In the United Nations Security Council chamber, decisions regarding global peace and security are made, yet the voices of those suffering in silence are often absent. Sanctions aren’t always viewed as warfare, but their impacts can be equally devastating. A study published in The Lancet reveals that these measures affect millions, harming health, food security, and access to essential services. Photo: UN Press Archive.
Guacamaya, July 25, 2025. In discussions surrounding global policies, economic sanctions are frequently regarded as a “civilized” alternative to military action. But what happens when this supposedly less violent tool results in more fatalities than bombings?
A recent study in The Lancet Global Health provides a troubling answer. Based on data from 152 countries spanning five decades, the research establishes that unilateral economic sanctions—particularly those imposed by the United States—are linked to over 560,000 deaths annually. Most of these deaths occur among the most vulnerable groups: children under five and elderly individuals. The authors, Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón, and Mark Weisbrot, conclude that “sanctions have substantial public health effects, comparable to those in armed conflicts.”
From the Embargo on Cuba to Iraq’s Collapse: A History of Deadly Sanctions
The understanding that sanctions can yield destructive consequences is not a novel idea. The economic blockade against Cuba, lasting more than sixty years, has faced ongoing condemnation from the UN General Assembly and international organizations for its repercussions on health, nutrition, and medical technology access. Despite multiple reports documenting the human costs, the embargo continues to exist.
The Cuban exile community in Florida defends the blockade, politicizing the crisis. It has become a symbol of “resistance,” while ordinary Cubans endure its harsh ramifications. This same narrative shapes U.S. approaches toward Venezuela, using sanctions as a politically beneficial story of “change that will come.” Tragically, some Venezuelan political figures have resorted to one of the most unsuccessful—and costly—strategies encountered in history.
One alarming example is Iraq in the 1990s, following the Gulf War. UN sanctions created a scarcity of essential goods, leading humanitarian organizations to estimate that hundreds of thousands of children died from preventable causes. The crisis resulted in the contentious “Oil-for-Food” program, which permitted limited oil sales in exchange for humanitarian supplies. Although aimed at alleviating suffering, the program faced criticism for inefficiency and rampant corruption. Nevertheless, it sparked global discussions about the humanitarian costs of sanctions, exposing a worrying reality.
The Iraqi situation provided a bitter lesson: there is no such thing as “smart sanctions” when the design disregards the survival patterns of a society. This lesson seems to have faded from memory. Other instances where sanctions have harmed civilian populations are deliberately overlooked by proponents of a failing strategy responsible for countless innocent lives lost.
Venezuela: A Symbolic Case
Since 2017, Venezuela has encountered financial, trade, and energy sanctions that have intensified its humanitarian crisis. In 2021, UN Special Rapporteur Alena Douhan cautioned that the sanctions, primarily imposed by the U.S., significantly exacerbated the country’s plight—impacting medication procurement, oil production, food imports, and healthcare systems.
“These sanctions affect all aspects of Venezuelan life and breach fundamental principles of international law,” Alena Douhan asserted in her report to the UN Human Rights Council.
In reality, sanctions didn’t target a government—they impacted an already weakened society amidst an economic quagmire. The repercussions: hospitals lacking supplies, extended power outages, mass migration, and sharply declining health metrics.
The crisis began before the sanctions, rooted in structural challenges within a polarized nation. Coercive actions worsened an already tangled situation. Millions have watched their family and friends abandon the country—Venezuelan migration rates now surpass those of many nations embroiled in war.
When outsiders ask me, “Why does Venezuela exhibit indicators of a conflict zone when it isn’t at war?” I refuse to offer simple answers. This stems from decades of conflict, a constant erosion—not only of politics or the economy—but of institutions and state capabilities. The Venezuelan state lost its ability to respond amid a radicalizing confrontation, with leaders disregarding the human cost.
The Responsibility of Political Leadership
Given this evidence, elites—both domestic and global—must introspect. Advocating for sanctions against a nation equates to calling for the deterioration of its populace. Political elites seldom suffer the repercussions; they maintain privileges while ordinary individuals foot the bill.
Advocating for sanctions implies endorsing blockades that obstruct access to food, medicine, and vaccines. It means celebrating the deaths of impoverished children from malnutrition and preventable illnesses.
Some leaders contend that sanctions are essential to compel regimes towards democracy. But if such pressure results in unnecessary fatalities, its legitimacy evaporates. No fight for freedom justifies widespread suffering. Furthermore, sanctions have not succeeded in causing governmental change or real political advancements.
In Venezuela, sanctions further exacerbate existing state failures. Discussing them has become taboo—mention them, and you’re accused of supporting the government or minimizing the crisis. Some suggest “Venezuelans are willing to endure that sacrifice”—but when were we ever consulted?
A democratic political landscape constructed upon rubble and unmarked graves lacks coherence. Ethical leadership cannot endorse mechanisms that collectively penalize a nation. Diplomacy, mediation, and peace-building—regardless of their political unpopularity—are the only viable alternatives.
Recognizing shared responsibility in the crisis is not about “equating guilt,” but acknowledging a painful truth. One can’t advocate for human rights while ignoring the humanitarian toll of sanctions. Silence, stigma, and minimization call for scrutiny.
A Global and Urgent Debate
The Lancet study and UN reports necessitate a revived global discourse surrounding sanctions as a power tool. If these policies systematically elevate mortality rates among vulnerable populations, they should be regulated under the same principles that govern military operations.
This does not imply remaining silent about human rights abuses by any entity. It signifies a refusal to perpetuate violence in the name of justice. Justice cannot be founded on hunger or death.
In a world grappling with humanitarian challenges—climate catastrophes, forced migrations, pandemics—sanctions as collective punishment are not only immoral; they’re brutally ineffective. Current sanction regimes violate principles of legality, proportionality, and human dignity. Yet, they inflict tangible harm.
Despite administrative and media silence, scientific evidence speaks clearly: sanctions kill—not through bombs, but through scarcity. Not through uproar, but through malnutrition, disease, and neglect.
When Venezuela’s crisis commenced, I wasn’t even born. I belong to a generation molded by a conflict we did not initiate, yet profoundly experience. I’ve watched family and friends leave, observed struggles for healthcare access, education, and public services—all under a political confrontation that consumes us.
At 24, I’m weary. I believe we—young people—must advocate for the end of this conflict because we stand to lose the most.
Sanctions are akin to invisible bombs: unseen yet lethal. They strike children under five and the elderly the hardest. How can we justify a policy that claims lives of those who barely grasp existence or those who deserve dignity in their twilight years?
Reducing human suffering should be a priority for every political figure. Few uphold it—but if someone reading this listens, I implore you to consider the individual behind the statistics.
On Youth Participation in Global Debate
As Venezuelans, especially youth, we bear a dual responsibility and opportunity to engage in the global discussion regarding sanctions, one of today’s most destructive yet invisible coercive tools. This discourse must urgently transpire in venues like the United Nations, where vital global decisions are made—often without our input.
The UN faces a crisis of legitimacy and efficacy, yet it remains a crucial platform. Discussing the implications of sanctions isn’t merely about raising awareness—it’s a concrete contribution to much-needed multilateral reform. Venezuela, with its recent history, has to—and must—play a significant role in this global transformation.
Our involvement isn’t ornamental; it’s strategic and essential for demanding meaningful agreements. Documenting our reality, voicing concerns in international arenas, and proposing pathways to reduce suffering is not symbolic—it’s an assertion of our rights and those of millions affected by unaccountable policies. Young people must seize this space. If we don’t, decisions regarding sanctions—and various other pressing matters—will be made without our input.
Part of the reasons are summarized in the World Bank Group’s study by Moeeni (2022), titled “The Intergenerational Effects of Economic Sanctions” on Iran, which examines how international economic sanctions affect not only the generation that directly faces them but also perpetuate cycles of poverty, inequality, and socioeconomic decline over decades. According to the findings, sanctions account for 40% to 60% of the declines in intergenerational indicators such as education and child health, even after accounting for factors like armed conflict or corruption. The cumulative effect is more pronounced in the second generation, being two to three times greater due to the disruption of human and social capital. Countries with fragile institutions, like Venezuela, face more intense and prolonged impacts compared to nations with resilient state structures, like Iran.
Among the key discoveries is that future income loss is distributed as 45% to the current generation and 55% to future generations. Pregnant women under sanctioned conditions have an elevated risk of complications affecting their children’s health even decades later. Educationally, sanctions inflate school dropout rates by 20-40%, especially among girls and vulnerable groups, while professional migration aggravates intergenerational recovery abilities. Economically, there’s a surge in chronic poverty and informal employment among youth, who are up to three times more likely to work in precarious or risky jobs. Lasting psychological effects are also noted, including stress, anxiety, depression, and distrust in institutions. The study indicates that education spending plummeted by 58%, particularly in school enrollment, leading to an increase in free public schooling. Moreover, it estimates that if those impacted had sustained the 2006 university enrollment rates, their lifetime earnings would have been 41% higher.
The study identifies four mechanisms through which intergenerational detriment occurs: reduced public spending on social services; fragmentation of family networks due to migration or death; accumulation of “human debt” (children with limited physical and educational development); and the degradation of social fabric, marked by normalized corruption and informality. Among its policy recommendations, Moeeni suggests redesigning sanctions regimes to exclude critical sectors like health and education, instituting humanitarian safeguards with independent monitoring mechanisms, and establishing international intergenerational compensation funds directed toward social infrastructure and scholarship initiatives for youth.
This approach illustrates that sanctions are not solely a geopolitical tactic, but a structural factor that shapes the futures of entire societies. That’s why it’s vital for young people — who will inherit the fallout from these decisions — to engage actively in debates over their legitimacy, efficacy, and true impacts. Their voices are essential in challenging policies that jeopardize both their present and future, as well as constructing narratives of justice, reparations, and peace. Understanding the impact of sanctions from a generational standpoint is also a way to demand more humane and responsible foreign policies—a necessity especially crucial in Venezuela.
The effects of sanctions do not cease—they mold the future of an entire generation. That’s why our voices must resonate in international dialogues where these choices are made—often without acknowledgment of their real-world implications.
Comprehending and exposing the human cost of sanctions is vital for envisioning Venezuela’s post-conflict future. National recovery, reconciliation, and reconstruction may be severely obstructed if these measures persist or remain unexamined.
The most tragic aspect of sanctions, as demonstrated by Moeeni’s research, is that their most devastating repercussions will not be borne by us—not even by the political figures who mandated or imposed them—but by future generations. It will be our children, our sons and daughters, our grandchildren, who will pay the highest costs for choices made today without their approval or inclusion.
The harm will extend beyond the economy—it will be profoundly human: children raised with limited access to healthcare, education, and proper nutrition; young people trapped in precarious employment or compelled to migrate; families separated; societies with diminished human capital, rising distrust, and entrenched inequality.
We are mortgaging the future of a whole country, leaving behind a silent yet profound debt in the shape of inherited poverty, lost opportunities, and lives cut short before they even begin. This is why it’s urgent to expand this dialogue to the youth—not merely as a token gesture, but as an act of generational justice. Because if the future belongs to them, then their voices must be integral to the decisions that shape it.
Engaging in this conversation is not a mere formality—it is essential for ensuring our journey towards peace and development remains just, inclusive, and sustainable.
Venezuela Deserves Much More
When a politician calls for stricter sanctions, remember this study, the UN reports, and the lessons of recent history. Sanctions do not aid—they kill. Their victims aren’t mere figures: they are children stripped of futures, the elderly neglected, broken families.
Venezuela merits more. But that transformation will not materialize if suffering is made the currency of change. Society must advocate for an agreement by and for the people—before there’s no nation left to reconstruct.
Perhaps these words will not reach global decision-makers—sanctions remain unseen in the media, often dismissed to prevent recognition of their gravity. But I hope those wielding decision-making authority heed this argument—and that scholarship documenting the impacts of sanction policies continues to flourish.
Saying or critiquing sanctions does not equate to excluding or downgrading other matters—in fact, they are deeply interconnected. From this forum, I remain open to listening and valuing various perspectives, with the clear aim of contributing—wherever achievable—to useful and practical solutions for Venezuela.