Does sanction still help?
Category: Government and Politics
By Fong Yoong Kheong
The United States of America used sanctions to pressure DPRK into giving up its nukes, after the latter fired a nuclear warhead trial. The sanction was passed as a resolution of UN. Within weeks, DPRK announced that it is returning to the round table for talks. Did the sanction on DPRK resulted in peaceful talks?
There is a debate about whether sanctions should be used to pressure DPRK or more trade with DPRK to force it to come out of isolation and then in the hope that democracy will be brought in.
I believe that sanctions are not useful against countries which are poor. DPRK cannot even afford to feed its own people, and most of the aids given to it is channelled to the military. If sanctions are imposed on it, more people will suffer from starvation and the act of sanction would be deemed inhumane. Forcing more people to die for someone to give up nukes.
Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle. 1 Best Selling Diet & Fitness E-Book In Internet History
On the other hand, sanctions are more useful for Iran, a more developed nation which is also meddling with nukes. A united UN resolution on Iran will definitely have a much better effect as the upper class and middle class will pressure the government. And sanctions against Iran will not be labelled "inhumane".
By infusing DPRK with lots of aids, recognising it as a nation, develop bilateral ties and trade ties, allowing it to gradually enter the WTO, should be the direction for the US to go. Just like what the DPRK said, "Sanctions mean war", sanctions for an impoverished state literally means cutting the lifeline of it.
The US needs to also muster key players in participating in a sanction act prior to enforcing it because solitary action makes one look arrogant and lonely. Iran still trades with China, making the US look played out as China steps in and benefit from one competitor less.
Sanctions hardly help. |