US coercion hurts ordinary people
The economic and human costs of Washington’s bully tactics can be seen across the globe
From Rome to Great Britain, every empire has assimilated the conquered with language, institutions and ideas, often by coercion, so that the conquered would be easier to rule over.
Similar is the tale of the United States of America. When the US found European gunboats blockading Venezuela’s port in 1902, it could not sit idly and decided to exercise “international police power” in the Western Hemisphere and intervene in another country’s internal affairs (Roosevelt Corollary 1904).
Hegemony is not easy to manage. So, for those who were too stubborn to accept its rule — Cuba, Iran, Syria, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Venezuela and, most recently, Russia — the US has resorted to harsh coercion including economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, or more directly, missiles, drones and marines. Washington’s goal has been consistent — inducing a major change in the target’s political system so as to wipe out its strategic, diplomatic and economic ambitions.
In the past seven decades, the US has fought major wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Unhappy with the price and outcome of military options, sanctions have become Washington’s favorite tool of coercion. During former US president Barack Obama’s first term, the US sanctioned on average 500 entities every year. During next president Donald Trump’s term, that number doubled.
Incumbent President Joe Biden has inherited this coercive diplomacy faithfully, and sanctioned Myanmar, Nicaragua and Russia during his first months in office.
Two months into the RussiaUkraine
conflict, the US has imposed more than 800 sanctions on Russia. Sanctions have officially become Washington’s go-to option apart from military actions, and the Americans seem to be confident that they can coerce a major country into submission using its hegemonic power.
The US has made it clear that those who follow its sanctions are loyal friends, and those that attempt to judge the situation based on its merits are not “standing on the right side of history”.
The actual efficacy of US coercion is a topic of debate, but its damaging effects have been keenly felt by ordinary people in those countries targeted by the US. For instance, US embargo has cost Cuba roughly $130 billion (about one and a half times Cuba’s annual GDP) in economic value over the past six decades, and studies have shown that the embargo “contributes to increasing health threats and the decline of some health indicators”. As for US sanctions on Iran, they have led to a 42 percent annual inflation there, and more than one-third of Iranians are living below “the basic minimum of subsistence”.
Despite the human and economic costs, the term coercion is not considered negative in the US’ dictionary. For a while, it was proudly branded as “an alternative to war”, as we read about the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 in the many pages of study by Alexander George, who was among the first to put “coercive diplomacy” into theocratic framework in the early 1990s.
Until China came along. From the Trump administration to the Biden administration, Washington’s politicians have been using the term “coercion” to describe those moves by China that they do not like. China downgrading its diplomatic ties with Lithuania: coercion. China arresting Canadian spies: coercion. China protesting against the deployment of US high-tech weapons in the Republic of Korea: coercion.
A truly independent and responsible observer would examine the nature of a state’s actions.
There are essential differences between how the American and Chinese people do things. For one thing, Beijing’s actions are defensive and proportional while the US’ actions are offensive and coercive. Beijing downgraded its diplomatic relations with Lithuania in 2021 because the latter violated the oneChina principle by allowing Taiwan to open a de facto embassy in Vilnius. Beijing’s move was labeled by Washington and its allies as an act of “coercion”.
No matter how politicians try to present it, the meaning of the one-China principle is self-evident. It has been written into UN resolutions, and the declarations between China and other countries while establishing diplomatic ties. In response to a violation of a legally binding international agreement and in an effort to defend its territorial integrity, China’s decision to downgrade diplomatic relations with Lithuania is highly proportional and legitimate.
In 2018, the US recalled its top diplomats from the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Panama, and threatened to downgrade diplomatic relations with those countries. Washington was angry that the countries had established diplomatic ties with Beijing, thereby cutting off their “official” relations with Taiwan. Which country those Central American countries choose to befriend is within the scope of their sovereignty.
Besides, establishing diplomatic ties with the only legitimate government of China endorsed by the UN and the overwhelming majority of countries should not be a move that calls for interference by the “big boss”.
Yet Washington was so desperate to change the behavior of the three countries that it even issued a threat to cut off assistance to them. Reducing development aid in retaliation to a sovereign decision — this has been a classic demonstration of asymmetrical reaction or, to use a simpler term, bullying.
Also, China takes actions within the confines of international agreement and institutions, while the US applies its domestic laws selectively all around the world regardless of legality.
Moreover, Australia has been crying out “Chinese coercion”, because some in Canberra felt that the drop in its exports to China has something to do with its political statements regarding the tracing of COVID-19 origins and China’s human rights.
For Australian barley, wine, sugar and other products, China conducted anti-dumping investigations and took actions according to World Trade Organization rules. Australia reacted by also utilizing WTO tools. Any party can take their grievances to an impartial arbitrator governed by international agreement.
But if a country somehow crosses the US, the consequences would be dire and there is no place to appeal except in US courts. The overwhelming majority of US sanctions have been authorized by domestic laws, which means US Congress has more sway in running global affairs than the UN, an institution with the collective mandate of 193 sovereign states.
Every year since 1992, the UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to demand the US lift its illegal embargo on Cuba. Yet the embargo remains. This is a classic demonstration of the US’ arbitrary enforcement of law or, in plain terms, bossiness.
I will leave it to the reader to decide which country uses coercion. And which is a bully.