There are few diplomatic terms as deceptive as "sanctions."
On the one hand it conveys the impression that the action referred to is sanctified by divine providence or some other superior being. But what are sanctions in reality?
They are a deadly instrument of war in the hands of those who presume they have the authority to mete out punishment. The latter is clearly understood by the capitalist politicians and various courts of imperialist diplomacy.
Sanctions have been applied differently under different historical circumstances. In the 1930s, when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia and the League of Nations was asked to apply some form of punishment against his invasion, it ignored the request.
The United Nations has on innumerable occasions passed sanctimonious resolutions against South Africa and Israel. The latter, as we know, has repeatedly invaded Lebanon, has occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and evicted millions of Palestinians from their native land. Not only has no army, navy or air force from the "international community" been levied against Israel, but there have been no meaningful sanctions either.
With South Africa, we have a different situation. The U.S. government along with the British, French and others have loudly proclaimed their abhorrence of apartheid. But whatever sanctions they have applied have been of such a minimal character as to have little influence on the economic or political course of the racist regime.
Much has been written about the punishment meted out by the Western imperialist governments, but when it is all added up it counts for very little indeed.
A point almost always overlooked is that South Africa invaded Angola, openly, clearly and viciously. Yet nothing was done by the imperialists to alter that situation, while the racist regime continued to pour arms and soldiers into its struggle against Angolan independence. True, some hocus pocus lending schemes were altered by the big banks, but all this could be easily turned around later.
The apartheid regime's recognition of the African National Congress and the beginning of negotiations is due to the heroic struggle of the Black masses of workers and peasants, and their tremendous support from the international working class and oppressed peoples throughout the world.
On the other side of the world there's Panama, where the U.S. so brutally invaded the country and visited death and destruction from its planes and gunships. An important factor there has bearing on the present controversy with regard to sanctions, and we must assume quite a number of capitalist politicians and White House advisers are well aware of it.
Before the U.S. embarked upon the military invasion of Panama, it laid the ground for it by imposing sanctions upon the Panamanian government.
Sanctions are a form of punishment through economic sabotage and outright economic war. For many months the U.S. government, with its enormous resources, tried to strangle Panama by cutting off much of its economic and financial assets and putting a tight blockade around this very small and poor country.
Yet the U.S. had no intention to use just sanctions alone. The economic war was continued by embargo and naval blockade. The measures put the small country under a virtual siege.
It was obvious that such a small country (which doesn't even have its own currency — it uses the U.S. dollar) had to import much of its food and other necessities from the U.S. So there were some timid voices in Congress, very few it must be admitted, who cried, "Let the sanctions work."
But the Pentagon looked upon sanctions as a preparatory step to dealing a death blow to the Panamanian government. Those who cried out "Let sanctions work" were either eager to substitute slow starvation and death for cruel military assault, or they were completely muddled about the meaning of sanctions.
Panama is a textbook case where the U.S.-enforced sanctions were meant to be followed by a savage military assault to subdue the country. One smoothed the road for the other.
At the time, it seemed that there were very few in the progressive movement here who saw the real relationship between sanctions and military invasion in Panama. Today, the same question is being raised in relation to Iraq.
Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein have, of course, been painted with the same vicious brush. This was also true with earlier leaders in the liberation struggle — Omar Torrijos, for example, the leader of Panama in the 1970s; or Abdul Karim Kassim, the leader who emerged in Iraq after the overthrow of the monarchy in the 1950s. The Iraqi monarchy had been a valuable instrument for the imperialist oil monopolies and a keystone in the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), which the imperialists intended as a complement to NATO.
Why, with the lesson of Panama so clear before us, should there still be so much confusion in the progressive movement with regard to sanctions?
It is because the capitalist press, which is quick to point out significant facts whenever that suits their purposes, has been downright deceitful on this issue, no less so than the imperialist governments which imposed the sanctions on Iraq.
The UN Security Council, at the behest of the U.S., managed to pass no less than 10 resolutions, each of them calculated to strangle the economic and social life of Iraq. These 10 resolutions, each doing its part, constitute no less than an absolute declaration of economic war to the death.
If one thing emerged clearly from the Security Council, it was that those who voted for sanctions had a clear conception of what they meant. The intention of the resolutions, if carried out to the very end, was the slow economic death of the Iraqi people. Anyone who reads these resolutions — which specifically name all the items barred, from guns to gum — would know what they meant.
To put an embargo into effect means setting up a naval blockade. It means that ships can be stopped and inspected. The boarding of a ship by military personnel of another country is an act of war. Yet all this was permitted by the Security Council.
While the embargo began early in August, the press did little to explain its real meaning — that these resolutions would add up to economic warfare in the event they were carried to their logical conclusion.
It was an open declaration of economic war. And moreover it was begun without any of the UN Security Council members getting the consent of their own parliaments or congresses. Such was the hurry with which it was conceived.
Small wonder, for the U.S. was already deploying hundreds of thousands of troops without asking the Security Council for permission. And for the first six weeks no one among the congresspeople uttered a word of opposition. It was only after it became clear that the Pentagon was headed for a blitzkrieg type of attack on Iraq that there was a public discussion, which seemed to rotate around whether sanctions would work in place of an outright military offensive.
Some of the capitalist politicians, reflecting a considerable fear in the ruling circles of U.S. finance capital, thus began a campaign to pose sanctions against outright military warfare.
An unwary portion of the population, anxious to grasp at any straw which would stop a military intervention, immediately latched on to sanctions as the alternative.
One would think, however, that those who have been in the progressive movement over a number of years would be able to understand the relationship between sanctions and outright military attack, since from the point of view of principles, economic warfare is merely another form of subjugating oppressed people.
Militarists like former Pentagon chiefs of staff Adm. William Crowe and Gen. David Jones have also called for sanctions. This is clearly not out of pacifist considerations. They say openly that sanctions are the means of laying the groundwork for military attack. If the Iraqi regime collapses as a result of the economic warfare, then military warfare is no longer needed.
But if economic warfare, which means mass destruction of the population through starvation, etc., fails, then a blitzkrieg type of military warfare becomes inevitable. That is the thinking of the militarists and capitalist politicians.
Is it possible for progressives, those in the anti-war movement, to become captive of such a program? If one carefully examines the activities of the two coalitions against the Iraq war — the Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East and the Campaign for Peace in the Middle East — it is absolutely clear that one of them hews to the line of sanctions as the alternative to military attack.
It is appalling but nonetheless true that the Campaign for Peace has to this day issued not a single word which condemns sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council against the Iraqi government. On the contrary, it has kept a dead silence on it formally. But the activities of many of its supporters in various cities have made it clear that they support sanctions.
In Boston, for instance, a leaflet issued by the Campaign for Peace calls upon the people to "support our troops" without saying they should be brought home. "Embargo yes, war no!" was one of the demands in a Dec. 1 rally they called. In Washington, D.C., demonstrators organized by the Campaign led the chant, "Let sanctions work." There has been no denial of this stand and no condemnation of sanctions from the Campaign leadership.
There will never be a withdrawal of U.S. troops if the movement is committed to maintaining sanctions against an oppressed country, for the troops are needed to support the sanctions. Should this not be clear to anyone who contemplates the significance of the relationship between economic and military warfare?
On the other hand, the Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East has clearly and boldly proclaimed its denunciation of not only military warfare but economic warfare as well. It has roundly condemned sanctions wherever the opportunity was presented.
It was originally thought that when the Campaign for Peace committee was organized, it would of course come out as clearly against sanctions and economic warfare as it does against military warfare. Now we see that is not the case.
This, in our view, is a fundamental difference that overrides all other considerations.
Now there appear to be two anti-war demonstrations scheduled for Washington on different dates in January. Whoever thinks the issue is which date is better, or says that the struggle between the two groups is over the date, misses the point entirely. Before there can be any organizational understanding between the two coalitions, there has to be a clear understanding of the political differences, from which the organizational questions stem in the first place.
Last updated: 23 March 2018