Salvation By Starvation

The House of Representatives voted this week to renew sanctions against Myanmar (Burma), a small Southeast Asian nation ruled by a military dictatorship. The European Union followed suit also renewing their sanctions which were set to expire Thursday. The purpose of these sanctions is to persuade Myanmar’s military Junta to allow the emergence of democracy, and to address their regime’s human rights violations. The ban is on imports, exports and investment and also includes visa restrictions for the countries leaders.

Sanctions have been a popular tool of foreign policy among prosperous Western nations over the last century. Because the West adopted market economies earlier and more thoroughly than the rest of the world, their prosperity made it possible to ostracize poorer, less developed countries without doing severe damage to their own economies. Thus a policy of starving foreign nations until they submit to U.S. demands has been used extensively ever since the WWI era.

What is strange about all this is that sanctions continue to be used despite their almost universal failure in achieving their goals. Take the U.S. sanctions against Cuba for instance. They have been in place in one form or another since 1963. Today Castro is still in power. Cuba is still very poor and very little if any progress has been made toward freedom or prosperity for the Cuban people. U.S. sanctions against Iraq resulted in the disappearance of the Iraqi middle class, the destruction of the Iraqi economy, and the starvation and death of untold thousands of Iraqi children . In North Korea the results have been similarly bleak.

This is only one side of the story. Not only do sanctions result in poverty, starvation and death for the populations of targeted countries, they help bestow a mantle of much needed legitimacy on despotic rulers. Rather than producing political reform and opposition to tyranny, sanctions often result in an increase of nationalism and support for the current regime. Castro, Saddam and Kim Jong-il have all used sanctions as scapegoats on which to blame their poorly performing economies, while at the same time holding themselves up as patriotic champions of self-sufficiency and independence.

I recently saw a segment on a news program where an American journalist was in North Korea asking villagers about their views on America. When he asked one young man what he thought about Americans, he answered that America was the sworn enemy of his country and that his goal was to join the army so he could fight and kill Americans. This type of xenophobic mentality is easy to cultivate among a population that is poor, hungry and cut off from the outside world.

The logic behind the use of sanctions is one that refuses to recognize the difference between the many people living in a country, and the few who rule it. It is a perverse act of war that targets only civilians. It ignores the fact that the ruling elite live far better than the mass of people, and will continue to do so even as their economy declines and there is less to go around. When push comes to shove it is the rulers who will get what they need and want while the general population starves. It deprives people in both countries of their right to trade and make a living. It breeds animosity, conflict and desperation and as a result it often leads to war. As Nobel Peace Prize winner Cordell Hull once said, “When goods cannot cross borders, armies will.”

Sanctions impose the value system of the aggressor country on the population of the other, regardless of whether they feel the same way or not. By passing sanctions against countries because of human rights violations we are essentially saying, we think that your right to decide which church to go to, or to say what you want about your government trumps your right to eat. Therefore, we won’t sell you food or buy your products until your government gives you these rights. Obviously, if given a choice between the Bill of Rights or a bowl of rice, hungry people will choose the latter. Yet this is exactly the choice we are denying them when we impose economic sanctions.

Another problem with our policy of sanctions against third world countries is that they are extremely inconsistent. The United States trades heavily with China and Vietnam, both of which are still ruled by communist parties, (military dictatorships) and which still refuse to recognize many basic human rights. There is no democracy in these countries and their people have very limited freedom of speech, press or religion. However, since the benefits of trading with China and other Asian nations are so great, we gladly overlook these shortcomings. If you are an advocate of sanctions in order to promote human rights, you should consider taking off that shirt you’re wearing. You know, the one that says “made in China” on the label.

In fact, trade with China, Vietnam, Myanmar, Cuba and all other countries is a good thing. Trade naturally benefits both parties or it wouldn’t occur in the first place. Where sanctions breed poverty, starvation, xenophobia, anger, and war, trade brings prosperity, multiculturalism, tolerance and peace. When we trade we are forced by necessity to overcome our ignorance of foreign people. We learn each other’s languages and cultures. We come to depend on each other and to see the world as an interconnected whole rather than a chaotic collection of borders, armies and clashing “national interests.”

Not only does international trade benefit the populations of both countries, it also is much more effective than sanctions at bringing political reform and recognition of human rights. The more prosperous a people become the more political power they will wield regardless of the system they live under. Once they have progressed beyond a meager subsistence, people can begin pursuing other things that are important to them.

Despite the continuing tight-fisted control exerted by China’s communist party over the lives of its citizens, modernization and the transition to a market economy have unleashed powerful forces in that country that I believe will lead to decentralization and greatly expanded individual freedom. We have already seen this process begin and the trend will only gain momentum as the Chinese people become wealthier. These forces, both technological and economic in nature, are too powerful for any government to control indefinitely.

Trade also requires countries to develop consistent, reliable legal systems and property rights laws. No one wants to trade with someone they can’t trust, or within a legal system that is unpredictable and indecipherable. It paves the way for economic liberalization and the development of capital and consumer markets. This is precisely what is happening in China and Vietnam, and to a lesser extent, Laos and Cambodia. We could expect similar results if we were to resume trade with Myanmar. We don’t have to sell them rocket propelled grenades or smart bombs, but banning the sale or import of consumer goods and services is counterproductive and destructive. Sanctions are not the answer now or ever.