|
The US has a philosophical duty to moral agency. Moral agency refers to a government's willingness to act consistent to US principles of action by discussing, demonstrating and acting upon such ideals. Moral agency is a duty in US foreign policy as Christiansen and Powers state in Economic Sanctions and the Just War Doctrine: "both ethical theory and common practice concern themselves with moral agency."
Moral agency requires that the US does not support a regime or nation that acts against US moral principles such as rights protection.
Christiansen continues that moral agency demands that "one is forbidden from cooperating in an act that aids and abets [an] evil."
Therefore, a rejection of economic sanctions as a moral tool is a rejection of US moral agency: by refusing to use sanctions, the US deliberately supports an immoral regime by providing economic resources, luxuries and unrestricted trade. The impact is that we place economic goods and currency above the moral principles of action that the US supports. This devalues the US as a moral agent by devaluing moral principles themselves. If the US values its moral principles, then morality requires that we act upon them in order to serve as a role model and moral agent for the world. To fail to act on moral principles is to ignore their value in guiding domestic and foreign policy. To fulfill US duties to uphold such principles of action, we must affirm the necessity of economic sanctions as a moral tool in US foreign policy.
Additionally, the US has duties to moral agency from the global community to use economic sanctions.
Gary Hufbauer in "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered" explains that the "international community expects the US to demonstrate moral outrage and to reassure the globe that the US will stand by its international commitments."
The use of economic sanctions fulfills this obligation by attracting attention to a sanctioned nation's immoral or dangerous policies. It allows nations to ask why countries like Iraq and Cuba are being economically isolated, which provides opportunities for global discourse about human rights issues and the opportunity to even possibly critique the US' role too.
Makio Miyagawa in Do Economic Sanctions Work argues that economic sanctions may be imposed to demonstrate by decisive public action, the firm convictions of a nation's justice of its position or cause...to mobilizing world opinion to put pressure on the target."
Further, we must look at the pragmatic duties that economic sanctions fulfill, namely providing a moral alternative to all out war, thus saving lives.
Economic sanctions provide the US opportunities to encourage a target nation to act consistent with US and global principles of moral conduct. In many cases, intra-national diplomacy fails--leaving only the options of immorally abandoning US moral principles or military action. Economic sanctions provide the best possible option when compared to immoral suspension of moral agency through inaction or military force. They strengthen international discourse by using economic power as leverage to encourage another nation to protect the rights of its citizens or to act in ways beneficial to US citizens--both which are moral causes that do not have to require the death, destruction and violations to national sovereignty that war requires.
Gary Hufbauer explains that, "A diplomatic slap on the wrist may not hit where it hurts...covert action or military measures may be excessive..sanctions provide a popular middle road: they add teeth to international diplomacy, even when the bark is worse than the bite."
Also in the real world, sanctions have provided the US leverage and the power to influence other nations to fulfill their moral obligations.
According to the House of Representatives, in South Africa, Iraq and Libya, or "even in Cuba, while Castro remains in power, sanctions have discouraged foreign investment..unilateral sanctions have proven effective in combating the sources of drugs [in some areas]."
Therefore even though it appears that cases such as Cuba and Iraq provide arguments against sanctions, it actually furthers the cause by attracting the attention of other nations to decide upon themselves whether or not they agree with the target nation: thus sparking national discourse.
Finally, economic sanctions provide the US an incentive mechanism to persuade a target nation from using and possessing anthrax, nuclear weapons or other dangerous activities that violate global and national obligations. The use of economic sanctions toward this purpose is moral because it provides for life-saving intervention into a target nation's target affairs, just as US economic sanctions have helped prevent Iraq from seizing nuclear power.
Therefore, on both a philosophical and pragmatic point of view, the use of economic sanctions is moral.
| 
