Sanctions Or Culture?

Sanctions are useful for short term problems. Culture is the long term solution.

The USSR was secretly shipping materials to assemble nuclear missiles and launch sites within Cuba. A significant provocation at the height of the Cold War. The Soviets were about to be able to threaten the United States with a direct attack.

On top of this being one of the most stressful times in modern history, it also ushered in US sanctions against the island nation.

Given their alliance to the USSR and willingness to allow military installations that could be used against the US, the sanctions made sense at the time. The sanctions weren’t going to be lifted until there was a regime change in Cuba.

When a country either doesn’t want to use their military, or can’t as it might trigger a new world war, then they turn to sanctions. If you’re the leading economic power and your currency is the trading standard, then your sanctions are especially potent.

Sanctions were once a rare action by the United Sates, but over time the usage has increased. America now has a problem. Overusing sanctions and leaving them active for too long, has put the American dollar at risk. The dollar may lose its place as the world standard of currency.

America currently has 38 different sanctions in place. This is despite the fact that in most cases, not only do sanctions not change the target country’s behavior, but instead the sanctions actually entrench their defiance. 

Sanctions against Cuba are still ongoing today, 60 years later. Their leadership has never fundamentally changed. That is how dictatorships and autocracies work. The leaders don’t willingly give up power, and certainly not because an outside nation is pressuring them. They dig in further, remain defiant, and paint the US as the enemy.

72% of Cubans live below the poverty line. They also had a tragic famine in the 1990s and refused to accept American aid due to our relationship. During the famine, food priority was given to the elite and the military, as is the case in most authoritarian regimes. The regular people suffered the most.

North Korea is the worst example of this behavior. There have been US sanctions against North Korea since the 1950s, and the sanctions were strengthened in the 1980s. Despite all of this time, North Korea’s regime hasn’t softened or changed.

North Korea is still a brutal dictatorship that threatens South Korea and the US with war on a yearly basis. North Korea has also developed nuclear missiles and continues to improve their missile technology with each passing year. The sanctions aren’t working.

Over the course of these sanctions, there have been famines in North Korea multiple times. While exact numbers are hard to determine due to their secrecy and isolation, potentially over 1 million North Koreans have died from starvation during US sanctions.

If we had a different relationship with their country, could we have sent aid to save any portion of those people? Would trade relationships have prevented these famines from happening at all?

That is who the sanctions tend to hurt most, the citizens of a nation who are simply trying to live. Their leaders, especially dictators, always eat first, get the items they need, and have medical care. Which means those who are causing the problem are not feeling the brunt of the punishment.

The theory of sanctions is that either the leaders will feel so much pressure that they will yield to our demands, or that the citizens will get fed up and then rise up. But in countries like North Korea, the regime’s hold is too tight, too deadly. So the people suffer.

Another example is Iran where the US levied sanctions to stop them from building a nuclear weapon. The middle east is always on the brink of war. Another country adding nuclear technology could threaten what little stability there is.

To earn reduced sanctions, Iran had to agree to inspectors who would check their uranium facilities to make sure they were only working on nuclear power instead of nuclear weapons. Under Trump the sanctions were returned to their full force.

Iran used large exports of oil as a major source of funding for its government. The sanctions prevent most nations from buying their oil. Which in turn has led to Iran having substantial recessions during US sanctions.

The power of sanctions is clear. When used correctly they can stop aggressive actions or even subvert fascist nations.

Russia is an example of exactly how and when to use sanctions. When those sanctions can directly, and immediately, disrupt the hostile action that a country is taking against our ally.

After Russia launched its war on Ukraine, the US enacted sanctions against Putin’s regime to make it harder for them to fund their war. Nations agreed to stop trading with and buying oil from Russia. Their economy is teetering on the edge while they also struggle to make any headway in their war.

It isn’t about trying to change the regime, we know Russia wouldn’t change to pro-America or even pro-actual Democracy. Russia hasn’t backed down even one inch in the face of these sanctions, but it has slowed their war and given Ukraine a fighting chance.

That brings about the most crucial question: when do you end sanctions? With Russia, the end of the war, or some amount of time afterwards might make sense. But how would we know they wouldn’t simply rebuild their military to attack again? 

What about the other nations? Cuba hasn’t been a threat to the US in many decades, but they still have a communist authoritarian regime that cracks down on protestors. Do we keep sanctions to punish the leadership? Or do we remove sanctions to help the people get supplies and wealth? 

North Korea continues to build more powerful military technology and their regime hasn’t eased up at all in 70 years of sanctions, but over a million people have starved to death. Is it time to rethink our course?

If sanctions are put on Iran to keep them from building a nuclear bomb, how will we ever determine if it has been enough? The win condition is for Iran to not build something, so do sanctions go on indefinitely?

All of those countries continue to act as they did before. And now, there is a chance America loses the dollar as the international trade currency. China has been making a move to become the currency of choice. China’s play is gaining momentum as they court countries burdened by sanctions and are fed up with the US.

We are seeing a modern day cold war where the two most powerful nations on Earth are dividing up the globe through alliances. China and the US are competing with military, economy, technology, and trade positions.

This is why America needs a new approach, one that pulls from our success in the Cold War. We need to export American culture once again.

During the Cold War, the communist nations were shut down from most radio, tv, and even consumer products. Nothing was allowed that could show the people a better or more prosperous way of living. The US response to this was to get our culture available to the oppressed people. 

Blue jeans became a symbol of freedom to those trapped on the wrong side of the Berlin wall. And even though they were illegal there, people wore them. They wore them to show their defiance. They wore them to have a piece of that Democratic dream. And they wore them to feel that there was hope.

In North Korea, American TV shows are highly sought after, but dangerous to possess. Citizens can and have been executed for having a single DvD from the West. Yet North Koreans still want our shows because it gives them a look at the world outside of their bubble. 

The show Friends was one that was smuggled in to North Korea. What a drastic difference for them to see people living in one of the largest cities on Earth. Men and women spending time together. Being able to do what they want. All of the pleasures and excess that Americans have in their lives.

It may seem simple to us, but to those who have so little, a show like Friends can give them hope that a better life is possible. American culture can bring them hope.