Sanctions on Syria
Possible motions:
THW would put sanctions on Syria
THB that the international community should put sanctions on autocratic governments
THB that sanctions are beneficial
Definitions:
Sanction: an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication.
Economic sanctions can involve limiting exports to the sanctioned country, restricting imports, or impeding the flow of finance to the target country.
Background on issues in Syria:
Syria is a country with a 74% Sunni Muslim population, but the minority Alawi population is wealthier, in higher social status and has governmental control. Alawites are considered part of the Shia sect by Shia Muslims, but are not even recognized as Muslims by the Sunni sect, which views them as a heretical group that combines both Islamic and Christian ideals.
On March 21, demonstrators in the Syrian city of Dara’a set fire to the ruling Baath Parth’s headquarters and other government buildings. Police officers fired live ammunition into the crowds, killing at least one and wounding others. Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, made some conciliatory gestures, but crowds continued to gather in Dara’a, demanding things such as the release of all political prisoners, trials for those who shot and killed protestors, the abolition of Syria’s 48-year emergency law, more freedoms, and an end to corruption in the government.
Since then, Syria has continued to crack down on protestors, killing around 2,200 of them, according to human rights groups. President Obama, as well as several European nations, have sanctioned al-Assad personally, as well as several of his chief officials. On August 18th, President Obama issued sanctions against Assad and his group of chief officials as well, freezing all of his assets that are under U.S. jurisdiction and preventing any American businesses from doing business with him. The EU recently increased the sanctions to cover 54 people within the Syrian government and 12 entities, mostly businesses, that are likely contributing resources to the military. The EU is currently holding talks to pass through another round of sanctions.
Pros and Cons
1. Sanctions can help influence autocrats to step down by limiting their ways to survive for long periods of time. 1. Unilateral sanctions (especially trade sanctions) don’t hurt a country enough to enact change, and still give the target country a way to survive.
2. Multilateral sanctions work well, especially against the U.S. in 2002-03 (U.S. steel tariff controversy) 2. Trade sanctions hurt the country handing out the sanction.
3. Large-scale political change can come from sanctions (South Africa) 3. Sanctions have the potential to hurt citizens without forcing political change (Iraq)
Case Studies!
1. U.S. embargo on Cuba- The United States embargo against Cuba is a commercial, economic, and financial embargo partially imposed on Cuba in October 1960. It was enacted after Cuba expropriated the properties of United States citizens and corporations and it was strengthened to a near-total embargo since February 7, 1962 (though in 2000, Clinton authorized the sale of certain "humanitarian" US products to Cuba). The stated purpose of the embargo, entitled the Cuban Democracy Act, was to maintain sanctions on the Castro regime so long as it continues to refuse to move toward "democratization and greater respect for human rights.”
It has been advocated that the pro-embargo Cuban-American exiles, whose votes are crucial in Florida, have swayed many politicians to also adopt similar views. The Cuban-American views have been opposed by business leaders whose financial interests prompt them to argue that trading freely would be good for Cuba and the United States. At present, the embargo, which limits American businesses from conducting business with Cuban interests, is still in effect and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history. Despite the existence of the embargo, the United States is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba's imports are from the US). However, Cuba must pay cash for all imports, as credit is not allowed.
A U.S. arms embargo had been in force since March 1958 when armed conflict broke out in Cuba between rebels and the Fulgencio Batista government. In July 1960, in response to Cuba's new revolutionary government's seizure of US properties, the United States reduced the Cuban import quota of brown sugar by 700,000 tons, under the Sugar Act of 1948; the Soviet Union responded by agreeing to purchase the sugar instead, as Cuba's new government continued to take further actions to confiscate American businesses and privately owned property.
Interesting- Just before Kennedy extended the embargo against Cuba in 1962, he asked an aid to purchase 1,000 Cuban cigars for Kennedy's future use immediately before the extended embargo was to come into effect. Salinger succeeded, returning in the morning with 1,200 Petit H. Upmann cigars, Kennedy's favorite cigar size and brand.
In 1962, Cuba was expelled from the Organization of American States (OAS) "by a vote of 14 in favor, one (Cuba) against with six abstentions. Mexico and Ecuador, two abstaining members argued that the expulsion was not authorized in the OAS Charter." Multilateral sanctions were imposed by the OAS on July 26, 1964, but these were rescinded on July 29, 1975. Cuban relations with the Organization of American States have improved as of 3 June 2009 (membership suspension lifted).
Travel- The restrictions on U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba lapsed on March 19, 1977. Though the current regulation does not limit travel of US Citizens to Cuba per se, but it makes it illegal for US Citizens to have transactions (spend money or receive gifts) in Cuba under most circumstances without a US government Office of Foreign Assets Control issued license.
In response to pressure from some American farmers and agribusiness, the embargo was relaxed by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which was passed by the Congress in October 2000 and signed by President Bill Clinton. The relaxation allowed the sale of agricultural goods and medicine to Cuba for humanitarian reasons. Although Cuba initially declined to engage in such trade having even refused US food aid in the past, seeing it as a half-measure serving U.S. interests, the Cuban government began to allow the purchase of food from the U.S. as a result of Hurricane Michelle in November 2001. These purchases have continued and grown since then. In 2007, the US was the largest food supplier of Cuba and its fifth largest trading partner.
This embargo does not prevent U.S. goods from getting to Cuba. Common American goods like Microsoft software and Coca-Cola can be purchased on certain parts of the island. The goods often come from third parties based in countries outside the US, even if the product being dealt originally had US shareholders or investors. This can be seen for example with Nestle products (which have a 10% US ownership) and can be bought in "Convertible Pesos” (CUCs)-hard currency, stores that are pegged to the US dollar, Euro and other currencies. But since 25 National Pesos equal just one Convertible Peso, and CUCs are not used to pay the already small wages, access to such goods by ordinary Cubans is highly restricted. This is a demonstration of how the embargo on Cuba actually hurts the U.S. economy. The president's Export Council, under Bush in 2000, estimated that sanctions (all including the Cuban embargo) imposed by the U.S. against other countries from 1993-2000 cost American exporters $15 billion to $19 billion in lost annual sales overseas.
These sanctions also don’t prevent Cuba’s tourist industry/economy from thriving. Currently many Canadian and European tourists visit Cuba for its tropical setting; even Americans visit occasionally, coming through Mexico or another country (which is ok because Cuba doesn’t stamp passports so there is no government evidence of the visit). On April 13, 2009, President Barack Obama loosened the travel ban, now allowing Cuban-Americans to travel freely to the country. The President has outlined a series of steps that Cuba could do to demonstrate a willingness to open its closed society, including releasing political prisoners, allowing United States telecommunications companies to operate on the island and ending government fees on money sent to Cubans by relatives living abroad. Thus far, however, the Cuban leadership has not altered any of its state-sponsored control over the Cuban population.
The US Chamber of Commerce estimates that the embargo costs the US economy $1.2 billion per year in lost sales and exports, while the Cuban government estimates that the embargo only costs the island itself $685 million annually. The US has spent over $500 million broadcasting Radio Marti and TV Marti, even though the transmission signals of the latter are effectively blocked by the Cuban government. The non-partisan Cuba Policy Foundation estimates that the embargo costs the US economy $3.6 billion per year in economic output.
The sanctions are also primarily detrimental to the Cuban people, not the government. The embargo has been criticized for its effects on food, clean water, medicine, and other economic needs of the Cuban population. The Cuban population is in dire need of most of these items. Some academic critics, outside Cuba, have also linked it to shortages of medical supplies and soap which have resulted in a series of medical crises and heightened levels of infectious diseases. It has also been linked to epidemics of specific diseases, including neurological disorders caused by poor nutrition and blindness. Travel restrictions embedded in the embargo have also been shown to limit the amount of medical information that flows into Cuba from the United States. Malnutrition and disease resulting from increased food and medicine prices have affected men and the elderly, in particular, due to Cuba's rationing system which gives preferential treatment to women and children.
Medical Stats (Dr. Miche`le Barry. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2000) - General practitioners and nurses deliver preventive care through the Family Doctor Program; one physician and one nurse are personally responsible for each neighborhood of 100 to 200 Cuban families. Cuba has twice as many physicians per capita as the United States, and the infant mortality rate is 10 per 1000 births. Since 1975, approximately 50% of all newly patented drugs distributed worldwide have been produced by U.S. drug companies; these drugs are unavailable in Cuba unless they are sold by an intermediary, often at prohibitive cost. A 1994 outbreak of the Guillain–Barre´ syndrome in Havana was caused by water that had been contaminated with Campylobacter species because chlorination chemicals were not available for purification.
2. U.N. sanctions against Iraq- The Iraq sanctions were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council against the nation of Iraq. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and continued until May 22, 2003, after the fall of the Saddam Hussein government in the US-led invasion earlier that year. Their stated purpose was at first to compel Iraq's military to withdraw from Kuwait and after that to compel Iraq to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction, and to do certain other things.
Initially the U.N. Security Council had adopted Resolution 661, a resolution that imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq. After the end of the 1991 Gulf War, those sanctions were extended and elaborated on, including linkage to removal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by Resolution 687. The sanctions banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian circumstances" foodstuffs. They were perhaps the toughest, most comprehensive economic sanctions in human history, and caused much controversy over the increased child-and-infant mortality, poverty, and suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people, marked by two senior UN representatives in Iraq resigning in protest.
The benefits of the sanctions were marginal and not always agreed upon by analysts. Some architects of American war policy such as Douglas J. Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for President Bush. 2001-2005) argue that the sanctions reduced the Iraqi military by cutting off the supply lines for much of its needed resources. In a 2004 Foreign Affairs journal article, the scholars George A. Lopez and David Cortright credit sanctions with: "Compelling Iraq to accept inspections and monitoring; winning concessions from Baghdad on political issue such as the border dispute with Kuwait; preventing the rebuilding of Iraqi defenses after the Persian Gulf War; and blocking the import of vital materials and technologies for producing weapons of mass destruction." This is supported by what Saddam Hussein told his FBI interrogator after he was captured, “[Iraq’s armaments] had been eliminated by the UN sanctions."
Another supposed goal of the sanctions was to remove Hussein from power. In 1991, a New York Times article wrote this: "Ever since the trade embargo was imposed on Aug. 6, after the invasion of Kuwait, the United States has argued against any premature relaxation in the belief that by making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people it will eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power." The article intended to point out the logically flawed assertion that by inflicting hardship on people of a tyrannical government, that people would rise up and somehow overthrow their government. When a dictator is the government, most often that person will remove from the people the ability to overthrow said government. Instead of sanctions causing an empowered people to act justly, they add international oppression to the domestic struggles that are already imposed on them by their own government. Thus, causing hardship on ordinary citizens is an ineffective and immoral way of creating political change.
The primary reason these sanctions against Iraq were so controversial was the dramatic humanitarian toll on the people of Iraq. Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticize the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a program that satisfies the definition of genocide." Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest, calling the effects of the sanctions a "true human tragedy.” Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them.
The sanctions resulted in high rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water. Chlorine was desperately needed to disinfect water supplies, but was banned from manufacture in the country and its import severely restricted due to the potential that it may be used as part of a chemical weapon.
Children were particularly affected. In May 2000 a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) survey noted that almost half the children under 5 years suffered from diarrhea, in a country where the population is marked by its youth, with 45% being under 14 years of age in 2000. In 2000, BBC reported that before Iraq sanctions were imposed by the UN in 1990, infant mortality had "fallen to 47 per 1,000 live births between 1984 and 1989.” This compares to approximately 7 per 1,000 in the UK. The article also reported that in southern and central Iraq, infant mortality rate between 1994 and 1999 had risen to 108 per 1,000. In the spring of 2000 a U.S. Congressional letter demanding the lifting of the sanctions garnered 71 signatures, while House Democratic Whip David Bonior called the economic sanctions against Iraq "infanticide masquerading as policy." Child mortality rate, which refers to children between the age of one and five years, also drastically inclined from 56 to 131 per 1,000 (for the same year periods). However, in the autonomous northern region during the same period, infant mortality declined from 64 to 59 per 1000 and under-5 mortality fell from 80 to 72 per 1000, which was attributed to better food and resource allocation. Child casualty estimates for the sanctioned period range from 170,000 to well over 500,000 (by Western Estimates). The Iraqi government puts the number at well over 1 million.
Another effect on the Iraqi people was that the economy shrank. Normally this is the intended goal (either direct or indirect) of sanctions and would be deemed a success. However, instead of this depressed economic situation hurting the military or accomplishing one of the other goals of the sanctions, it hurt the people. In order to keep the military at full strength, social programs were cut. These programs included efforts in women’s education (which was very rare in Middle East), which was on the rise in Iraq prior to the depressed economy. Power shortages, lack of spare parts and insufficient technical education also lead to the breakdown of many modern facilities.
The overall literacy rate in Iraq had been 78% in 1977 and 87% for adult women by 1985, but declined rapidly since then. Between 1990 and 1998, over one fifth of Iraqi children stopped enrolling in school, consequently increasing the number of non-literates and losing all the gains made in the previous decade. The 1990s also saw a dramatic increase in child labor, from a virtually non-existent level in the 1980s. The per capita income in Iraq dropped from $3510 in 1989 to $450 in 1996, heavily influenced by the rapid devaluation of the Iraqi dinar.
3. Tariff Act of 1789/ Hamilton Tariff- The Hamilton Tariff (July 4, 1789) was the second statute ever enacted by the new federal government of the United States. Most of the rates of the tariff were between 5 and 10 percent, depending on the value of the item. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton was anxious to establish the tariff as a regular source of government revenue and to protect domestic manufacturing. The former was of immediate necessity; the latter was not. The Hamilton Tariff and much of Hamilton's financial plan can be attributed as one of the causes of the schism in the Federalist Party. It protected the Northern manufacturers (by making imported goods more expensive) but harmed Southern farmers (by making products more expensive). This factor was one of the major causes of the Civil War. It is argued that this tariff sent a very clear message. It was called the "Second Declaration of Independence" by newspapers because it was intended to be the economic means to achieve the political goal of a sovereign and independent United States.
4. 2002 United States Steel Tariff- The Section 201 steel tariff is a political issue in the United States regarding a tariff that President George W. Bush placed on imported steel on March 5, 2002 (took effect March 20). The tariffs were lifted by Bush on December 4, 2003. The 2002 United States steel tariff imposed tariffs that ranged from 8-30% on a variety of imported steel products for a period of three years. American steel producers supported the tariffs, but the move was criticized by some including the Cato Institute.
They were imposed to give U.S. steel makers protection from what a U.S. probe determined was a “detrimental surge in steel imports” that would endanger the viability of American steel companies. More than 30 steel makers had declared bankruptcy in recent years. Steel producers had originally sought up to a 40% tariff. Canada and Mexico were exempt from the tariffs because of penalties the U.S. would face under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Additionally, some developing countries such as Argentina, Thailand, and Turkey were also exempt. The typical steel tariff at the time was usually between zero and one percent, making the 8-30 percent rates exceptionally high. These rates, though, are comparable to the standard permanent US tariff rates on many kinds of clothes and shoes.
The tariffs drew domestic controversy from multiple organizations, one of the most prominent being the CATO Institute. CATO argued that, like all other tariffs, the steel tariffs are harmful because they infringe on the free market principles that the U.S. is founded on. It is argued that if a domestic industry is too inefficient to compete with international prices, then it should be allowed to fail. If it is not allowed to fail, we are supporting an inefficient economic structure that will, in the long run, end up hurting the domestic market. The counter to this is that the U.S.’s economy would collapse if they followed this policy because American industries cannot compete with the lower wages and working standards that make labor and goods from other countries cheaper.
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the U.S., thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization. Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.
In late autumn of 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge - steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002 - and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs; in retaliation and under WTO rules, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan — each tariff was calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. Faced with the threat, the United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs early.
5. South Africa- The case of South Africa is one of major controversy among economists and political analysts. Some say that the case of South Africa is one that points to the success of sanctions. However, some state that this is yet another example of failure because the gains were modest and that using South Africa as a model of success is a false comparison in most cases because of the country’s unique circumstances.
The sanctions imposed on South Africa came in the form of disinvestment. Disinvestment, sometimes referred to as divestment, refers to the use of a concerted economic boycott, with specific emphasis on liquidating stock, to pressure a government, industry, or company towards a change in policy, or in the case of governments, even regime change. Often divestment occurs through countries refusing to do business with multinational companies that operate in the targeted country.
Disinvestment from South Africa was first advocated in the 1960s by the U.N, in protest of South Africa's system of Apartheid (a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the government under which the rights of the majority black inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and minority rule by whites was maintained.), but was not implemented on a significant scale until the mid 1980s. The disinvestment campaign, after being realized in federal legislation enacted in 1986 (see next paragraph) by the United States, is credited (by some) as pressuring the South African Government to embark on negotiations ultimately leading to the dismantling of the apartheid system. Though the U.N. attempted to impose sanctions starting in the 60’s, it failed to create any political change which is often attributed to the refusal of the U.K. and U.S. to recognize the sanctions.
Change within South Africa began in 1990, shortly after the U.S. passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which imposed sanctions against South Africa and stated five preconditions for lifting the sanctions, including establishing a timetable for the elimination of apartheid laws and the release of political prisoner Nelson Mandela. The legislation banned all new U.S. trade and investment in South Africa and was a catalyst for similar sanctions in Europe and Japan. Direct air links were also banned, including South African Airways flights to U.S. airports. The withdrawal of operations from major corporations and the loss of confidence by the global banking community caused South Africa's economy to go into a deep recession. The act also required various U.S. departments and agencies to suppress funds and assistance to the then pro-apartheid government. (side-note: President Ronald Reagan attempted to veto the law but was overridden by Congress. This override marked the first time in the twentieth century that a president had a foreign policy veto overridden.)
Change in South Africa did occur though. In 1990 the National Party government took the first step towards dismantling discrimination when it lifted the ban on the African National Congress (ANC) and other political organizations. It released Nelson Mandela from prison after twenty-seven years' incarceration on a sabotage sentence. A negotiation process known as the Convention for a Democratic South Africa was started. The government repealed apartheid legislation. South Africa destroyed its nuclear arsenal and acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. South Africa held its first multi-racial elections in 1994, which the ANC won by an overwhelming majority. It has been in power ever since.
