Sanctions, National Security, and Free Speech

A fundamental, but largely overlooked, aspect of the New Washington Consensus is the use of national security arguments to restrict speech and punish disfavored speakers. Although the United States has a longer history of using sanctions to restrict speech in the terrorism context, it has recently applied sanctions to restrict political speech, attack universities, and shut down social media platforms. By linking national security concerns and economic policy to favored and disfavored viewpoints, the United States is not only betraying its fundamental values but also undermining the credibility of its national security exceptionalism, creating uncertain conditions for investors, and weakening the position of the US dollar and financial system. As a result, US national security is ultimately weakened as well, because the sanctions so fundamental to US national security policy are only as strong as the US dollar and financial system. The erratic nature of US politics may finally spur a lasting displacement of the dollar as states and investors seek more reliable alternatives. In place of implausible national security claims and capricious ideological commitments, a new approach to global trade and finance will emerge, and do so in a way that is increasingly divorced from any consensus reached in Washington

Credibility · Liberian dollar · National security · Politics · Sanctions · Terrorism · Economic Sanctions and International Relations · Global Political and Economic Relations · History, Medicine, and Leadership

• Freedom of expression in turbulent times – comparative approaches to dangerous speech

  Open Access•Theo Tsomidis•The International Journal of…•2021

  Add to list