Sanctions: Means for Resolution or Human Rights Violation

The response by the United States to the Darfur crisis is similar to what they did with Cuba. Economic sanctions seem to be a better alternative to war, but it may also be true that the consequences of these sanctions hurt civilians more than the target itself. The U.S. imposed economic sanctions on seven Sudanese individuals and more than 160 companies owned or controlled by the government of Sudan or linked to militia to increase pressure on Khartoum to end the violence in Darfur. In an increasingly interdependent world such sanctions cause significant suffering of the poor and indirectly furthering impoverishment.

There are some provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are especially vulnerable to violation under sectioned regimes: the right to life; the right to freedom from inhumane or degrading treatment; the right to an adequate standard of living including food, clothing, housing, medical care; and the right to social security in the event of lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond a person's control. The U.S. addresses human rights concerns by contributing $440 million to the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Food Program. Do these efforts really fix anything? Maybe for some, but definitely not for most.

Under sanctions, the rich get richer as they take control of the black market and smuggling and the poor get poorer. The middle class, well, they fall into the former. I believe that economic sanctions are only effective in a truly democratic society. Considering the current world economic situation, I question if U.S. sanctions could possibly even hold a weight over Khartoum. Also considering that oil is Sudan's main source of wealth, U.S. sanctions are ineffective when fuel is incredibly desirable and the rest of the world does not follow suit.

"USA Sanctions have Little Effect on Sudan"