>> time for a quick check of the headlines. fears of growing instability. that you and says it has taken more than 50 districts in the past month. the u.s. has called the wind manufactured which iran denies. u.s. senate democrats have seen

votes blocked by republicans. democrats say the package contained measures to counteract laws which restrict voting access. republicans argue the bill infringes on states rights. >> was a partisan vote on party lines. republicans were adamant they would oppose the bill. democrats were adamant they would favor it. there have been some debate earlier in the day, one senator holding out for changes, beauty eventually agreed, giving a total block in terms of supporting this measure. with that filibuster in place which means that 60 votes are required, it is now over. >> ethiopia's prime minister has branded monday's election a success.

he says the paul was ethiopia's first attempt. as voters await results, some groups are crying foul. they say ballot boxes were tampered with. >> some of the most vaccinated countries are experiencing resurgence in covid-19. a report shows countries outpacing the u.s. in vaccination rates since -- such as mongolia right, the top 10 worst outbreaks. those are the headlines. the news continues here on al jazeera after and sensory.

host: western nation slap sanctions on belarus. these penalties are increasingly used to punish a country's behavior, but do they work? and what are the diplomatic alternatives. this is inside story. hello and welcome to the program. belarus is facing new sanctions. the eu, u.s. and canada say they are presenting a united front. the action follows the forced diversion of a plane. the crackdown on protests against the disputed election when last year. the new charges included travel

ban. the leader says they send a clear and powerful message. >> ready to support a future democratic belarus with a comprehensive fan -- plan of economic support of up to $3 billion. supporting it might help right now with sanctions. [indiscernible] continue to put pressure on the regime. >> the department of state and treasury designated 62 individuals and five entities in response to continuing repression, we did this partners and allies and with these

actions we are demonstrating our deep and shared concern regarding the activities. host: sanctions are being used to punish nations for bad behavior. a recent study says their use has gone up significantly in the past four years. they include the jailing of opposition leader alexei navalny and the annexation of crimea. they have been punishing china or rights abuses. the european blocked the u.s. and other officials linked to myanmar's coup, and iran's economy has been suffering after years of u.s. sanctions. the nations have been involved in talks that could see measures lifted.

our guests join us now. the former assistant secretary of defense and senior fellow at the center for american progress, a warm welcome to you all. do sanctions actually work? are they effective? >> in the particular case of belarus, the clear answer is no russia is banking on what they are doing, and we cannot expect the use of a tool to be enough for a regime change. it also sends a signal to

autocratic leaders that they don't get away with violations of international law. it depends on each case. host: are there diplomatic alternatives to sanctions, and if so, what are they? >> sanctions are used because you don't want to, for example, use military force. in that sense, it is better. as my colleague mentioned they can have some impact, but does not change the behavior. here with belarus, you have a lot of the european countries, but if you have the whole international community united, even some of belarus's allies, that might have an eect. if it's going to work it's going to take a while.

host: when it comes specifically to belarus, sanctions have been in place for most of his leadership. how is this latest round different than previous sanctions? and you believe they will actually make a difference? >> i agree with the former speaker. sanctions only work if everyone gets behind them. the problem is to some extent a remnant of when the entire world was relied on the west. as the international system was multicolor, we see continued use of sanctions has less effect. in the case of belarus, they have alternatives. russia was mentioned.

the use of sanctions, especially on issues where the sections country has little ability to make concessions, it learns to live without. the key lesson should be -- [indiscernible] russia has rewired its economy, a strategic partnership with china, to reduce its motor ability. we see the same with iran. they are responding by becoming closer with china and russia, belarus forced to do the same. i think this will not have the intended effect.

again, we can ask what affect -- is a pro-democracy or regime change? it is not always the same thing. host: if we look more broadly. if they don't get the intended results, how do you gauge success? what is the next best outcome? >> it is a matter of credibility. if we have a high moral tone of what the west stands for, that there are norms and values, but also in opposition groups, countries that are under the oppression of autocrats, things happen like a blogger is kidnapped from an airplane that belongs to a european union company.

you cannot just ignore this. it is a matter of credibility whether you let autocratic regimes get away with it or send a signal. you can also be very specific in the targeted group. [indiscernible] is it something that makes the whole countrsuffer? what norm chomsky is calling a weapon of mass this this destruction. people died because of the consequences and it causes poverty all over the country. host: when it comes to how the u.s. has imposed sanctions on various entries and governments, has there been a shift in the

american strategy? are they trying more and more to make sure they don't target huge sectors of society and the economy, so that regular citizens aren't as effective and they target instead specifically government officials, whether their personal wealth or freezing of their assets? >> they are trying to use more targeted sanctions. the problem is, if you are trying to change a country's behavior, you are trying to get iran to not develop nuclear weapons, if you just target a couple of people at the top, you're hoping that by undermining the whole economy, the people there will put pressure on them. unfortunately, that has not worked. the only case i know where it

worked was against iraq after the first gulf war. it kept them from developing weapons of mass destruction, which unfortunately we did not realize. you also have to realize, there is an economic impact on your own citizens. the sanctions on iran are driving up the price of oil for everybody, including people in the united states. because the iranian oil is not getting to the global markets, and as my colleague said, if it is not completely done by the international community, you have china and russia making arrangements with iran, it actually helps these other countries who are not always your allies. host: from your vantage point, would you say that the so-called targeted sanctions are more or less successful than sanctions that have been imposed in years

past? >> i think they won't have that much affect. as i mentioned, the sanction country doesn't have much room to maneuver. something has to be done, we have to send a signal. [indiscernible] with the language that was used, we take on the subject. the problem there is it was rejected by china and russia.

the various things from human rights. in the case of belarus, most countries try to run about. i would just point out, sanctions are not deemed to be legitimate. mainly russia and china, keep in mind, in 2003, european countries, in 2016 when ukraine

threatened fighter jets so they can arrest -- there is no outrage or sanctions. it is a selective application of these rules resulting in becoming illegitimate, which is why larger countries are refusing to play ball, and instead supporting are not merely happy. but they refused to play along these rules. host: and look to me like you are reacting. do you want to jump in? >> we don't need to go as far as looking at the west. we have a similar situation between the united states and germany on the case of the pipeline. the united states and congress

punished companies that are involved in building this pipeline. this did not lead to a regime change, but it massively affected public opinion and put germany in a defensive position when it comes to package deals in with germany was always reminded and willing to sacrifice a homogenous position in european energy policy, and when finally biden stopped germany, it was a relief. host: already in this conversation we have spoken about china, russia, iran, other countries, i want to talk for a moment about myanmar, but since the military coup in february, since the military took control, you have seen the u.s., britain, the eu, they have imposed several waves of sanctions

against them. have targeted specifically, leaders of the military. and yet, the military has not changed his behavior and any significant way. they seem to be relying on support. from your perspective, have the sanctions against myanmar at any meaningful impact? ? >> ironically, the big impact is on the people. as you pointed out, they can get help from china and russia. a lot of times countries do this, then i will speak for the united states, they do it because it makes them feel good. they have to do something. the overthrow of the elected government, so we have to do something. the more countries you can get to join you, the better it is.

the potential of having a long-term impact. by and large, it is a substitute for taking more dramatic action. it is more of a symbol than anything else in most cases. host: in your previous answer, you mentioned russia. russia has been sanctioned by the u.s. for election meddling in cyber attacks. are these making any kind of difference? >> not really. teaching russia to learn to live without the united states. linking itself closer to china. again, the problems tend to be the same. sanctions are largely unilateral. they are not used to enforce a rules-based system. that is the main reason why

russia is not going to budge and is just learning to live with it. i don't think it is going to make much of a difference, even if they are escalated. again, you mention cyber and human rights. the common denominator is it is only a reference to what russia has done, never goes the other way. never addresses the united states cyber activities, human rights issues in the united states. so as an instrument for sovereign equality. under those circumstances it is deemed illegitimate in moscow. host: it seems more and more we just hear about sanctions being imposed again and again, this just seems to fill the headlines week after week. so i ask you, have we gotten to

the point where sanctions are simply being overused? >> there is no such thing as a perfect equilibrium for how we use for this. no matter if it is diplomacy or economic sanctions. i think it depends case by case. nkin a united germany because of the economic embargo, they were cut off from access to technology, and that made them economically implode. that was the beginning of the end of the economic experiments called socialism. it is not completely useless. and it depends on the circumstances. of course, i would not lobby in favor of if you can impose force on others in the name of whatever, i think it depends on the case to discuss under what conditions it makes sense in

connection with other tools. host: 20 come to the west imposing sanctions, in some ways , from your point of view, does this not just encourage the countries being hit with sanctions to just look to other countries in strike deals with them? i offer iran as an example. what do you say? >> unless it is the whole international community that does it, and obviously you are going to have nations take care of their best interest. if they are autocracies and don't have much pressure from the people, they can minimize the impact by going to other countries. even the input impacted sanctions have on not get the people to rise up. it's a way to get people to say

we did not ignore this. we put sanctions on. we can't solve all of the world's problems. you're not going to use military force. we have sanctions on cuba for over 50 years. this whole idea that it is going to achieve its objective is something that needs to be analyzed. so people realize the limitations. host: sanctions can also be used by regimes who are being targeted to rally domestic support as well, erect? even unpopular leaders you sanctions as a way to boost support domestically, correct? >> yes. that was the interesting,, this idea that you are supposed to rally the people.

it often achieve the opposite. the sanctions against russia were interesting. when the government went through economic problems, they should have had to take some responsibility. at the same time, you had obama come on the tv and say we destroyed their economy. it was us. taking the blame off the government. in create a lot of resentment towards external power. again, sanctions always have to be linked to something. if you want to change behavior, destroy the economy can't be the purpose. you have to see whether or not this possible. with the case of belarus, it is pretty much always tied to regime change.

same with russia. there is nothing russia can do. not going to. the people effectively support what the government has done and blame economic difficulties on foreign powers. the intentional rallying the people is not working. host: unintended consequences. go ahead. >> there are these unintended consequences, and it can allow these dictators to blame the u.s. or international community for the problems they have at home. it hurts your own people. they can strengthen these regimes that you are trying to change. the great irony is.

sanctions work best for people you are working with. host: we have seen countries like russia and china start retaliating more when sanctions are in most on them. do you think going forward we are going to see more countries retaliate? >> definitely. particularly with china which is such a fast-growing economy and what the united states depended on for a lot of supplies that keeps our economy going. yes, they are going to do it. the united states global economic position is not as strong as it once was. it is still strong but not as strong as it once was. i think you're going to see that. i think with the nordstrom pipeline, one of the reasons we did not stop that from germany is basically because we know

that we need the help of the germans to deal with the chinese. host: we have run out of time so we're going to leave the conversation there. thank you so much our guests. thank you for watching. you can see this again by visiting our website and our facebook page. also twitter. bye for now.

>> the face can tell a story without uttering a single word. simple touch. the unconventionality of life. witness through the lens of t human eye is what inspires us.

t■t■çñçñçñ■?■?■?çñ diep tran: i think people are aware of vietnamese cuisine, and most people don't want that cuisine to change or don't want to have their understanding of the cuisine to change. because the cuisine is changing all the time. the idea of a, like, this unifying national cuisine, vietnamese cuisine, it doesn't exist. really, it truly doesn't exist. even a unified vietnamese identity doesn't exist. [dings] like, it's kind of like saying italians--defined by tomatoes and olive oil. what people see as essential, it's because they're looking from like an outsider's point of view, and it's not granular.