The First Rule of Broad Sanctions: Don't Use Them
The general rule is that it is wrong to use economic warfare to inflict collective punishment on an entire population.
Now, again, I don’t think there is a general rule here. I think that one has to listen very carefully to the people who in these countries themselves and to the dissident and opposition movements and ask what they want. But I would hope that the Syria earthquake could be a moment where we could open up some of these conversations about asking whether our sanctions policies are really doing any good for ordinary people, or whether they’re just a way of making certain people in Washington feel like they’re taking the moral position even when many of those people themselves are actually supporting deeply, deeply immoral policies in countries over which the US has much more influence.
Beinart makes several good points in his discussion of what is wrong with the use of broad sanctions. He is correct that the people at the top of targeted governments don’t feel much of the pain that sanctions inflict, and he is right that they tend to tighten their grip on control when the country is under siege. I would add that if you want to see another country become freer and more democratic, the last thing you would do is impose broad sanctions on it. Obviously, he is right that broad sanctions make things worse for populations that already suffer under abusive governments. It is also fair to challenge defenders of broad sanctions over their willingness to support abusive clients when those clients may be doing some of the same things that they cite as reasons to punish other states with sanctions.
That said, Beinart is missing the mark when he says that he doesn’t think there is a general rule that applies here.