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.
This was not only one of the most stressful times in modern history, but it also ushered in US sanctions against the island nation.
Given their alliance with the USSR and willingness to allow military installations that could be used against the US, the sanctions made sense at the time. However, they would not be lifted until there was a regime change in Cuba.
When a country doesn’t want to, or can’t, use its military, as it might trigger a new world war, it turns to sanctions. If you’re the leading economic power and your currency is the trading standard, your sanctions are especially potent.
Sanctions were once rare actions by the United States, but over time, their usage has increased. America now has a problem. Overusing sanctions and leaving them active for too long have 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, sanctions do not change the target country’s behavior but actually entrench its 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 experienced 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, like 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 every year. North Korea has also developed nuclear missiles and continues to improve its missile technology with each passing year. The sanctions aren’t working.
Throughout 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. This means those 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 its large oil exports as a major source of funding for its government. The sanctions prevented most nations from buying Iranian oil, which in turn led to substantial recessions in Iran 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. Those sanctions can directly and immediately disrupt a country's hostile action 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 struggling 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 time afterward 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 not to 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 will lose 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 it courts countries burdened by sanctions and is fed up with the US.
We are seeing a modern-day Cold War in which the two most powerful nations on Earth are dividing the globe through alliances. China and the US compete in military, economy, technology, and trade positions.
This is why America needs a new approach that draws on its 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 consumer products. Nothing could show the people a better or more prosperous way of living. The US response to this was to make 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. Even though they were illegal there, people wore them. They wore them to show their defiance, to have a piece of that Democratic dream, and 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 smuggled into North Korea. What a drastic difference it was 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, and enjoying all of the pleasures and excesses that Americans have in their lives.
It may seem simple to us, but to those with so little, a show like Friends can show that a better life is possible. American culture can bring them hope.