Should a country be sanctioned/isolated/boycotted for any of the following reasons?

[Tooting Carmen]

- No or severely rigged elections.
- Imprisonment of political dissidents.
- Persecution of LGBTs.
- Unequal laws regarding the sexes.
- Persecution of ethnic or religious groups.

[Cybele]

- No or severely rigged elections.
- Imprisonment of political dissidents.
- Persecution of LGBTs.
- Unequal laws regarding the sexes.
- Persecution of ethnic or religious groups.

I think there is the case of North Korea where many of these persecutions happen. Yet, I'm not sure if isolation solves anything for the population, as it will burden further the people, who struggle to get their basic needs met.

[Tooting Carmen]

I think there is the case of North Korea where many of these persecutions happen. Yet, I'm not sure if isolation solves anything for the population, as it will burdens further the people who struggle to get their basic needs met.

True.

[Aldaris]

Every case is unique, and there is no simple or universal answer. The effectiveness of sanctions, isolation, or boycotts can vary significantly depending on the specific context of each case. While these measures may work given the right circumstances, they can just as easily create a negative feedback loop, causing unintended consequences.

[CosmoLady]

- No or severely rigged elections.
- Imprisonment of political dissidents.
- Persecution of LGBTs.
- Unequal laws regarding the sexes.
- Persecution of ethnic or religious groups.

No, I don't think that countries should be sanctioned, isolated, boycotted in general,
except in extreme circumstances, like the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people.

And even then I would not expect any changes to the offending nation's behaviour,
only the further immiseration of the civilian population,
which does not matter in a country that is already poor and oppressive.

Sanctions, boycotts, shunning are an impotent (feminine?) foreign policy tool against any serious regime.

[Tooting Carmen]

No, I don't think that countries should be sanctioned, isolated, boycotted in general,
except in extreme circumstances, like the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people.

And even then I would not expect any changes to the offending nation's behaviour,
only the further immiseration of the civilian population,
which does not matter in a country that is already poor and oppressive.

Sanctions, boycotts, shunning are an impotent (feminine?) foreign policy tool against any serious regime.

The funny thing is that human rights activists like Peter Tatchell, even while claiming to be "anti-imperialist", believe precisely in sanctioning and cajoling countries that don't comply with values like his.

[Anglo-Celtic]

No, I don't think that countries should be sanctioned, isolated, boycotted in general,
except in extreme circumstances, like the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people.

And even then I would not expect any changes to the offending nation's behaviour,
only the further immiseration of the civilian population,
which does not matter in a country that is already poor and oppressive.

Sanctions, boycotts, shunning are an impotent (feminine?) foreign policy tool against any serious regime.

They just hurt innocent civilians as Iraqis could tell you. Secretary of State Albright: "What's a few million dead Muslim kids, give or take?"

[CosmoLady]

They just hurt innocent civilians as Iraqis could tell you. Secretary of State Albright: "What's a few million dead Muslim kids, give or take?"

Yeah, she said the sanctions were "worth it", that woman was evil.

She was part of the neocon mafia of Chosen People, like Victoria Nuland. Good riddance!

[Anglo-Celtic]

Yeah, she said the sanctions were "worth it", that woman was evil.

She was part of the neocon mafia of Chosen People, like Victoria Nuland. Good riddance!

Come on now. Bush II said that they hate us for our freedom....fries, so their decimated population comes in at a distant second to political envy.