You are definitively right from a theoretical point of view. The problem is that sanctions are mainly a virtue signaling exercise for western politicians. Take Russia: would have been much more effective to grant a visa to well educated Russians than put those silly sanctions for which Europe picks up the bill. The good Russians fled to the UAE and Europe pays the price for its own idiocy.
I am not sure about the claim that sanctions have extremely detrimental effects on the sanctioned countries while at the same time having no desirable effects on the behaviors of the regime. I agree that one shouldn't expect the regime to care a lot about the well being of its people, but to some extent the well being of the people should be related to the capabilities and well being of the regime. It seems like too strong of a contrary claim that the effects of sanctions are awful, yet have no effect, or even counter productive effects. How long can you inflict "tens of thousands of deaths per year" on most countries?
That's just it though, a state losing 0.1% a year extra in say combat deaths would be a pretty massive death toll. Now, granted those would be more vital resources to the state than the bottom rungs of the social ladder, but losing 1% or 2% of the population after a decade or two seems like it would have a pretty substantial effect. Sooner or later you run out of people to redistribute wealth from.
Amazing people, these self-proclaimed intellectuals, but in fact, absolute and soulless ignoramuses. What kind of rationalism, solidarity and common sense can we talk about if the super-educated and highly intelligent do not live and think in the categories they should think in if they were intellectuals! We live in a world of absurdity and deception, according to the rules, norms and morals of bandits, all our social institutions were created by bandits and profit-obsessed traders. Patriarchy, states, political parties, public and religious organizations, family, the meaning of life in satisfying instincts, and in the eternal search for blissful and useless emotions are imposed on humanity by force and deception by bandits and money-grubbers. Are you blind, deaf or ignorant? Then why do you, literate and educated, live by the norms, morality of absurdity and deception and do nothing? Start with yourself, kick your instincts into your heels, forget about searching for emotions, live rationally, according to the level of your knowledge, if you have any.
Observed sanctions regimes may be ineffective, but that doesn't mean that sanctions as a tool are ineffective. The reason is that if a sanctions regime would be effective, the target government will anticipate this and cave to the policy demands of the US/West. So, we only observe sanctions in the cases where the target government prefers to continue with its policy despite sanctions, and where it believes sanctions won't increase a coup chance too much. The West continues to sanction these countries to deter others (even if we grant that sanctions don't impact the target's ability to do "bad" things).
I don't think anyone is going to be convinced by the "victims deserve asylum" argument, because I I think the majority of people believe that immigrants (on average) impose large (not necessarily monetary) costs on their country. People won't scale feel good positions like "helping refugees is worth the cost" to admitting a large fraction of a country's population.
The "admit immigrants as a sanction" argument doesn't do much either. Instead of persuading people that immigrants are a net positive, you now "just" need to persuade them that they are a sufficiently small net cost that it is worth it to punish the "enemy" government. In practice, I think that convincing the public of the former would be just as easy as the latter.
I agree with the contours of the argument, but I would distinguish between countries that are sanctioned for being repressive and those that are sanctioned as enemies of the United States.
In the example of Venezuela, the sanctions imposed due to the Venezuelan government's non-cooperation with international anti-drug and antiterrorism initiatives don't support an argument for granting asylum to residents of Venezuela.
The claim that the sanctions are ineffective seems to be countered by the example of Syria and maybe also South Africa. The Syrian regime may of course have collapsed for reasons other than the sanctions.
Similarly, instead of imposing sanctions should a western democracy send generous amounts of aid to despotic countries? Doesn't seem to have worked very well so far. . .
You are definitively right from a theoretical point of view. The problem is that sanctions are mainly a virtue signaling exercise for western politicians. Take Russia: would have been much more effective to grant a visa to well educated Russians than put those silly sanctions for which Europe picks up the bill. The good Russians fled to the UAE and Europe pays the price for its own idiocy.
I am not sure about the claim that sanctions have extremely detrimental effects on the sanctioned countries while at the same time having no desirable effects on the behaviors of the regime. I agree that one shouldn't expect the regime to care a lot about the well being of its people, but to some extent the well being of the people should be related to the capabilities and well being of the regime. It seems like too strong of a contrary claim that the effects of sanctions are awful, yet have no effect, or even counter productive effects. How long can you inflict "tens of thousands of deaths per year" on most countries?
Venezuela pop ~30M, so even an extra 30K annual deaths is 0.1%.
Totalitarians already use wealth redistribution to punish internal enemies.
If they get squeezed by sanctions, the least loyal end up in that tenth of a percent.
That's just it though, a state losing 0.1% a year extra in say combat deaths would be a pretty massive death toll. Now, granted those would be more vital resources to the state than the bottom rungs of the social ladder, but losing 1% or 2% of the population after a decade or two seems like it would have a pretty substantial effect. Sooner or later you run out of people to redistribute wealth from.
Amazing people, these self-proclaimed intellectuals, but in fact, absolute and soulless ignoramuses. What kind of rationalism, solidarity and common sense can we talk about if the super-educated and highly intelligent do not live and think in the categories they should think in if they were intellectuals! We live in a world of absurdity and deception, according to the rules, norms and morals of bandits, all our social institutions were created by bandits and profit-obsessed traders. Patriarchy, states, political parties, public and religious organizations, family, the meaning of life in satisfying instincts, and in the eternal search for blissful and useless emotions are imposed on humanity by force and deception by bandits and money-grubbers. Are you blind, deaf or ignorant? Then why do you, literate and educated, live by the norms, morality of absurdity and deception and do nothing? Start with yourself, kick your instincts into your heels, forget about searching for emotions, live rationally, according to the level of your knowledge, if you have any.
Observed sanctions regimes may be ineffective, but that doesn't mean that sanctions as a tool are ineffective. The reason is that if a sanctions regime would be effective, the target government will anticipate this and cave to the policy demands of the US/West. So, we only observe sanctions in the cases where the target government prefers to continue with its policy despite sanctions, and where it believes sanctions won't increase a coup chance too much. The West continues to sanction these countries to deter others (even if we grant that sanctions don't impact the target's ability to do "bad" things).
I don't think anyone is going to be convinced by the "victims deserve asylum" argument, because I I think the majority of people believe that immigrants (on average) impose large (not necessarily monetary) costs on their country. People won't scale feel good positions like "helping refugees is worth the cost" to admitting a large fraction of a country's population.
The "admit immigrants as a sanction" argument doesn't do much either. Instead of persuading people that immigrants are a net positive, you now "just" need to persuade them that they are a sufficiently small net cost that it is worth it to punish the "enemy" government. In practice, I think that convincing the public of the former would be just as easy as the latter.
I agree with the contours of the argument, but I would distinguish between countries that are sanctioned for being repressive and those that are sanctioned as enemies of the United States.
In the example of Venezuela, the sanctions imposed due to the Venezuelan government's non-cooperation with international anti-drug and antiterrorism initiatives don't support an argument for granting asylum to residents of Venezuela.
The claim that the sanctions are ineffective seems to be countered by the example of Syria and maybe also South Africa. The Syrian regime may of course have collapsed for reasons other than the sanctions.
What about the reverse logic? If a country is not being sanctioned, then the US can expel its undesirables to that country.
Similarly, instead of imposing sanctions should a western democracy send generous amounts of aid to despotic countries? Doesn't seem to have worked very well so far. . .