Sanctions are devastating weapons of mass destruction

Sanctions are a far more devastating weapon of mass destruction than chemical, biological and, even, nuclear weapons. Since World War II the US has progressively adopted sanctions as its main tool of warfare on the international scene although they have not generally attained Washington's objective by forcing targeted governments to submit to US diktats. At present 20 countries are targeted by tens of thousands of US sanctions. Among these countries are Russia, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan.

Since Russia built up its military presence to 100,000 troops on the Ukraine border, the US and allies have pledged to impose "crippling sanctions" on Moscow if it invades Ukraine over the ongoing row over its potential application for membership in Nato. This is seen by President Vladimir Putin as a threat to Russia's security as Nato weapons and military personnel could, if Ukraine joins Nato, deploy along the two countries' 2,300 kilometre-long border.

Inflicting comprehensive sanctions on Russia would, the Financial Times points out, have a negative impact on the energy dependent European Union (EU) which imports from Russia 40 per cent of its natural gas and 33 per cent of its crude oil. Since Russia needs the revenue and seeks to remain seen as a reliable supplier, Moscow is unlikely to totally cut gas and oil exports. This would force EU electricity rationing and deprive budinesses and households of heating. Major European oil companies with investments in Russia, notably Total and Shell, could face counter-sanctions and Russia could halt the export of essential raw materials as well as the import of products and produce from the EU, particularly from countries in the east. Global stock and bond values could plunge and Russian firms could halt payments on debts to European banks.

Since the US, an oil and gas exporter, is not as vulnerable as Europe, President Joe Biden can feel relatively safe when calling for hitting Russia with "crippling sanctions". Normally, the US opts for sanctions on countries which cannot fight back by counter-sanctioning the US.

Take for instance, the punitive sanctions regime imposed on Iraq in 1990 after it invaded and occupied Kuwait. From then until 1996, half a million Iraqi children died of malnutrition, starvation, and lack of medical supplies. The situation eased only when the oil-for-food programme became operational and Iraq was permitted to sell a limited amount of oil to purchase essentials. This did not resolve matters for Iraqis as sanctions continued to deprive them of many items needed to sustain a decent standard of living. Sanctions were not lifted until months after the US occupied Iraq in 2003. The lasting impacts of sanctions have at least in part prevented the country from recovering from years of warfare, miring at least 25 per cent of Iraqis in poverty.

Similarly, the US has imposed stringent sanctions on Iran since the 1979 ouster of the shah, Washington's ally, and his replacement by the clerical regime. International sanctions were partially lifted in 2016 when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) came into effect. It promised lifting sanctions in exchange for limiting Iran's nuclear programme. However, the US reneged on the deal from the outset and threatened to impose secondary sanctions on governments and firms doing business with and investing in Iran.  While Iran did receive some economic benefit from the partial lifting of sanctions, this ended abruptly in May 2018 when Donald Trump abandoned the

As Biden delays rejoining the JCPOA and continues to add sanctions, Iranians suffer increasing want and illness: 35 per cent are estimated to be living below the poverty line.

The US has imposed sanctions on Syria since 1979 because of Damascus' backing for Palestinian groups resisting Israeli occupation and ramped up sanctions in 2004. After unrest erupted in Syria in 2011, the US piled on more sanctions which, although the government has extended its control over 75 per cent of the civil war-ravaged country, have wrecked the economy and plunged 80-90 per cent of Syrians into poverty.

Since the Biden administration conducted its chaotic pull-out from Afghanistan, the US and its Nato allies, smarting from defeat by the rag-tag Taliban, have imposed sanctions on that country. By mid-2022, the UN Development Programme warns that 97 per cent of Afghans could fall into poverty due to sanctions, freezing by US and other foreign banks of Afghan government funds, and Taliban mismanagement.

While doing nothing to ease sanctions, Biden has approved the release to humanitarian agencies operating in Afghanistan of $3.5 billion of $7 billion of Afghan money deposited in US banks. He has retained $3.5 billion to cover potential awards by courts to victims of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. These were mounted by Al Qaeda which was then (as now) based in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

Biden did not, apparently, bother to discover that $2 billion of the $7 billion is private deposits of citizens and firms in Afghan banks rather than government funds. Therefore, appropriating this sum amounts to "theft", as a former US diplomat put it. He also said there should be a way to return this money without handing it to the Taliban.

James Downie, writing in the Washington Post, observed that Biden's August decision to freeze Afghan assets has exacerbated that country's economic collapse and contributed to widespread famine. Downie stated, ".. however many lives $3.5 billion in aid will save, $7 billion will save many more."

To make matters worse, thousands of Afghans could die of winter cold, famine, and illness since money will not be made available urgently to relief agencies working in their country because of US political obstacles and bureaucratic red tape.

You can see from the examples of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan that the us use of sanctions amounts to asymmetric economic warfare from which civilians living in these countries, even entire populations, are the main victims. This is why sanctions are far more devastating weapons of mass destruction than biological, chemical and, even, nuclear bombs which have localised impacts on civilians.

One more point. Sanctions are not imposed on all perpetrators of war and rights violations, but on a select few. Take, for example, the case of Palestine. Between 2006-07, the US and other Western countries imposed sanctions on the Palestinian  Authority, depriving it of revenue, after in a free and fair election Palestinian voters gave Hamas the majority in their legislature and two governments were formed with Hamas involvement.

This short-lived anti-Palestinian action was outrageous at a time Israel was in illegal occupation of and imposing an apartheid regime on millions of Palestinians. Sanctions should, long ago, have been placed on Israel to force it to withdraw totally from territory the UN and international community agree should constitute a viable Palestinian state. Nothing has been done and nothing will be done. Israel enjoys impunity whatever it does.