Talk:United States sanctions

Untitled

This page should mention $10 billion in bank assets seized by the US govt, thus contributing to the likelihood of famine in Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psgcaravan (talk • contribs) 02:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Is there a list somewhere of all countries that the US has embargoed? How do we find this out? I'll keep looking. Thatmarkguy 12:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is Russia not listed? I believe Russia is under US sanctions because of Ukraine/Crimea secceding.

Myanmar Should Not Be In Red

Myanmar should not be in red as the trade embargo was lifted by President Obama on September 14th, 2016. I am not too sure how to change the map, but is there someone that can remove the red color on Myanmar?--Ameet12345 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Graph over time

it would be useful to see # of sanctions over time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmaker345 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Map

Nicaragua should be added on the map https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article223311675.html Theasiancowboy (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sudan

Hello, should we add Sudan on the Countries section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions#Countries since it is in red on the map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions#/media/File:US_Sanctions_2.png? --Baptx (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed Sudan was removed from the list (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_sanctions&diff=985068199&oldid=981229967) but in this case, we should remove the red color from the map also. It would also be useful to have a section like Past countries to keep a history of the previous sanctions (it will also prevent confusions like this). --Baptx (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Chinese officials are also sanctioned

Please add China to the list 45.115.89.221 (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Belarus & Russia

Should Belarus & Russia be added to the Countries list as of March 2022? They currently are still only under persons list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.20.204.34 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Better map/graph for visualizing sanctions

I feel like the page could use a better picture/graph for the visualization of sanctioned countries. First of all, Afghanistan, while the US didn't sanction the de jure government of Afghanistan, it still sanctions the de facto government, even going as far as seizing all its American stored reserves, which affects all Afghans within the country. Also there's no legend explaining the blue stripes in Iraq (which is not US occupied since American military command was withdrawn in 2011. Also as the other post talks about, Chinese officials are sanctioned as well. Bedrockbob (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Did United States sanction South Korea?

Because this is keep surfacing:

| South Korea |2022 |Yoon Suk-yeol |In August 2022, Yoon Suk-yeol committed serious diplomatic disrespect and neglect to Nancy Pelosi when she visited South Korea. He took what seemed like a pro-China move. In response, U.S. President Joe Biden personally initiated economic sanctions against the South Korea. The U.S. anger toward South Korean politicians, who had been busy looking at China for a long time, has only exploded. Yoon Seok-yeol's government officials will not be able to trade dollars, and South Korean companies will not be able to sell anything to the U.S. And U.S. companies in South Korea are advised to withdraw.

Is this actually true, or is this nothing but a lie? 125.240.31.231 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That is nothing but tons of lies from haters -118.217.219.229 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Which image should we use

Which one should we use? I found the bottom image searching for replacement images because the former doesn't have former countries and some current ones. Decide below, Huebo48 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the following paragraph

• The United States applies sanctions more frequently than any other country or nation, and does so by a wide-margin.[9] According to American Studies academic Manu Karuka, the United States has imposed two-thirds of the world's sanctions since the 1990s.[2] Collectively, the nations that are subject to some kind of U.S. sanction make up little more than one fifth of the world's GDP. Eighty percent of that group comes from China.[10]

I removed this paragraph as part of my massive overhaul of this article because I felt like it was not neutral and gave undue weight to a particular viewpoint. Although it isn't explicitly said, it implicitly and heavily implies that U.S. sanctions are excessive and applied on a too-large of a scale. This implicit suggestion is present throughout the article (with there even being a maintenance tag), and I removed other more obvious passages without being challenged. Now obviously, the implication that U.S. sanctions are excessive isn't wrong per se, but I felt that this specific passage gave undue weight to the idea that U.S. excessively sanctions without explaining other viewpoints. The second sentence in this passage is actually already in the lead (and I kept it there when I rewrote the lead), but I feel repeated mentioning of the same statistic and same source is violation of WP:N and WP:UNDUE.

But even if I were to concur and leave the first two sentences alone, the last two sentences is not written in a neutral manner and, in my view, is an example of WP:WEASEL.

• Collectively, the nations that are subject to some kind of U.S. sanction make up little more than one fifth of the world's GDP. Eighty percent of that group comes from China. [1]

Let's first ignore the fact one of these sentences are lifted word-for-word from the source. The reason why this is WP:WEASEL is because the sentence appears to lend evidential weight to the idea that U.S. excessively sanctions (wow, countries representing 1/5th of the entire world's GDP is being sanctioned! Wow China represents so much of that sanction!) but in reality this claim is highly ambiguous and rather misleading. First of all, what is the definition of "nations that are subject to some kind of U.S. sanction" even mean? As readers of the newly revamped article can tell, not all U.S. sanctions are the same. This leads to some questions:

• First of all, what constitutes a nation that is subject to some kind of U.S. sanction? Does it include countries like Central African Republic, which has warm relations with the U.S.? Sanctions against C.A.R. are against those who are undermining the state there, not the state itself. Does it include Japan, Italy, or Mexico, all U.S. security partners whose citizens in criminal organizations have faced several rounds of sanctions? Does it include Cyprus, which has an arms embargo because of the ongoing situation there, but is not otherwise sanctioned at all? What does "some kind of U.S. sanction" even mean?
• Wrapping countries like China and North Korea together under a combined 1/5th GDP necessarily implies that the sanctions are equal. They are not. The DPRK is a comprehensively sanctioned jurisdiction, whereas China sanctions selectively target a small number of alleged human rights abusers, Hong Kong sovereignty underminers, and targeted restrictions on the country's military and defense industry. Collectively, these restrictions represent a tiny sliver of China's total economy.
• The whole idea of using a percentage of GDP to represent U.S. sanctions incorrectly implies that U.S. sanctions target specific countries, when as we explained, they mostly do not. With the exception of a few cases like DPRK, U.S. sanctions target individuals, entities, and types of activities. So even using country GDP as a metric for measuring the scope of U.S. sanctions is, by itself, misleading.

Pinging @JArthur1984: who originally reverted my edit. So setting aside the first two sentences for now, I don't think the latter two sentences should be kept at all for the reasons listed above. --haha169 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think keep the first two sentences but your explanation of the issue in last two sentences is compelling — not a sensible metric, or at least not as currently phrased. Those should be deleted. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

ICC as a subsection under the "Targeted Parties" section

I am removing this. The ICC is not a targeted party so it being under the "Targeted Parties" section makes no sense. It merits a row in the table in the Former Sanctions section and that's it.

Relatedly, the significant amount of space given to this is absolutely an example undue weight being given specifically to the controversy surrounding the ICC, when dozens of other sanctions proposals are brought up in Congress every term that, like this, are not ultimately passed. There is nothing that makes the ICC proposals any more special than the other ones that don't pass. In fact, there is more space given to this article than most actual existing sanctions programs get. --haha169 (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether legislations are “not passed” is not the measure of encyclopedic notability. Such measures are encyclopedically notable based on their coverage in WP:RS. There is abundant coverage of these issues in RS. Your view is incorrect because it substitutes editor view of what is important for what abundant RS reflect.

Remember that we are an encyclopedia not a law text — proposed legislation, political stances, do not need to have legal effect for them to be encyclopedically notable for the study of history, politics, and foreign relations.

If you desire to improve the article, feel free to bring forward RS-sourced discussion of other proposed sanctions. I think it is a good idea to make it be more comprehensive. Bit articles can grow step-by-step, and this is obviously appropriate. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about US sanctions, a wide ranging topic with a massive scope that covers a lot of issues. WP:UNDUE is very important for such a large topic to avoid giving too much prominence to what ultimately is a small element of the larger topic of US sanctions.

• UNDUE specifically notes the "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement" of certain claims over others.

• • Depth of detail: The proposed section I reverted was an overview that covered (a) the former sanctions targeting the ICC, (b) a timeline of a proposed sanctions bill that stalled, and (c) comments citing unspecified legislators saying they want to pass the sanctions again following the Netanyahu warrant. This is more depth than is given to any other individual sanctions program (ie., Russia sanctions)

• • Quantity of text: five sentences and two paragraphs, this is more prose than is given to any other individual sanctions program.

• • Prominence of placement: It's own subheading under "Targeted Parties", which implies that the ICC is currently a targeted party under US sanctions (everything else in the section is currently targeted) at the same level as other subheadings like "comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions" and "arms related export controls".

• WP:PROPORTIONAL talks about giving balance to various topics "with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The proposed edit gives much more weight and attention to the ICC controversy in this article compared to far more notable aspects of US sanctions policy, such as the sanctions against Russia.

A careful assessment of reliable sources discussing the topic of US sanctions under WP:N guidelines you paraphrased earlier would show that the ICC controversy is miniscule compared to the volume of literature devoted to studying and analyzing Russia sanctions, or North Korea sanctions, or the Cuban embargo.

There might be dozens of reliable sources talking about the ICC controversy, but there are tens of thousands articles about all elements of US sanctions against Russia, or the topic of US arms embargo and military end use/dual use prohibitions.

• The ICC sanctions is a former sanctions and has been given proper placement in the former sanctions spot. If it is passed again in the future, it will be placed alongside other currently active sanctions programs. A detailed discussion of the history of this specific sanctions program when others do not have something similar is UNDUE. And we should not be writing something similar for every sanctions program, because Wikipedia has article length guidelines and to properly give balance to West Bank settlers sanctions and Chinese military end use export controls against what is proposed for the ICC sanctions would cause this article to swel in size far beyond the WP:AS guidelines.

To summarize, the length, depth, and placement of the proposed ICC section gives UNDUE weight to this topic within the larger article scope of US sanctions. If we were to give this much space to discussing the ICC controversy, proportionality and balance would require us to write more for each of the other more prominent and important (under WP:N guidelines) sanctions programs as well. A proper balance for those other more important sanctions programs, of which there are many, would be far too massive and, I believe, in violation of AS. --haha169 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)