TakingITGlobal - Panorama

Published on: Nov 7, 2007

Topic:

Type: Opinions

https://www.tigweb.org/express/panorama/article.html?ContentID=16841

Economic sanctions are often practiced by one country or group of countries on another for different reasons but most particularly for political interests. Some of the examples of economic sanctions are tariffs, trade barriers, import duties, and import or export quotas etc. Various forms of economic sanctions have been imposed on different countries for varying reasons. But while imposing economic sanctions, the imposer often neglects the basic human rights of the civilians and economic rights of the target country and often hampers its own economy making it irrelevant in today’s context where the world is being globalised from every aspect like business, politics, technology, education etc.

The economic sanctions, though intended for some political interest, not only affect the political environment of the target country but also create several hardships to its citizens. As a simple example, India imposed economic sanctions on Nepal during 1989 and 1990 only because of the reason that Nepal contracted to buy some arms from China for its internal security reasons. Economic sanctions on Nepal created discomfort to common Nepalese people and most importantly weakened the countries economy. Nepal was not able to do international business as it is a landlocked country and doesn’t have easy access to sea. Exports of goods couldn’t happen due to which local industries were closed down dismantling the economy of the country.

I still remember the days when I used to stay at the back of my father’s motorbike and wait in queue for whole day for a liter of kerosene and petrol that was kept in stock by some gas-station. Industries were closed down as no raw materials could be imported due to closure of borders which resulted in increase in unemployment creating several hardships to civilians. I had one of my family members working in a garment factory. But when India sanctioned Nepal, he lost his job as no raw material could be imported due to which he had no money to feed his children properly and also couldn’t afford for the education of his children. Thus, economic sanction not only has effects in political level but its repercussions are far more adverse for the people, which often doesn’t come to highlight as it should be.

Some critics argue that the sanctions was worthy from the perspective of safety of democracy of Nepal and eventually for the safety of Indian democracy as well from strong communist country like China. But it seems comical that one of the biggest democratic countries of the world took undemocratic step in name of saving democracy. It was not righteous and democratic job to lock up a sovereign country in the name of democracy.

It has been proven from the past that economic sanctions negatively affect the health of citizens of target country. Physicians who have traveled to nations affected by economic sanctions reported that suffering is caused by lack of medical supplies or other basic health-related resources. For example, the economic sanction imposed by United Nations in a country excluded food and medical supplies, the availability of basic medications decreased by 50% because the raw materials needed to produce them could not be imported. As a result, rates of typhus, measles and tuberculosis were reported to have increased.

In August 1990, when the Security Council imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, the effect of sanctions was that it caused suffering and death in Iraq, especially to children. The maternal mortality rate increased from 50/100.000 live births in 1989 to 117/100.000 in 1997 while the infant mortality rate rose from 64/1.000 births in 1990 to 129/1.000 in 1995. Majority of population of young children was affected by malnutrition.

Looking at these facts, therefore, the quote “Economic sanction is the weapon of mass destruction” cited by Jay Gordon of Social Science Research Council proves to be true. President Woodrow Wilson had quoted “A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, but it brings a pressure upon the nation which, in my judgment, no modern nation could resist.” It may be true in his time but he would never have made this comment if he had looked at the data specified above.

Economic sanctions seriously affect the economy of the country which is very difficult to recover afterwards as it jeopardizes the overall economic infrastructure of the target country that has been built upon long period of time. The target countries of economic sanctions suffer devastating trade, economic and social consequences.

The economic infrastructure developed after long period of economic exercises can be broken down in an instant because of economic sanction. For example before 1990, Iraq had invested in infrastructure and in ‘human resources development’ to create ‘an efficient health system that was considered one of the best in the Middle-East Region’ but because of the economic sanctions laid to it over the past decade, the health sector, which is also a foundation of the economy of the country, has been devastated. The economic sanctions caused over $200bn worth of damage to the infrastructure and civilian economic assets as cited in “The Ecologist”.

It is not that economic sanctions affect the target country only but recent studies and research have revealed that it has adverse effects on the economy of the imposer as well thus proving that economic sanctions are not as effective as seems to be. For example, Kimberly Ann Elliott of Peterson Institute in his paper “Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Economic Sanctions” quotes, “Trade sanctions deprive the United States of the gains from trade and frequently penalize exporting firms that are among the most sophisticated and productive in the US economy. As American sanctions have expanded and proliferated over the past 20 years, they have also led to increasing tensions between the Unites States and its allies and trading partners around the world costing the United States $15 billion to $19 billion in forgone merchandise exports to 26 target countries in 1995”. This also proves how much economic sanctions are irrelevant from the perspective its imposer as well.

In conclusion, economic sanctions which are often used by powerful nations or group of nations to fulfill their vested interests is very unjust. They ignore the basic human rights of the citizens and devastate the economic infrastructure of the target country. Though the death and suffering that people have to face may not seem so significantly as in war or other disaster, but the effects of economics sanctions is somewhat similar to that of war. The difference is only that economic sanctions are like slow poison, the negative effects of which will be seen in near future. Beside, economic sanctions do not only have adverse affects in the economy of the target country but the imposer itself as well, thus making it completely irrelevant in today’s world.

« return.



by alok shrestha
Published on: Nov 7, 2007
Topic:
Type: Opinions
https://www.tigweb.org/express/panorama/article.html?ContentID=16841


Economic sanctions are often practiced by one country or group of countries on another for different reasons but most particularly for political interests. Some of the examples of economic sanctions are tariffs, trade barriers, import duties, and import or export quotas etc. Various forms of economic sanctions have been imposed on different countries for varying reasons. But while imposing economic sanctions, the imposer often neglects the basic human rights of the civilians and economic rights of the target country and often hampers its own economy making it irrelevant in today’s context where the world is being globalised from every aspect like business, politics, technology, education etc. The economic sanctions, though intended for some political interest, not only affect the political environment of the target country but also create several hardships to its citizens. As a simple example, India imposed economic sanctions on Nepal during 1989 and 1990 only because of the reason that Nepal contracted to buy some arms from China for its internal security reasons. Economic sanctions on Nepal created discomfort to common Nepalese people and most importantly weakened the countries economy. Nepal was not able to do international business as it is a landlocked country and doesn’t have easy access to sea. Exports of goods couldn’t happen due to which local industries were closed down dismantling the economy of the country. I still remember the days when I used to stay at the back of my father’s motorbike and wait in queue for whole day for a liter of kerosene and petrol that was kept in stock by some gas-station. Industries were closed down as no raw materials could be imported due to closure of borders which resulted in increase in unemployment creating several hardships to civilians. I had one of my family members working in a garment factory. But when India sanctioned Nepal, he lost his job as no raw material could be imported due to which he had no money to feed his children properly and also couldn’t afford for the education of his children. Thus, economic sanction not only has effects in political level but its repercussions are far more adverse for the people, which often doesn’t come to highlight as it should be. Some critics argue that the sanctions was worthy from the perspective of safety of democracy of Nepal and eventually for the safety of Indian democracy as well from strong communist country like China. But it seems comical that one of the biggest democratic countries of the world took undemocratic step in name of saving democracy. It was not righteous and democratic job to lock up a sovereign country in the name of democracy. It has been proven from the past that economic sanctions negatively affect the health of citizens of target country. Physicians who have traveled to nations affected by economic sanctions reported that suffering is caused by lack of medical supplies or other basic health-related resources. For example, the economic sanction imposed by United Nations in a country excluded food and medical supplies, the availability of basic medications decreased by 50% because the raw materials needed to produce them could not be imported. As a result, rates of typhus, measles and tuberculosis were reported to have increased. In August 1990, when the Security Council imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, the effect of sanctions was that it caused suffering and death in Iraq, especially to children. The maternal mortality rate increased from 50/100.000 live births in 1989 to 117/100.000 in 1997 while the infant mortality rate rose from 64/1.000 births in 1990 to 129/1.000 in 1995. Majority of population of young children was affected by malnutrition. Looking at these facts, therefore, the quote “Economic sanction is the weapon of mass destruction” cited by Jay Gordon of Social Science Research Council proves to be true. President Woodrow Wilson had quoted “A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, but it brings a pressure upon the nation which, in my judgment, no modern nation could resist.” It may be true in his time but he would never have made this comment if he had looked at the data specified above. Economic sanctions seriously affect the economy of the country which is very difficult to recover afterwards as it jeopardizes the overall economic infrastructure of the target country that has been built upon long period of time. The target countries of economic sanctions suffer devastating trade, economic and social consequences. The economic infrastructure developed after long period of economic exercises can be broken down in an instant because of economic sanction. For example before 1990, Iraq had invested in infrastructure and in ‘human resources development’ to create ‘an efficient health system that was considered one of the best in the Middle-East Region’ but because of the economic sanctions laid to it over the past decade, the health sector, which is also a foundation of the economy of the country, has been devastated. The economic sanctions caused over $200bn worth of damage to the infrastructure and civilian economic assets as cited in “The Ecologist”. It is not that economic sanctions affect the target country only but recent studies and research have revealed that it has adverse effects on the economy of the imposer as well thus proving that economic sanctions are not as effective as seems to be. For example, Kimberly Ann Elliott of Peterson Institute in his paper “Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Economic Sanctions” quotes, “Trade sanctions deprive the United States of the gains from trade and frequently penalize exporting firms that are among the most sophisticated and productive in the US economy. As American sanctions have expanded and proliferated over the past 20 years, they have also led to increasing tensions between the Unites States and its allies and trading partners around the world costing the United States $15 billion to $19 billion in forgone merchandise exports to 26 target countries in 1995”. This also proves how much economic sanctions are irrelevant from the perspective its imposer as well. In conclusion, economic sanctions which are often used by powerful nations or group of nations to fulfill their vested interests is very unjust. They ignore the basic human rights of the citizens and devastate the economic infrastructure of the target country. Though the death and suffering that people have to face may not seem so significantly as in war or other disaster, but the effects of economics sanctions is somewhat similar to that of war. The difference is only that economic sanctions are like slow poison, the negative effects of which will be seen in near future. Beside, economic sanctions do not only have adverse affects in the economy of the target country but the imposer itself as well, thus making it completely irrelevant in today’s world. « return.