Starve the people, miss the point: The cruel logic of sanctions

Russia Today

19-05-2025

Sanctions have become a preferred instrument in international diplomacy applied either to avoid war or when war is politically unpalatable. In theory, sections are meant to pressure countries into changing their political course or forcing them into compliance with demands, usually by Western powers, over certain issues of dispute. According to a 2023 UN report, the US, UK, EU and Canada are 'prolific' users of sanctions, including banking sanctions that affect the entire population of a targeted country.
Yet sanctions – especially those aimed at entire economies – have repeatedly failed to force political change. Instead, they often cause devastating consequences for civilians while leaving political elites unscathed. They simply morph into a collective punishment against an entire population.
History is replete with examples when sanctions have punished populations far more than they have pressured governments. From Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Iran and North Korea, sanctions raise a fundamental question: how does the UN, a body founded to promote peace and human dignity, justify the use of tools that so often inflict collective suffering? The preamble to the UN Charter says the UN is 'to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.' At the same time, Article 41 of the same document gives the UN Security Council (UNSC) full power to impose sanctions including the 'interruption' of communications such as the postal service.
Zealous supporters of sanctions, quite deceptively, came up with a term to minimize their devastating human cost. They describe them as 'smart' or 'targeted,' meaning they only target the political class and elites while minimally affecting the wider population. However, this is not the case in reality. Sanctions, both smart and otherwise, include assets freeze, travel bans, economic boycotts, diplomatic isolations and threats with penalizing measures.
According to President Vladimir Putin and various studies, Russia is under over 28,000 instances of sanctions imposed after the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. Thanks to its veto power in the UNSC, none were imposed by the UN. Instead the US, EU, and UK ganged up not only to impose their own sanctions but also to bully other countries to do the same. The idea was to strangle the Russian economy in order to force Moscow to accept ending the Ukraine conflict on Western terms. President Putin, rightly, believes the grand aim is to strategically weaken Russia with long-term economic effects.
Some sanctions are weird and comical. Here are a few examples: Russian cats are banned from taking part in international competitions; there is a ban on the export of grand pianos, saddles, US chewing tobacco, snuff and tobacco refuse, American sparkling wine, and Disney's cartoon film 'Turning Red'. How these bans will help Ukraine is a puzzle.
On more serious note, and scandalously contradictory in light of the claimed Western 'values,' is the ban of RT and all Russian media in the EU. I used to see the printed Russian Izvestia daily in Paris kiosks, but not after 2022. Yet, the EU never really stopped lecturing the world about freedom of speech. People in EU countries cannot see or hear any Russian news, which subjects them to a one-sided view of Russia and the conflict in Ukraine.
Although the sanctions on certain sectors, such as transportation, electronic payments, have affected the lives of normal people, the sanctions regime as a whole has so far failed to produce the result it really wished for: the toppling of Putin and weakening of Russia's overall economic standing.
Libya is an example of devastating blanket sanctions on the general population. Unlike Russia, Libya is not a veto-wielding member of the UNSC, meaning almost all of the sanctions were imposed through relevant UNSC resolutions, making them obligatory to all UN member countries.
In 1988, Libya was accused of orchestrating the bombing of US Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland killing all 259 on-board and another 11 on the ground. The US and UK imposed their wills on the UNSC to sanction Libya with penalties including a complete shutdown of air travel to and from Libya, freezing of assets, and a trade embargo of many goods, technologies, spare parts, medicine and some types of food.
The aim was to force Libya to hand over two of its citizens accused of the bombing, and above all, to topple the Gaddafi government. The entire Libyan population lived under those stringent sanctions from 1992 until 2003 when a compromise was reached to prosecute the suspects in a Scottish court set up in a neutral venue. One of the peculiar sanctions was this: an American exchange student at Malta University could be prosecuted for buying anything from the only university cafeteria, which was owned by the US-sanctioned Libyan company!
The worst example of the human toll of sanctions on everyday people is that of Iraq. Iraq was first sanctioned after it invaded Kuwait in August 1990. However, those sanctions failed to force it to leave Kuwait, nor did they lead to the removal of President Saddam Hussein. In 2003, the US and UK accused Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction and invaded the country without UN authorization. Preparations for the invasion included widening and strengthening the already existing harsh sanctions to include odd items such as adhesive paper, aluminium foil, batteries, bicycles, books, candles, calculators, cameras, carpets, dishware, eyeglasses, and fans.
Saddam Hussein and his government survived the sanctions from 1990s until the invasion in 2003, but for the general population the so-called smart sanctions had a genocidal effect. According to UNICEF, for example, 500,000 children under five years old died because of the sanctions. Other sources put the figure at around 570,000.
Overall and after the 2003 invasion, sanctions were the top cause of the death of 1.5 million Iraqis, while those who survived suffered long-term consequences such as malnutrition. Yet, not a single WMD was found in Iraq. Then-US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright explained in 1996 that the human price paid by the Iraqis was 'worth it.'
Another devastating example of blanket sanctions can be found in Afghanistan starting in the 1990s when the Taliban first took over. Most of the sanctions then were imposed by the UNSC including Resolution 1267 (1999) banning air travel and imposing an asset freeze. After the Taliban defeated NATO/US-trained forces, in August 2021, those sanctions were not lifted but rather restructured into what were falsely termed smart/targeted sanctions aimed at Taliban officials but still affecting the general population. In 2022, the administration of Joe Biden literally stole $7 billion of Afghanistan's central bank funds.
Today, almost all kinds of external aid that would potentially be available to the country is either not coming in or only trickling through in small volumes because of the sanctions, thus hardly meeting the needs of an already war-ravaged population. In the end, the sanctions failed to topple the Taliban or force them to change their policies.
Many countries also use blanket sanctions against others together with the US, the global leader in using sanctions in the last 50 years. Israel, an ally of the US, uses sanctions against the general population in Gaza—in many cases the sanctions are an actual blockade and thus amount to a war crime.
Since 2006, Israel has imposed a total siege on the Palestinian enclave of Gaza. Even before the eruption of the current war, Israel would inspect and check every cargo that goes into the territory. Among items banned are sewing machines, toys, chocolate and spices. Israel says it bans such items for security reasons.
After the war started in October 2023, Israel imposed a complete shutdown of Gaza, cutting fuel, electricity, medicine, water, food and all kinds of electronics and machinery. The harsh Israeli policy of complete siege of the enclave has been the subject of at least three legal cases before the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, which indicated both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
For any sanctions to be imposed by the UNSC, Article 41 of the UN's charter is always referenced. It gives the Security Council the authority to impose sanctions, in theory, to avoid war and or maintain peace. However, the issue of blanket sanctions raises serious ethical questions. Critics view such sanctions as collective punishment, and many go as far as describing them as weapons of mass destruction akin to detonating a bomb that kills thousands of people very quickly – whereas sanctions merely kill them slowly.
The historical record suggests that sanctions fail to achieve their political objectives while severely harming civilian populations. Sanctions also represent another face of Western hegemony since in most cases it is Western countries, particularly the US, that tend to overuse them as a tool of foreign policy.