Hacker News Reader

Comment by ithrow | Hacker News Reader

Now the West has taken their livelihood from them

That's the whole point, make the country poor.

That just unites more people around the dictator because now he is the one “feeding” them and they can’t make it without him.

Or a rebellion starts eventually, which is one of the objectives of these sanctions.

This approach worked fabulously in North Korea, Iran, Cuba.

Meantime, people close to Belarus gov have no problem buying real estate on London, Florida and California.

It worked so well in Cuba, after all.

At this point I think it's safe to say that rebellion isn't even an objective of sanctions. Nobody anywhere in the world views that as a plausible outcome.

Sanctions leading to a regime change are exceedingly rare.

They might have helped to end the apartheid in South Africa. Other than that, zero successes.

Milosevic.

Serbia was heavily bombed in 1999. Regimes do regularly, though not always, collapse after military defeats. No one wants to be ruled by a loser.

You're right, the war was a major reason. But economic sanctions played a part too, by not allowing the dictatorship to continue being a menace to its neighbours and recover economically. No one wants to be ruled by an economic loser, and kicking the bum out hurts your ego a lot less when the reasons are economic, not a touchy subject like losing a war. After all, foreign policy wise most Serbians enthusiastically supported Milosevic.

Sanctions from 1992-1995. were far heavier than one that existed in 1999. and 2000. and economy was in better shape in 2000. Yet he lost elections in 2000. while he easily won earlier elections (easily as in he stole some votes but his party would won majority anyway).

What was different after 1999 was big US effort for regime change - not just financing opposition and media (they did that before too) but forcing opposition to unite behind a single candidate and, most importantly, making deals with parts of regime to get rid of Milosevic. They were promised not to be touched after the change so most if them switched sides - parts of police, military and paramilitary forces along with influential people who made their fortune during the war.

Sanctions royally fucked ordinary people, but Milosevic was safe until his support infrastructure wasn't dismantled (brought).

> kicking the bum out hurts your ego a lot less when the reasons are economic, not a touchy subject like losing a war.

If you lost the war, it's generally not you kicking the bum out. The winners will handle it for you.

I think it was Samuel Huntington who said: "Development first, democracy later". Sanctions are the direct opposite of that.

Rebellion never happens because of sanctions. People who are too busy fighting for survival have zero interest in politics. That's why North Korea is still communist.

If you are looking for an example of the opposite: "Solidarity" movement in communist Poland happened in 1980, after a decade of relative prosperity, which fueled people's ambitions for better lives.

> I think it was Samuel Huntington who said: "Development first, democracy later".

Without commenting on the sanctions approach. This opposite approach has clearly not worked for China either.

[Maybe there isn't a magic democracy wand, alas?]

Maybe we just shouldn't try forcing political systems onto other countries?

Not yet anyway. Most Chinese are still very poor

I believe it was Xi Jinping who said "Development first, fuck off with your democracy later. But thanks for the IP".

Or causes a brain drain.

Ah, the law of unintended consequences...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com