctions would be the US trade embargo on Cuba, introduced by the Kennedy administration in 1963. The embargo was enforced in the wake of Cuba’s Communist revolution and as a response to the nation’s alignment with the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Having been reinforced in 1992 by the Cuban Democracy Act and 1996 by the Helms-Burton Act, the embargo is still in force today – although it was relaxed somewhat in 2000.
Interestingly, this particular trade embargo does not have UN backing and has been condemned by the UN general assembly. In fact, 2002 saw the assembly vote by an overwhelming 173 votes to 3 in support of Cuba, with the US receiving the support of only Israel and Palau.
However, the policy of enforcing economic sanctions in general, regardless of UN backing, has been condemned by some commentators – for reasons that could be deemed both idealistic and pragmatic.
Figures by UNICEF and the Lancet suggested that during the trade sanctions in the 1990’s child survival rates dropped dramatically. A study entitled “Sanctions and Childhood Morality in Iraq” suggested that both infant mortality rates and child mortality rates had increased significantly in certain regions of the country during the 1990’s. The figures indicate an increase in infant mortality rate from 47 per 1000 to 108 per 1000 and child mortality from 56 per 1000 to 131 per 1000 live births.
Notably, neither the Lancet nor UNICEF made any suggestions that UN sanction policy was in any way culpable for these increases. Indeed, debate as to the significance and relevance of these figures is ongoing. However, perhaps unsurprisingly the figures and report has been cited as indicative of the human cost of the enforcement of Iraqi trade sanctions. Similarly, the Cuban trade embargo has been criticised for its effect on the Cuban citizens themselves.
The humanitarian aspect is not the only reason why such policies have come under fire – some have argued that sanctions are counterproductive as regards to achieving their aims. In fact, this was the reason cited by both Turkey and Brazil for voting against the new Iranian economic sanctions.
Frequent critic of US foreign policy Professor Noam Chomsky posited that Iraqi sanctions weakened the Iraqi population and in turn strengthened Saddam’s position as the countries unchallenged autocrat. Similar suggestions have been made about the Cuban trade embargo, which some have argued only fuels anti-Americanism and makes it easier for the government to shift blame for national problems in the USA’s direction.
The effectiveness of trade sanctions has also come under scrutiny by figures such as Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute’s Centre for Trade and Policy Studies. In a report in 2009 he asserted that the embargo had “not changed the course or nature of Cuban government”. Perhaps rather notably, in neither example have trade sanctions resulted in a change in government.
Of course, some would argue that economic sanctions remain the only credible or realistic alternative to military action as a means to deter and influence nations who are seen to be dissident. As to their effectiveness or humanitarian cost, the jury is still out and the debate will no doubt continue.
With new sanctions now imposed on Iran, only time will tell what impact, for better or for worse, they will have on the government and its nuclear programme and what cost, if any, the Iranian people themselves will incur.
You must log in to submit a comment.
