Although our attentions have been fixed recently on issues in Northern Africa, the fighting in Cote d'Ivoire has intensified recently due to the power struggle between the two leaders and their followers. On Friday Nigeria and France circulated a draft resolution in the U.N security council imposing sanctions on Laurent Gbagbo, the president of Cote d' Ivoire who has refused to step down after the November 2010 elections in the country.
This conflict in Cote d'Ivoire has displaced nearly 1 million people and this assignment requires that you anlyze the usefulness of imposing economic sanctions on Cote d'Ivoire. What does the U.N. hope to gain by imposing sanctions on the Ivory Coast? Will it help the humanitiarian crisis that is developing? Have economic sanctions traditionally helped resolve issues on the continent? Why or why not? Provide examples to prove your point.
Your well researched response needs to be posted no later than 8:00am Friday April 1.
Sanctions Web Blog (Part 1)
ReplyDeleteSanctions imposed by the United Nations on certain countries are often vehicles by which the international community coaxes the leadership of that country into submission of the will of the international community. To expound, there is often an issue at hand, which requires intervention by international bodies to preserve, what are deemed, certain international humanitarian standards. Such scenarios in the past have followed from bombings against a leader’s own civilians, domestic economic tyranny, corruption, and racial policies such as apartheid in South Africa. In the current situation in the Ivory Coast, in which Gbagbo has refused to hand over power to the incumbent, and as a result, the country has fallen into political and social stalemate, the UN sees economic sanctions against the Ivory Coast as a way to tempt Gbagbo into political submission. A similar case occurred in South Africa during the apartheid era, when the USA and other Western Powers imposed economic sanctions as a way to stimulate the ruling white government to share power with the black populace majority. The idea behind this maneuver is to impose economic sanctions as a way of crippling the market economy of a country. By doing so, social and economic life in that country, in this particular case South Africa, come to a grinding halt, making everyday life for citizens extremely difficult. From here the scenario can develop in two distinct manners. If the rulers have the interest of the people and the country as a whole in mind, they will succumb to the international pressures which have now manifested themselves on the domestic front, and turn over power to a new ruling party which doesn’t impede international jurisdictions that prompted intervention in the form of sanctions in the first place. This is of course the intended outcome of the international community. The result is economic integration of the country into international markets once again, as well as economic upturn for the people in the country. The dilemma that could have been, in the case of South Africa, racial injustice has now been solved, leading to a greater level of equality for the people of the country. If those in rule are more benevolent, then sanctions can proceed with this outcome and can be considered a viable method for dealing with nations that are being abusive domestically.
Unfortunately, economic sanctions can often take a bad turn, as was the case in Serbia during the 1990’s. No matter what the argument for sanctions is, and no matter what the intentions are, they always result in increased economic poverty in a nation, something I have seen with my own eyes when I return to Serbia each summer. Sanctions during the 90’s did help to dethrone Milosevic from power, but they resulted in the complete halt of many leading industries in Serbia. Those that remained were government controlled and thus able to survive. After sanctions were lifted, these government companies held the economic welterweights in the country, and were used to corrupt officials and maintain power and wealth among a few select group of individuals. The way I see it, economic sanctions in this case did prompt and end to humanitarian injustices and war so to speak, but they also thrust a country of 8 Million into poverty and economic hardship. In the end, those imposing the sanctions must carefully weight the potential outcomes and carefully evaluate which are more important.
Sanctions Web Blog (Part 2)
ReplyDeleteThis now brings us to the issue of economic sanctions in the Ivory Coast. While they have proven to be an effective method in dealing with political hooligans in the past such as Gbagbo (I cite Angola, Cuba, South Africa as examples), we must take a careful look at who will be affected. Economic sanctions will most likely depose Gbagbo from power after a certain number of years impossible to determine due to our inability to clearly evaluate Gbagbo’s mental workings. However, what can be inferred is that the sanctions will diminish quality of life for people in the country, prompt poverty, increase food and manufactured goods prices, and stir up economic and social instability within the borders as well as in the nearby republics. In this sense, the people of the Ivory Coast will be more drastically affected by these sanctions. At the end of the day, to them it will be not as important as who is in power, but rather that they cannot feed themselves now. I feel that economic sanctions imposed upon the Ivory Coast will affect the people of the country in a more negative way. This is, as the UN Secretary General cited in his 1998 report on Economic Sanctions and how they could be applied as a use for disarmament in Africa, a very blunt method of dealing with political shrewdness. The more intelligent and careful alternative would be to impose careful economic sanctions on Gbagbo and his political allies’ personal assets but allow the country to continue to function in the international market to perpetuate economic stability and continuation for the people living in the Ivory Coast. They should not be punished for Gbagbo’s wickedness and unconquerable ego. History teaches us that sanctions and economic deposition of a country crumble it for many years, I cite Serbia, Cuba, Haiti, most of Africa, Iran, North Korea, East Germany, and Eastern Europe as examples.
Thank you Ivan for providing such a detailed and well written response! I enjoyed reading it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe question should not be whether this sanction will be successful in bringing down the new leader but should revolve around the cost of these sanctions to Cote d’Ivoire’s citizens. No matter the purpose of the sanctions, the effect on the already impoverished population will be great. With farmers already protesting in the streets and not being able to sell their crops, the future of Cote d’Ivoire under these sanctions looks very dim. Not only is the surrounding economy degrading the value of Cote d’Ivoire’s main export, but if these sanctions are not lifted, it could cost Cote d’Ivoire its $3 Billion USD aid package from the African Union. If the Ivory Coast does not get this financial support, it is certain that the economic situation will only get worse. With a military coup looming over the horizon and sanctions already imposed by the international community, military and humanitarian unrest will plague the region until Gbagbo can be taken out of power or a compromise can be made.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith the efficacy of sanctions in bringing about meaningful change in governmental structure in question, the question of a ban on military goods is more timely. If a dictator is using weapons bought from the rest of the world to kill, harass or otherwise threaten his own people, then the world community should consider the use of military sanctions to prevent weapons from being purchased. If the weapons are being purchased from the outside, it means that there is not a substantial weapons manufacturing industry in the country to be hurt by sanctions. Without weapons, it is far easier to topple a dictator. It also sends a strong message to the dictator that their rule is not supported by the international community and will not be tolerated or ignored. Although is is true that there are countries which would not follow an international ban on military trade, it is true that it would make those goods harder to attain and possibly of lower or less high-tech quality, therefore less effective.
ReplyDeleteSanctions on general goods can be useful, as seen during the Apartheid era, but they can also be ineffectual, as seen by the sanctions on Cuba, Serbia and other nations. If the leader or leaders of a country does not hold the wellbeing of their citizens in high regard, they will not bow to the international pressure imposed on them. South Africa demonstrated that sanctions could help to end a government but this was only because the government held the wellbeing of its (white) citizens in high regard. Nevertheless, it was the blacks and coloureds who suffered most under the economic sanctions. It is nearly impossible to cut off all trade from a country which simply means that the dictator will take more from the people who are the ones who ultimately suffer. Zimbabwe is a poor nation with hyperinflation but Robert Mugabe is fabulously wealthy.
In Cote d'Ivoire, it is entirely possible that continued sanctions would eventually force Gbagbo from power but that is not the most important issue. The most important issue is whether or not it would drive the country to economic collapse before the government changed.
Sanctions have long been used by the international community as a tool for economic manipulation. By restricting trade, the imposing body - in this case, the UN - hopes to pressure the affected country into altering whatever its global neighbors sees as a humanitarian threat. The most recent - and successful - example of economic sanctions impelling societal change are those placed upon Apartheid South Africa. While nowadays those sanctions are given much credit for the disassembling of the racist regime in that nation, the trade restrictions yielded many negative effects unto those whom the sanctions were intending to help: the oppressed black Africans, many whom starved without imported products. The same threatens to occur in Cote d'Ivoire. By boycotting the nation's stalemate elections, the UN runs the risk of having its plan backfire and harm the impoverished citizens. The people of Cote d'Ivoire are already suffering economically - many farmers are unable to sell their crops - and sanctions could only aggravate their distress. Furthermore, sanctions often have little effect on the actual intended targets, who tend to be fantastically well-off dictators. The fabulous resources of corrupt leaders like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe buffer them from the economic suffering experienced by their subjects. Mugabe's wealth has meant that he has been able to continue to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle while his country has experienced leaping hyperinflation. Ultimately, while sanctions on the Cote d'Ivoire might resolve the issue of who is in charge, they might also yield massive devastating effects that outlast the political benefit of removing Gbagbo from power.
ReplyDeleteWhile sanctions may impose further poverty on the Ivoirian people, sanctions, as viewed by the international community, are one of the only effective and peaceful measures left that could put pressure on the regime of the Ivory Coast. Laurent Gbagbo needs to feel pressured into giving up his power as president and this maybe a last peaceful resort for the international community.
ReplyDeletePutting economic sanctions on the Ivory Coast will shut down factories, mines, farms, and other jobs that provide many people with a living. These companies will specifically be involved in import/export for these companies will have little to no business once trade embargos are placed on the ivory coast. Events such as large companies going out of business and other secondary effects of the sanction will push the Ivory Coast’s suffering working class into an even deeper poverty. Over time, professional and managerial classes will also weaken weakening the economy even more. Issues such as riots and protest from the people of a country commonly spread from large financial gaps between social classes and lack of essential goods such as food and water. Both of these are secondary effects of an embargo suggesting that sanction will only worsen the humanitarian crisis.
Many historical examples such as that of the French revolution show that the lower class, with its many people, is the class that can most easily put pressure on the regime. These sanctions will simply weaken the lower class by taking away competition for local goods thus raising prices. Also, it will lead an eventual lack of goods such as food and water as well as a weakened economy due to a lack of trade.
Examples such as the sanctions placed on Cuba show that embargos generally only affect common people rather than the leaders themselves. This means that dictators will have no motive to step done. Also, dictators generally tend to them selves before to their people suggesting that a sanction may not put any pressure on a leader to step down.
The effects of the UN's recent decision to impose sanctions on Gbagbo and other top Cote d'Ivoire officials remain to be seen. Violence in the country has been escalating over the past several weeks, and the UN has decided to take the step of sanctioning incumbent president Gbagbo as a means to force him from power, and hopefully end the violence.
ReplyDeleteWhether this will alleviate the violence that has rocked the country since the November 2010 elections remains to be seen. As supporters of both presidential claimants engage in an increasingly bloody civil war, these sanctions have the potential to force Gbagbo from power and return some stability to the country.
However, these sanctions are not without cost. Already the cocoa industry (Cote d'Ivoire supplies much of the world's cocoa) has felt the impact of the sanctions, and many producers re calling upon the UN and US to end the sanctions, which are significantly reducing the country's economy.
When sanctions were introduced in South Africa during apartheid, they proved effective due to the government's desire to protect the national economy and citizenry. In contrast, when sanctions were levied (and still are) on Cuba in the 1960s, the country failed to respond, due to the leadership not needing to maintain a capitalist economy and buoyed by the USSR. Today, Cuba's economy is self-sufficient, and economists predict that an end to the US embargo would collapse the now flourishing economy.
With that in mind, it seems unlikely that the newly minted sanctions will have a positive impact in the Ivory Coast. President Gbagbo seems only concerned with maintaining power for himself, and has sent the country into civil war to maintain his presidency. As such, it seems unlikely that he will step down under pressure from the UN resolution, while sanctions continue to damage the country's economy and hurt its citizenry.
Nonetheless, these sanctions do have some weight, particularly with regards to travel restrictions. As Gbagbo will now find it more difficult to flee the country, he may consider stepping down while he still can. Failing that, these sanctions are likely to further diminish the Cote d'Ivoire economy while failing to adequately abolish the civil war that has sprung to life in recent weeks.
Economic sanctions are penalties applied on a certain country by another country or group or countries for reasons that the imposers feel the country the economic sanction is being applied has violated. Some recent reasons include bombings against a leader’s own civilians, domestic economic tyranny, corruption, racial policies, and other such policies a country finds inappropriate. Economic sanctions are used in the hope to weaken a government’s economy enough to make the government give into the demands of the imposer. These economic sanctions can include tariffs, trade barriers, import duties, import or export quotas, and other such penalties against a country’s economy.
ReplyDeleteHistorically the most successful sanction placed on a country in Africa has been the sanction on South Africa because of its Apartheid government. The government eventually gave into the international community’s demands and ended apartheid rule in South Africa. However, the sanction harmed the impoverished people by making them even more impoverished. In South Africa these were the blacks. Typically in sanctions the people harmed are the people the sanction is supposed to help.
In Cote d’Ivore, the U.N. hopes to settle the issue of handing power over to the incumbent from the previous leader, Gbagbo. The U.N. hopes the sanction will place enough pressure on Gbagbo to make him hand over his power to the incumbent. Unfortunately, the sanction will harm the people it is intended to help. The already impoverished people of Cote d’Ivore will be even more harmed by the sanction. Farmers are already having a troublesome time selling crops and are even protesting. The sanction will only aggravate and worsen this situation. In addition, a sanction will not really hurt a dictator who has already shown he is unwilling to step down. Gbagbo will be financially safe while the people of his nation will suffer. The UN can only hope he feels enough sympathy for his people to step down. Overrall, the sanction on Cote d’Ivore is risky because it is being placed on a nation when the UN only wants to deal with one man. Sanctions harm a country as a whole but really hurt the poorest people, which do not include Gbagbo by a long shot. The sanction can end up harming the nation a lot more than helping it in the end.
The sanctions in Cote d’Ivoire have been brought about because of Gbagbo’s unwillingness to relinquish the seat of power to the incumbent, who is internationally recognized as the country’s president. The UN’s main goal is to try and forced Gbagbo to step down by putting pressure on the economy, which then will affect Gbagbo. The issue with this plan is that while the UN is trying to get him to step down, there will be significant damage to the country. The UN resolution will essentially crash the economy of the country and the only people that will feel it are the citizens struggling to make money. Meanwhile, Gbagbo will be relatively unaffected for a long time due to his wealth and control of the country.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the sanctions have just led to more problems for the people of Cote d’Ivoire. The economic and political unrest has caused hundreds of thousands of people to leave their homes, with a significant amount crossing the border into Liberia. The longer the sanctions are in place, the worse the problem will get, it just becomes a cycle. Due to the sanctions, Gbagbo will prevent much aid from getting into his country to help the refugees that will begin to run out of food without the usual trade goods that come into the country. Hopefully Gbagbo gives up power soon because otherwise his people will begin to suffer and more unrest in the country will only breed even worse problems.
To figure out if these sanctions will work it really depends on the structure of the country being sanctioned. For example, in South Africa during apartheid the country was based solely on its economy. For that reason the sanctions imposed to end apartheid worked because the government truly cared about having successful economy, they were not completely concerned with the rule of the country. However, in countries like Cote d’Ivoire Gbagbo is completely concerned with maintaining control of the country and he is not worried about the happiness and safely of his citizens. Unfortunately, sanctions usually don’t work on truly corrupt countries.
(1/2) Sanctions are imposed in an attempt to change something in a country that is disagreeable to the international community. Gbagbo has essentially started a humanitarian crisis in his own country. Nearly a million people have fled the Ivory Coast and there have been several hundred people killed from the violence. There have been many attempts on an international level to find a political solution; nevertheless, none have worked for Gbagbo won’t answer the calls. The U.N.’s main goal by imposing the sanctions of the Ivory Coast is to get rid of Gbagbo, who is technically not even supposed to be in power. The U.N. wants to protect the lives of the people and their country and wants an immediate transfer of power to Ouattara. The sanctions target Gbagbo and his inner circle. They will asset freezes and put in place travel bans, as well as sanctions on entities such as banks, cocoa-exporting ports, etc. And the UN imposed sanctions are to continue until Gbagbo discontinues claiming power. It is hard to say whether or not these sanctions will help the humanitarian crisis, though it would appear that they will not help much. Economic sanctions against the Ivory Coast will hurt the cocoa industry possibly bringing it to a halt. The problem with this is that the Ivory Coast is one of the world’s top cocoa producers, and it is an important source of tax revenue in the country. The people’s livelihood depends on cocoa; it will impact farmers and their families, as well as anyone else on the business side of the industry. With this lack of cocoa the cost will rise, which will not only have a huge affect on the Ivory Coast itself, but the rest of the world. With the sanctions and closing of banks, we are starting to see that Gbagbo and his government are facing an economic crisis for they cannot find cash to pay its workers, impacting the employment. Thus, we are already starting to see a negative affect on the economy from the sanctions. Nevertheless, with more time the sanctions could potentially turn the situation around. There is a chance that the sanctions will run Gbagbo out of power and will turn the economy around, only time will tell.
ReplyDelete(2/2) Regardless, looking at economic sanctions placed in the past, it seems highly unlikely that the sanctions on the Ivory Coast will be completely successful. A study shows that after examining 35 U.S. sanction programs in place since 1973, they have only been completely successful 23% of the time. The study also looked at the economic hardship created by the sanctions showing that an average GNP dropped 2.4%, which is the equivalent of a depression. In the early 1900’s in Yugoslavia, sanctions exacerbated the already wretched economic situation caused by war and the transition from communism. Another example is in Iraq. Iraq’s infrastructure was destroyed during the war in the 1990’s. On top of this devastation, sanctions were imposed. This had a huge affect on the people of the country, mainly the children who bore the brunt of the hardship. The combination of both an already destroyed country and sanctions in addition, created a disaster. Economic sanctions have the ability to strangle an economy. They normally affect the ordinary people more than they affect the person they were intended to such as the person in power (this may be what happens in the Ivory Coast). In the end, some sanctions work and others do not. Though there is a low chance of the economic sanctions working to help the Ivory Coast, it is still possible depending on the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteTo sanction or not to sanction: that is the question. I think here, in Cote d’Ivoire, the answer is not so clear. The UN security council took the initiative to place sanctions and/or bans on weapons, travel, and diamonds, along with an asset freeze for Gbagbo and others. The point was, and still is, to pressure Gbagbo to step down, rather than to push the people to desperation or excessive violence, and the commodities they sanctioned addressed the first readily. Gbagbo’s residence was under fire earlier Thursday afternoon. NPR reports that the 4 months on sanctions have pressured Gbagbo to the point that he is no longer able to maintain his defenses. He is increasingly desperate, and many theorize that the conflict is close to an end.
ReplyDeleteThe UN sanctions have clearly been effective in stressing Gbagbo’s position, but they also have put the people under great stresses. Teachers and pensioners have not been paid since January. By that same month, 247 people were estimated to have been killed by the violence. Beyond just the death toll, the EU’s implementation of cocoa, coffee, and cotton sanctions has taken a toll on the country. They were put into effect as an attempt to put an end to the Gbagbo’s income from cocoa, but producers and workers have felt the blow hard. Producers are forced to sell on the black market for a small fraction of the price. Cocoa exports are a large part of the Ivorian economy, and some hail the sanctions as the international community over-stepping its bounds; and because these embargoes affect mostly the south of the country, some like Georges Bléhoué Aka, president of the BCC's national council of experts, say they “are worried about a veiled genocide that could wipe out the country's population, in the sense that cocoa constitutes the most essential link in the country's economy." Veiled genocide is if all Cote d’Ivoire needs: yet more tension and conflict.
Have these sanctions been effective in pressuring Gbagbo? Yes. Have they stressed the increasingly desperate humanitarian situation? Equally, yes. Reminiscent of the debate on the intervention in Libya, there seems to be no “right” answer. However, I think there exists a middle ground here. The sanctions on arms do not cut of the supply to weapons, clearly. A black market without guns would be an England without tea. This particular sanction is harmless to the people and it can only help the situation. The other sanctions are not so defined. The cocoa export, though a large bit of revenue for Gbagbo, is too central to the economy to sanction. It affects too many, too widely. The sanctions get hazier yet as we move to freezing Gbagbo’s money. This is the main squeeze that we can apply to him, and yet it also means that those who depend on the government, and by extension him, for payment probably will not get paid. In this case, I believe that these freezes were more effective than damaging, but sanctions are not always so.
ReplyDeleteSanctions and their effectiveness have a patchy history that is as difficult to decipher as the current situation in Cote d’Ivoire. In Apartheid South Africa, the sanctions pressured the country to radically reconsider its position and change its government, but it was at the cost of hunger and poverty for many, especially many black South Africans. However, when one looks to the sanctions that Cuba chafes under, it is hard to see what can be beneficial about them. It really comes down to how long a leader can hold out, and how many of his people a he is willing to let suffer, starve, and die. I hope the hope of many: that Gbagbo will fail, soon, and the sanctions on Cote d’Ivoire will be a thing of the past.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(2/2)As seen by the situation in Colombia, sanctions can have an unintended effect elsewhere. The US placed trade restrictions on Colombia in an attempt to combat the drug problem just to have drug wars explode into Mexico, a country much geographically and politically closer to the United States.
ReplyDeleteNow, to look at the situation in Cote d’Ivoire, one conclusion that can be made is that sanctions in this situation would be most effective with minimal damage to the people as long as they are short-term. Also, the world community as a whole needs to back these sanctions, or else things like the arms embargo would be completely useless. The travel restrictions are fine for only a short amount of time – a few years – but they cannot go on forever without damaging the travel industry of the country. The freezing of assets and the ban on importing diamonds should not have an effect on the common people of the country, because it is only Gbagbo who will be affected economically. However, it is the EU’s sanctions on cocoa, coffee, and cotton that are harming the people. The reasoning was clear: to stop Gbagbo from making money off of the cocoa industry, as the Cote d’Ivoire is the largest cocoa producer in the world. However, these sanctions have dramatically hurt the people. Without a market to sell their goods on, they are forced to find other work – not an easy task in a war-torn country – or sell on the black market, almost certainly at a cost lower than can give them any sort of profit. Not only could these sanctions cause a short-term humanitarian crisis, but they could also harm the Ivorian economy for a long time in the future. The long-term effects of the sanctions have yet to be seen, but it is almost certain that they will not be good for the already suffering people of the Cote d’Ivoire.
The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution on Wednesday that imposes sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezing, on the incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo and some of his prominent supporters. These sanctions are the Council’s effort to force out Gbagbo, who lost in the November election to Alassane Ouattara and thwart the impending civil war. The targeted sanctions show how the U.N. has revised its approach to sanctioning, as they have begun to make a move away from comprehensive sanctions, and instead target individuals or specific industries. This resolution is the Security Council’s strongest statement thus far that Ouattara is the true winner of the November elections and a recognition of Gbagbo’s illegitimacy as president. Though the sanctions are specifically targeted at the leader, it is likely that the side effects will aggravate the developing humanitarian crisis. As we have witnessed with Gaddafi in Libya, leaders under immense pressure are prone to lashing out at their people. However, the resolution also reaffirmed the U.N. peacekeeping troops’ mandate, which may help prevent the humanitarian issues from worsening.
ReplyDeleteThe efficacy of sanctions on the African continent has been a mixed bag. Generally, sanctions are viewed as ineffective solutions that only exacerbate the grim state of struggling nations, particularly in African nations. In the early 1990s, sanctions against Somalia, Rwanda, Angola, and Sierra Leone failed.
However, there have been a few success stories. Apartheid-era sanctions against South Africa are thought to have played an effective role in bringing about the demise of white-majority rule, and forced businesses to grow and be created in the country after major companies disinvested. But at the same time, the sanctions worsened conditions for many who were already struggling and eliminated massive amounts of jobs. Broad sanctions against Libya were enacted in the early 1990s in an effort to force Gaddafi’s government to admit to their involvement with the Lockerbie bombing and surrender the suspects for trial. Eventually, Gaddafi did admit to his regime’s involvement with the bombing, and sanctions are generally credited as an influential factor in this.
Most recently, sanctions against Liberia, particularly the timber trade, are credited as significant in removing former President Charles Taylor from power and bringing him to trial for war crimes. However, in the case of Liberia, many other multilateral efforts were also used. Sanctions were not the sole solution, but a piece of a larger plan that eventually brought about his removal.
PCA Blog Assignment – Sanctions
ReplyDeleteBrian Vaughn
To say either that sanctions always work or never work would be an obvious fallacy, as their success is limited by who is most affected by the sanction and by the economic clout of the group(s) imposing the sanction. However, I have come to the conclusion that, overall, sanctions have not had as much effect as expected or as hoped on the countries at which they are directed, and therefore other options should be weighed at least or more heavily when facing a humanitarian crisis like the one in the Ivory Coast.
Somewhat obviously, the UN hopes that enforcing sanctions against the country will cause the alleged loser of the election to back down and stop his claims of presidency and power. He has not responded to military threats like that of three AU members back in December, but I believe a freezing of government and personal funds of Mr. Gbagbo would be much more persuasive. While a military conflict would kill some portion of his men, without money Gbagbo could not even pay his soldiers and federal employees. I understand that there is no way to freeze all of his assets, but I feel like more specified sanctions against either an individual or government would be better for the citizens of a country, who are likely to be negatively impacted by all-out sanctions, and place more personal pressure on the leaders of countries who care less about their people and their country.
I specify personal or more small-scale sanctions because the type of leader we would most be interested in ousting is, of course, the type of leader less likely to be affected by suffering citizens of their country. The freezing of assets as a type of sanction would primarily be used against these dictators believed to have embezzled, received kickbacks, or otherwise abused their power as head of state for personal gain, like the former Tunisian president who allegedly escaped to France with 1.5 tons of gold.
In addition, trade sanctions are also vulnerable, as all potential traders must agree to support the cause lest one “black knight” benefit from exclusive or near-exclusive trade relations with the country receiving the sanctions.
In essence, I am not so much against sanctions as I am against over-arching sanctions against entire countries, and I even think sanctions specific to an individual or group are potentially beneficial.
EVERYBODY READ THIS TESTIMONY ON HOW I GOT MY LOAN FROM A LEGIT AND TRUSTED LOAN COMPANY My name is Kjerstin Lis, I have been searching for a loan to settle my debts, everyone I met scammed and took my money until I finally met Mr, Benjamin Breil Lee He was able to give me a loan of R 450,000.00.He also helped some other colleagues of mine. i am talking as the happiest person in the whole wide world today and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will tell the name to the whole wide world and i am so happy to say that my family is back for good because i was in need a loan to start my life all over as i am a single mum with 3 kids and the whole world seemed like it was hanging on me until i meant the GOD sent loan lender that changed my life and that of my family, a GOD fearing lender, Mr, Benjamin, he was the Savior GOD sent to rescue my family and at first i thought it was not going to be possible until i received my loan, i invited him over to my family get-together party which he did not decline and i will advise any one who is in genuine need of a loan to contact Mr, Benjamin Breil Lee via email at (Lfdsloans@outlook.com ) because he is the most understanding and kind hearten lender I have ever met with a caring heart. He doesn't know that i am doing this by spreading his goodwill towards me but I feel I should share this with you all to free yourself from scammers, please beware of impersonators and contact the right loan company Email us via: Lfdsloans@outlook.com or whatsapp +1-989-394-3740. .
ReplyDelete