Fresh Sanctions on Syria

As reported by the Associated Press:

Congressional sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they have been told the administration plans to choose three sanctions. One would bar Syrian planes from flying over or landing in the United States. Another would prohibit new investments by U.S. oil companies in Syria. It was not clear whether other U.S. business operations in Syria would also be prohibited. Bilateral trade with Syria is about $300 million a year.

One source said the third penalty would be a ban on U.S. exports to Syria, other than food and medicine.

And we all know what happens when sanctions don't work.

Comments

[db]

This is a job for the U.N. Think of all those poor Iraq Oil-for-Food bureaucrats that need a way to continue their 'usefulness.' I'm sure that no such abuses as occurred in Iraq could possibly take place in Syria.

[thoreau]

Well, if sanctions against Syria work as well as the sanctions against Cuba, it should only take 50 or 60 more years to remove the Baath party from power in Syria.

In government jargon, that sort of timetable would be "expedited." 🙂

[Cathy]

Well I'm sure that Haliburton has some foreign shell companies that don't have much to do that that we control Iraq. They'll just be moved over to duty in Syria.

[Randy]

Syria has no right to exist, so pardon me if I don't give a damn. We've been too nice to them for too long. The only thing they're any good at is hiding Iraq's WMDs.

[Ronnie Ray Gun]

Nice to see the prisoner abuse scandel hasn't taken the bushies "eyes off the prize"

"Damascus or Bust"

"Bekka Valley WMD!"

[thoreau]

Randy-

What do you mean when you say that Syria has no right to exist?

If you mean that the thuggish regime has zero legitimacy, hey, no quarrels here.

But if you're somehow implying that this lack of legitimacy justifies economic sanctions, I have to disagree. Sanctions rarely hurt the dictatorial rulers, and invariably hurt the average person.

This is not to suggest (as some lefties do) that US sanctions are the main cause of misery in places like Cuba (far from it!), but sanctions certainly haven't done anything to improve the quality of life for the average person living in a dictatorship. And sanctions certainly haven't dislodged many (any?) dictators from power.

Indeed, the greatest threat to a tyrant is a robust private sector that can fulfill the needs of the people and empower people to challenge their rulers. To the extent that a lack of free trade hinders the growth of the private sector, sanctions may actually tighten a dictator's grip on power.

There, I just praised free markets and the private sector as remedies for tyranny. Can I get my status upgraded from "left-libertarian" to "standard libertarian"? 🙂

[s.m. koppelman]

"And we all know what happens when sanctions don't work."

We'll go after the Canadians?

[Sandy]

We'll just ignore the country until the Soviet Union falls again, like we did with South Africa?

Come to think of it, when have sanctions demonstrably worked and not just been in place until the change happened anyway by other means? I have yet to see a case where those sanctions are harder on the leaders than the citizenry.

[Merkin]

No way is that to distract attention from hmm let's see... no way! It's just good thinkin! We're doing it now because it's the right thing to do!

[David Tomlin]

Economic sanctions may have played an important role in bring down Allende. He wasn't quite a tyrant, but many people thought he was making a good start.

[Will]

thoreau:

No.