In "Liberal-democratic regimes, international sanctions, and global governance," in Raimo Väyrynen, ed., Globalization and Global Governance (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999), pp. 127-49. Kim Richard Nossal states:
"... there is an increasing body of evidence that demonstrates unequivocally that sanctions 'work' only too well at producing negative effects on others besides the government of the target state. Sanctions hurt the civilian population of the target state; the countries that border the target state and are thus 'sideswiped' by international sanctions; and even domestic groups within the sending state all without necessarily causing the governors of the target state to change the behavior that prompted the sanctions in the first place. Some studies focus on what is called "civilian pain" the impact of sanctions on the governed of a target state. Others focus on the often unintended consequences of international sanctions... the impact of sanctions on children... the tendency of sanctions to have highly gendered effects..."
The policy paradox is that despite the overwhelming evidence that sanctions simply do not "work" as their enthusiasts claim, they nonetheless continue to be a favored instrument for global governance responding to behavior deemed wrongful in international politics... many political leaders continue to reach almost reflexively for the sanctions option. Moreover, these leaders commonly shrug off the observation that the instrument they are reaching for will have little impact. Instead, they assert that this time it will be different; this time the sanctions will indeed work."
Absorbed in our own security concerns, we ignore how our actions provoke insecurity and self-protection in those targets of our rhetoric and policies. The US has not lived up to our treaty commitment to negotiate towards disarmament, is making nuclear deals with India, accepts Pakistan's nuclear program and Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal. I call this "nuclear narcissism." Demonized, rejected, and threatened by us and her neighbors, Iran has reason to fear us and might feel a need to deter us.
For most Iranians, nuclear energy is an "inalienable right" guaranteed in Article 4 of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. (Article 4 is a trap, but that's another story). Most Iranians are against nuclear weapons, under fatwa.
Nuclear energy has become a matter of national pride. If we do not understand this our policies will fail and we won't know why. At the UN, Ahmadinejad said Iran will resist bullying. Sanctions will not make them back down - but make them more defiant, increase the popularity of hardliners and make innocent people suffer.
In the "mirror image of the enemy" each side sees itself as noble, just and true, while the enemy is hostile, evil and aggressive. According to the "ultimate attribution error" we attribute our intentions and behavior to situational factors and their behaviors are due to their character - and they do the same. Our actions are defensive, theirs are offensive.
People are more dangerous when afraid. Acting out of fear, we behave in ways that make them feel bullied, humiliated and backed into a corner. We validate their fears of us as we threaten them. They will resist and feel self-protective and behave in ways that will validate our fears of them. In this way, we will ratchet up tensions -- making the situation more volatile -- likely to provoke a war that most don't want that will spiral out of control.
Social psychologist Ralph K. White, Fearful Warriors , 1984, (who died last year at the age of 100), referring to Soviet American relations said:
"[T]he 'madness' that is carrying the world closer and closer to nuclear war has at its core a psychological explanation: Each side, though fundamentally afraid, misperceives the nature of the danger it faces. Each side imagines that it faces an inherently, implacably aggressive enemy, when it actually faces an enemy as fearful as itself -- an enemy driven mainly by fear, to do the things that lead to war."
It follows then that if we, the human race, want to avoid a nuclear catastrophe, our most urgent task is to promote realistic empathy, on each side of the East -- West conflict, with fear on the other side.
Military action taken out of fear, in the name of security, is likely to:
* escalate instability and cycles of violence;
* increase the popularity of hardliners and drive extremism;
* undermine moderates;
* undermine popular movements for peace, democracy, and acceptance of Israel in the Muslim world;
* provoke more nuclear proliferation and increase incentives for nuclear weapons development;
* increase trauma, fear, humiliation, despair, and rage;
* provoke desires for revenge, and the motivation and rationales for increased recruitment and terrorist actions;
* alienate Israel from its neighbors and make it more dependent upon the US;
* Increase and justify anti-Semitism and anti -- American sentiments -- really fear of our use of power;
* cause irreversible environmental catastrophe and health crises from radiation and oil fires; and
* desensitize people to the taking of human life on all sides.
Experts predict that attacking Iran would produce immediate retaliation against U.S. and British troops in the region, attacks on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, increases in prices of oil and gas, and an explosion of violence against Israel, Jews, and United States interests around the globe. Israel could be subject to missile attacks by Iran or Hezbollah, and the war could become regional, spiraling out of control. The continuing toll of innocent life will play into extremists' hands, creating another generation of anti-American, anti-Israel terrorists, motivating attacks here and abroad.
As long as the problem is framed as a choice between bombing Iran or facing Iran's bomb, there will be an irrational compulsion to attack. "Preemptive" and "preventive" wars, in the 21st century, have become oxymorons. They are, more accurately called "provocative war." As Otto von Bismarck said, "Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death."
War is not a last resort. In today's world, it is the worst resort. We do not support Israel by bombing enemies into escalation. Attempting to eliminate enemies, we create more. We can, however, eliminate "enmity." What works is paradoxical and "outside the box." There are strategies capable of reducing tension, preventing violence and transforming conflict that require higher-level nonviolent strategies, complex, long-range thinking, tension reduction, and correcting underlying causes of conflict. Methods that satisfy all peoples' needs for identity, dignity, security, autonomy, and development will remove the fundamental causes of Iranian hostility toward Israel and the West and can initiate a new era of cooperation.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
