Originally Posted by
kcockayne
If the USA wishes to impose sanctions on Russia, Iran, North Korea etc., that is their prerogative. I happen to think that they are fully justified in doing so. But, I cannot agree that they are entitled to try & enforce other countries to do likewise. The USA simply has to accept that, despite it occupying the moral high ground, other countries are independent entities, which have their own policies as regards Russia etc. - disappointing as that may be. I can go along with them banning Bangladesh Birman from the USA, but cannot see what allows them to try & ban such airlines from operating to & from, or through the airspace of, sanctioned countries.
Originally Posted by
Mike Flynn
Sanctions rarely work and usually create new problems and opportunities.
Sanctions do work, and they work often ( not rarely)
They worked against South Africa, over time, as tne US reluctantly joined and both enforced the existing sanctions but also ensured that the sanctions breakers suffered penalties.
Of course, as you pointed out, "new opportunities" arise and are exploited,
The legalistic framework within which the different sanctions operate as well as the scope - some sanctions operate on companies, some on individuals means that its a game of whack-a-mole and the results may be moot
i.e. Shell company RussinCo papwerwork headquartered in Dubai buys a sanctioned product in France, ships it ( via unsanctioned shipper) to Ghana, where it changes hands ( and ships) to Madagascar .... you get the idea.
Now, each one of the individual known entities facilitating the transfer can themselves face repercussions, but the main company responsible, even if sanctioned, may simply fold up shop and reopen under a new name/nationality
But the 'chilling factor' is particularly important as the THREAT of sanctions take many potential actors off the board, as they dont want to be caught up in the quagmire and be sanctioned themselves