The Case Against Russian Sanctions

For a long time, people have proposed sanctioning countries that they do not like. Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba, and so on. Historically, the more common types of sanctions have been things like naval blockades during wartime, as it serves short, immediate goals. Or the prohibition on colonists from trading with colonists of other empires, to keep the wealth in their own system -- though this one wasn't very effective and likely was damaging. But modern sanctions are of a different nature. Rather than subduing a country in the short term, or trying to undercut rivals (I will not use the word Geopolitical, it's pretentious), modern sanctions work as a form of incentive or negative reinforcement. You do something bad, so we sanction you to try and change your mind. For policies, this can be effective. For example, Poland implemented LGBT-Free zones in some parts of the country. The EU threatened to withhold funds, effectively a sanction, and Poland reversed course. Yes the situation is more complicated, but that's just the summary of it. But when it comes to countries like Cuba, Russia, and North Korea, the sanctions seek to change the country's fundamental systems. Frankly, it is a lost cause. But then what?

Let's lay down a few key theories. Most of the time, these sanctions are imposed by liberal democracies seeking to impose liberal democracy upon other nations. Not saying whether that's good or bad, but just that's what's being done. Secondly, these sanctions prevent investment, they prevent business, and they prevent trade. Thirdly, people who have more wealth want more rights. These should be self-evident.

Now, what happens when you combine these three statements? Well first, let's look at what happens when there are no sanctions. Without sanctions, money freely flows, investment occurs, leading to more and higher paying jobs. This is generally true. Naturally, when there are more jobs and more skilled jobs, the general wealth of the people increases. They can afford to be more educated, better thinkers. They become more aware of the broader social system they are in, and they then seek reform. This is why so many revolutionary ideas stem from universities, or at least, they did. Because universities were centers of wealth and education. Naturally then, when the people have more wealth, this then leads to more rights, protests and calls for democracy, calls for reforms and such. Compare the freedom index to GDP per capita, and you will see a correlation. This doesn't prove that wealth produces rights, but even if the inverse is true, that rights produce wealth, the idea is still the same. There is a link between wealth and rights.

What does this all mean? It means that if the wealth of a country increases, the people will naturally become more educated and want more of their 'fair share' of the wealth. See, for example, the union movements of the later 1800s and early 1900s in America. When wealth was generated at substantial amounts, the people naturally do seek their share of it.

Think about this logically, then. If we want to increase the democracy of a country, what will sanctions do? It will impoverish the people by reducing jobs and trade. It will make the people resent the democracies that impose the sanctions. It will make their ideas and system be the cause of their struggles and pains. Economic sanctions only increase wealth disparity in favor of the elites and the powerful. Instead of trying to forcefully impose a regime change, a regime change must come from the will of the people, from popular sovereignty. If the main way that liberalization and democratization comes is by wealth and trade, then surely we should increase wealth and trade with countries whose systems are more restrictive. Take, for instance, North Korea. The people do not rebel and do not ask for more rights. But imagine if all sanctions were removed from North Korea. What would happen? North Korea is rich in lithium. Lithium would then, naturally, be extracted, refined, and shipped internationally. This would create much wealth and many jobs. Then what? The people who mine and refine it, they would then naturally become more educated, more wealthy, better off. They would seek democratization and would likely join movements for that end. With free trade and the removal of sanctions, a democratic state is eventually reached. The process is very slow but very certain.

And do you know what happens with long-term sanctions? Alternatives arise. For example, Amazon was pulled out of Russia. Now Russia has Ozon, essentially an alternative. This happens for many services and companies. When the large foreign one leaves for long enough, the country naturally creates an alternative by free-market principles. Sanctions that threaten to remove foreign investments or companies only work as temporary leverage, not as a permanent solution. Hosting and depending on foreign companies produces leverage that can be exerted for political pressure. But if you pull out and let alterntives arise, suddenly that pressure is lost, and can not be regained. Foreign companies are like a crowbar. Good for leverage, but push it too hard and it'll break, and no more leverage can be exerted.

What, then? Naturally, we should remove sanctions on the nations we despise. Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and so on. On the countries where sanctions are imposed for the purpose of political upheaval. The rulers will never give up their power because of economic sanctions. A poorer population is easier to rule. Less educated people will demand less rights. But by increasing trade and investment in these countries, we increase the progress of democracy.

It sounds counterintuative, but it makes sense when you think about it. The best way to remove these governments is by increasaing the wealth of the people, as the people will naturally seek more rights, more privileges, and more freedom, which all runs counter to those current autocratic governments. Sanctions only remove the wealth and deprive the people of their freedoms further..