How can the US punish a State that denies the right of the citizen to vote?

Answer 1

Within the field of international relations, it is generally considered bad form to consider measures taken to moderate the behavior of other nations as punitive actions. Generally, it's better to think in terms of encouraging nations to adopt more desirable actions and discourage maladaptive policies. There is a whole spectrum of ways in which this can be done.

First and foremost, presuming that the United States maintains diplomatic relations with the nation in question, direct dialog through an Ambassador or Consul is the best way to approach any disagreement over internal matters. Engaging the other government in discussion on a topic is the first step. After that, presuming that a behavior merits it, formal complaints and protests can be lodged.

Other measures can include with-holding (or providing) aid and special favors. America has many, many resources to offer other nations, from food aid, economic aid and loans, agricultural support, military assistance, and every type of training and help. America is a very good friend to have, and many allies of the United States are more than willing to make changes in their governments in order to attain American technology and know-how.

On the economic front, America can take many measures to assist (or confound) other nations' economies through the level of trade permitted. "Most Favored Trading Nations" such as China, are given a huge bag of benefits that are a priceless boost to their economies. Other nations, such as Cuba, have suffered immensely due to America's refusal to trade or allow travel. Cuba also illustrates an important limitation to such measures; help can be had from other sources, as well; nations unwilling to moderate their behavior toward their citizens can sometimes find less judgmental benefactors, such as Russia, China, or another nearby nation -- and these measures can backfire.

The U.S. can also orchestrate coordinated multinational sanctions of these sorts through the United Nations, NATO, or other international organizations. Coordinated efforts are likely to be even more effective. A good example is the "Food for Oil" program under which Iraq was not permitted to sell oil on the open market, but was only permitted to trade for food for its populace.

Finally, nothing is so persuasive as bombs dropping. Of course, military action is the last resort in the arsenal of measures designed to moderate a nation's behavior and policies. When the dilemma is severe enough, and human rights or other violations egregious enough, military action (unilateral, or in coalition) may be undertaken.

Unfortunately, in the case of voting, it must be acknowledged that not all nations are democratic, nor necessarily need be democratic. It is important to acknowledge that, although Americans may have strong beliefs about democratic government and make value judgments about nations without democratic ideologies, we like in a world where some governments are authoritarian dictatorships or monarchies. This isn't likely to change. More important that the technical form of a government is the level of freedom and quality of life of its populace. These are more worthy goals than policing other nation's governing structure; they are also far easier to change; the latter may only be possible through regime change, and even then, setting up a new form of government is all but impossible; just look at Afghanistan and Iraq.