Posted on Thursday 3 November 2005
Afshin Molavi, an Iranian who opposes the current hardline regimes, writes in the NY Times to question whether economic sanctions on Iran will really help.
Now more than ever, middle-class and other democracy-minded Iranians need to preserve and expand their network of institutions independent from the government – institutions in which they can take refuge from the rapacious hardliners who seek to control all aspects of Iranian life. That network should include a strong private sector; a rich array of nongovernmental organizations dealing with issues like poverty, women’s rights and youth unemployment; and social, intellectual and cultural associations that communicate with counterparts abroad.
Unfortunately, United States sanctions now prevent any American person or group from financially supporting, say, a microfinance bank, a program to train future political leaders or even an education initiative for rural women in Iran. That is a mistake. Elsewhere in the Middle East, the United States has programs that provide exactly these kinds of grants, in the name of democratization.
The United States should ease such sanctions in order to match its rhetorical commitment to Iranian democracy with meaningful action. The European Union should also step up its support for democratic activists and its commitment to the protection of human rights in Iran. Meanwhile, development institutions like the World Bank should invest in Iran’s emerging private sector, which is not affiliated with the country’s business mafias or the government-linked foundations that control about a quarter of the country’s wealth.
I think economic sanctions generally do more harm than good. I mean, look at America’s economic sanctions on Cuba that have been so effective in bringing Castro’s regime down. Dude’s been leading Cuba for decades despite the US approach…that’s what you call failed policy.
I’m of the philosophy that more money flowing into the private sector is much more effective in creating a strong middle and upper class to bring down dictatorships from within. If the US would have lifted its embargo on Cuba thirty years ago, I think that there’s a much greater chance Castro would be in jail or dead. When communism collapsed, his regime would have probably gone with it.
Tags: cuba, economic-sanctions, fidel-castro, iran, News and Politics
The question is not “will sactions help or hurt,” but whether citizens of a country hold their leaders accountable to basic human rights like education, health, freedom and the like. Notice that having nuclear weapons is not a basic human right, particularly for leaders of governments with church-state structures.
The leaders need to re-direct their spending away from warfare and towards the welfare of their citizens. Sanctions over a few years can help to get the leaders attention to do just that, e.g. Syria, I hope.
I agree that sanctions for decades is like not having sanctions at all, e.g. Cuba.
Money flowing into the “private” sector of a church-state government is like money flowing into a dictator’s coffers. Besides, with the price of oil, Iran has enough money already to foster capitalism if the leaders want to. We must be tough with Iran.
This is just a question: Are there any historical examples of economic sanctions making a significant effect on a society removing a dictatorship from within?
I would be interested to know because, intuitively, it seems like they would result in a larger percentage of the wealth being concentrated in the dictatorship’s network and make the entire country more dependent on the government for basic necessities.
Also, I’m not sure how much the religious angle matters as countries like North Korea, Cuba, and any number of South American locales have done a pretty good job of brining sanctions upon themselves despite religion having a very weak influence.