Those useless Russian sanctions.......

The problem with sanctions against Russia is that they will not work. They never do. They usually penalise the blameless and have little impact on the ruling classes.

 

I was a member of Lord Soames’ team that monitored the 1980 elections in  Rhodesia. Sanctions had been in force for 15 years. The effects had been largely beneficial. True the only Scotch to be had was ‘Hundred Pipers’ but the overall outcome had been to stimulate manufacturing industry in a country previously dependent on agriculture and mining. All paper was recycled. A new wine industry grew up, although the taste of the end-product was sufficient reason for capitulation.Any make of European car was available except British, which illustrates another possible outcome of sanctions. Other countries will take advantage to snatch business for themselves.

 

The Smith rule collapsed because John Vorster cut off its arms supply, believing that a settlement in Rhodesia would take the heat off South Africa. Vorster did not understand that in war you ‘fight forward’.

 

It is claimed that sanctions brought about the demise of apartheid. They did not. Apartheid ended because the country had become ungovernable. The sporting ban had an effect on morale where the national religion is rugby but there was little  sign of economic damage. And the US ‘disinvestment’ strategy whereby American companies had to get out of South Africa merely led to their disposal locally at fire-sale prices. One cheeky Cape Town restaurateur actually registered ‘McDonalds’ as his brand name!

 

The US constantly used sanctions against Hispanic regimes that it disapproved of, not necessarily because they were ‘undemocratic’ but because they were seen as ‘communist’-inclined. They simply made the US even more unpopular throughout the whole region.

 

Sanctions against Serbia in the ‘90s did not prevent the invasion of Bosnia. I saw some of the results of the subsequent policy of ethnic cleansing.

 

The Russian situation is unusual. Sanctions are used more frequently against small countries by big ones. The most notorious modern failure is the continuing sanctions by the US against Cuba, which are still in force despite the recent diplomatic rapprochement. They were useless in destabilising the regime, but they did give Castro a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cast himself as the Hispanic hero facing down the big Yanqui bully. He was very successful in this role.

 

North Korea is the most loathsome regime of modern times against some pretty fierce competition. It has long been subject to Western sanctions that have had no discernible effect, not even in preventing the acquisition of nukes. China ensures that Kim Jong-un stays in place as a barrier against a West-leaning government on  its northern border.

 

Russia is in increasingly dire straits economically but it is abundantly plain that this is overwhelmingly due to the collapse of the oil price. Incredibly, its response has been to increase production even further to garner more dollars as the rouble heads south at breakneck speed.

 

Those who believe that sanctions are an alternative to armed conflict should reflect that when  Pericles imposed sanctions against a neighbour for abducting a number of women, it led to the Peloponnesian  War.

 

And that was in 432 BC.