Are sanctions necessary?

[Willamena]

I'm of the opinion that to attack a state through the health and well-being of their people is unconscionable. Cuba is one example: they were sanctioned because of their ties with the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, but that's not been the case since 1989. What reason is there to contribute to crippling the state at the expense of its people?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What reason is there to contribute to crippling the state at the expense of its people?

One might be to prevent it from evolving into a serious existential threat.

 

[Willamena]

One might be to prevent it from evolving into a serious existential threat.

Its suffering angst about non-existence?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do not understand what you're asking.

 

[Willamena]

The philosophy of the day is the global economy and universal commerce, and against this (our own) philosophy that has developed and that we've deployed, in some cases even imposed, we deny some states participation. There has to be a better way... than killing people by excluding the states from trade and commerce that today keeps states alive. It's archaic and barbaric, and perhaps more words that end in "ick."

 

[Willamena]

I do not understand what you're asking.

Don't mind me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm of the opinion that to attack a state through the health and well-being of their people is unconscionable. Cuba is one example: they were sanctioned because of their ties with the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, but that's not been the case since 1989. What reason is there to contribute to crippling the state at the expense of its people?

Once a policy is in motion, little thought is given to it.
I say open up trade & travel with them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What reason is there to contribute to crippling the state at the expense of its people?

One might be to prevent it from evolving into a serious existential threat.

The philosophy of the day is the global economy and universal commerce, and against this (our own) philosophy that has developed and that we've deployed, in some cases even imposed, we deny some states participation. There has to be a better way... than killing people by excluding the states from trade and commerce that today keeps states alive. It's archaic and barbaric, and perhaps more words that end in "ick."

The bombing of places such as Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was pretty archaic, barbaric, and icky as well. Perhaps early sanctions (or preemptive military action) against the Third Reich would have been the better approach.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't mind me.

I find your input valuable (but sometimes over my head).

 

[billthecat]

It is a question of costs and benefits - both diplomatic and humanitarian.

I think that sanctions don't always necessarily add harm to the populace because their government isn't providing for them in the first place.

But even if the sanctions would pass harm straight through to the people - should the world let any corrupt or abusive government do what they want - internally or externally - because to attempt to stop them could bring harm to the general population of the country?? I'm not asking that rhetorically... it is a hard question and I don't think the answer is a simple yes or no.

 

[sandandfoam]

The bombing of places such as Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was pretty archaic, barbaric, and icky as well. Perhaps early sanctions (or preemptive military action) against the Third Reich would have been the better approach.

Do you believe the Third Reich and Cuba are comparable?

 

[WyattDerp]

One might be to prevent it from evolving into a serious existential threat.

Cuba? Really? Just look at North Korea; the people are suffering horribly, but that does that really keep them from being a potential threat? Nope.

IMHO Cuba is mostly being punished for being so close to home, but non-aligned. Or consider the death squads in Latin America, the only threat that was fought there was to greed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you believe the Third Reich and Cuba are comparable?

No. Why do you ask?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Cuba? Really?

No, not really.

I was very careful to identify and delimit the question to which I was responding. Please work on your reading skills.

 

[sandandfoam]

No. Why do you ask?

I thought it woul have been most unlike you but I wasn't sure if it was implied in this post

The bombing of places such as Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was pretty archaic, barbaric, and icky as well. Perhaps early sanctions (or preemptive military action) against the Third Reich would have been the better approach.

My mistake, apologies.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No problem.

The difficulty with the OP is that it makes it too easy to conflate the question ...

Can there ever be a justification for sanctions?​

with the question ...

Are sanctions against Cuba justified?​

Obviously, to say "No" to the first question is to say "No" to both. But it should also be obvious that saying "Yes" to the first question leaves the second question unanswered.

My assumption was and is that the OP sought to address the first question.

 

[WyattDerp]

No, not really.

I was very careful to identify and delimit the question to which I was responding. Please work on your reading skills.

Right back at you. The post you responded to "What reason is there to contribute to crippling the state at the expense of its people?", "the state" referring to Cuba cited as specific example. You responded with "One might be to prevent it from evolving into a serious existential threat.", and reading comprehension seems to dictate said "it" has to refer to Cuba.

 

[Mr Nice]

it is a matter of trying to force a change of policy in a country without moving to the last resort - War. e.g. it is better to impose sanctions or drop bombs?

The sanctions are also generally an international effort. Needing support of all veto holding members of the UN.

Sanctions generally start in areas that wont effect the people. e.g. embargo on the sale of weapons to the country, travel bans on it's people accused of human rights violations etc.
The next measure (usually via another UN resolution) will boycott buying exports - which starts to effect the economy.

If you have read the news in the last 24 hours, Rao Castro has announced that he will not run for president in 2018 - handing power to a new generation. He has also suggested limiting power to a maximum 2 years - like in the US.

I think that Cuba is becoming less relevant. More relevant would be sanctions being placed on North Korea and Iran. What is you opinion on these?

Mr Nice

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think international diplomacy is a complex and varied thing which requires making all tools available for use when needed.

 

[Mr Nice]

Either you all post to fast or I am too slow. Forgive me. It was my virgin post... The topic of North Korea had already been raised...