#United States #Washington #Global Health #Economic Sanctions #The Lancet

Unilateral Economic Sanctions: A Global Health Crisis

A recent study published in The Lancet Global Health has brought unsettling revelations about the impact of unilateral economic sanctions on global health. According to this research conducted by economists from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), these sanctions are responsible for approximately 564,000 excess deaths worldwide annually. This statistic draws a stark comparison, suggesting that the human cost of economic sanctions rivals that of military conflicts, encompassing both military and civilian casualties.

The researchers, Mark Weisbrot and Francisco Rodríguez, along with Silvio Rendón, emphasize that the majority of the mortalities associated with sanctions since 1970 have disproportionately affected vulnerable populations—most notably children under the age of five, who comprise over half of the total deaths linked to these policies. The study indicates a broader trend where 77% of sanctions-related deaths occur in individuals aged between 0 to 15 and those aged 60 to 80.

In exploring the health impacts of sanctions, the study analyzed age-specific mortality rates and related sanctions events across 152 countries from 1971 to 2021. Notably, the authors concluded that unilateral and U.S. economic sanctions display a significantly more detrimental effect on mortality than sanctions imposed on a multilateral basis, such as those set by the United Nations. This raises crucial questions about the efficacy and ethical implications of such sanctions, with researchers arguing that they are often regarded as a less violent alternative to military intervention.

Weisbrot criticized the ongoing use of sanctions, labeling them a lethal form of collective punishment that has been unjustifiably expanded over the years. He pointed out that this perspective is often undermined by the misconception that economic sanctions are nonviolent and humane alternatives to direct military engagement.

The findings are particularly alarming considering the notable increase in the scope of economic sanctions in recent decades. Between 2010 and 2022, 25% of all countries faced some form of sanction, a significant jump from the average of 8% in the 1960s. This surge correlates with an uptick in economic hardships and humanitarian crises in targeted nations, including well-documented cases like Venezuela. Rodríguez remarked on the broader implications of these sanctions, arguing they rarely achieve their intended political outcomes and instead serve to exacerbate the hardships endured by civilian populations.

The study is the first of its kind to methodically examine the effects of sanctions on age-specific mortality rates in a cross-country analysis, applying sophisticated methods to ascertain causal relationships from observational data. The results suggest that the mortality impacts of sanctions typically escalate over time, with longer durations of sanctions correlating with higher death tolls.

This new understanding compels a fresh evaluation of economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. Governments, particularly the U.S. and EU, are urged to reassess this approach, weighing the human costs against the desired policy outcomes. Economic sanctions, as highlighted in this critical study, pose not only a moral dilemma but also an urgent public health crisis that needs immediate and actionable scrutiny from the global community. As the effects of these policies become increasingly evident, the call for a reevaluation of their implementation has never been more pressing.