If, as Gibbons claims, this direction of control was strongly enhanced by the sanctions of 1991-94, that would have to be a very strong impediment to the development of any serious notion of Haitian democracy. A significant portion of Gibbons' anti-sanctions argument is tied to what actually happened in Haiti. But Gibbons has larger fish to fry as well. Almost always sanctions will bring about a fundamental conflict with UN doctrines on human rights, especially the social and economic rights, but often, as in Haiti, even with the right to life itself. We hear this criticism often these days in regard to the economic sanctions against Iraq.
Gibbons is extremely skeptical that sanctions can ever really be a moral tool.
She realizes that her argument will not likely bring the end of sanctions, so she turns her attention to them to see if some sanctions are less likely to have these human rights violating consequences, and she recommends a number of policy changes for the use of sanctions. Gibbons, p. 108-109. Gibbons book is a detailed and marvelous read of issues concerning the sanctions in Haiti and sanctions in general. There is a bit of strangeness in the perspective. Most discussion I had seen and participated in until now was on the issue of whether or not the sanctions were effective, or whether or not the price the Haitian masses paid was too strenuous.