Morality and Foreign Policy

Before I write this all out I should say that I am undecided on this topic. It began as reflecting on a series of news items over the last couple of weeks. In the end this may end up as more of a Devil's advocate piece, or just reflect some evolution in my thinking.

In Western democracies we often use sanctions, political or economic, to penalize governments who violate human rights or operate outside of the geopolitical concert. It's a tricky balance riddled with hypocrisy. There are glaring examples of these contradictions, such as Chinese and Cuban relations with the United States.

Countries exist within a spectrum of human rights. The willingness of us to tolerate a government's human rights abuses seems inversely proportional to its economic importance. We make arms deals with Saudi Arabia and trade with increasingly autocratic Turkey, while we help overthrow the government of Libya and sanction Iran.

However our policies can be slow to respond or adapt, especially when European states are involved, or a big economic relationship is in play. Hungary has been going down a troubling path for years now but there is no calls to discipline them.

For decades there have been questions about the effectiveness of these policies. South Korea and China have improved in their human rights and grown their economies as the world has entered and trade increased. Cuba, Iran, and North Korea seem to have become more and more entrenched as the sanctions dragged on. Sanctions hurt the wrong people and enrich the elite.

I'm not suggesting we sell nuclear technology to North Korea or weapons systems to Iran. What I am doing is questioning the utility of broad sanctions. Sanctions and penalties may make sense for regimes that employ slave labour or terribly exploitative worker practices because giving access to our market only encourages these abuses.

The logic of sanctions also raises questions. Cuba and North Korea, as examples, have been under broad sanctions for decades. They have failed to bring down their regimes. Will four more decades improve the situation or condemn generations to poverty and backwardness? Eventually under this logic doesn't regime change become imperative? If forty years of economic hardship is justified isn't the use of force to compel regime change? Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate the folly of such interventions, but laying endless economic siege hardly seems worthwhile either. In the case of some countries the sanctions are so strict all that is left is military force for negotiation.

Part of my writing on this was inspired by some of the coverage of President Duterte of the Philippines. The man seems a brutal, awful man, but should we let that define our relationship with the 103 million Filipinos?

To a certain extent, especially in semi-democratic/democratic countries it feels like punishment for their choices. It is a grand scale of election meddling. Say Canada put something in place to sanction Duterte, does the government remove them if a challenger beats him in the next election?

As cold as the calculus is it might be worthwhile to consider the opportunity costs for Canada in these sanctions. What options are being abandoned for a system that has not truly proven to be effective? I know in recent years sanctions have targeted leaders rather than countries. In that instance at least I can see a correlation. However, with over one hundred and ninety countries no blockade is tight, so I think it would be worthwhile to consider our effectiveness and intentions when we call for bans, boycotts, sanctions and penalties on those regimes we find odious.