How effective are sanctions?
- Jonathan Wei
- Aug 21, 2022
- 3 min read
Updated: Feb 23, 2023
I'm sure you've seen the headlines:
North Korea has been sanctioned in regards to nuclear proliferation.
The Iran Deal: the US will lift further sanctions if both countries reach a compromise.
Heavy sanctions on Russian oil.
But, despite this boom of these articles from broadcasting networks spanning continents, what are sanctions, and why do we implement them?
What are Sanctions?
At a base level, Google defines sanctions as a threatened penalty for disobeying a law. In this situation, sanctions transcend this base value into a more economic sphere. Journalist Jonathan Masters of the Council of Foreign relations argue that economic sanctions are not just a response to disobedience but a substitute for more significant conflict and provocation.
"For many policymakers, economic sanctions have become the tool of choice to respond to major geopolitical challenges such as terrorism and conflict."
He adds that the wish for sanctions isn't to punish the people but rather to force the government to reconsider actions that impact international relationships and domestic safety.
"Governments and multinational bodies impose economic sanctions to try to alter the strategic decisions of state and non-state actors that threaten their interests or violate international norms of behavior. Critics say sanctions are often poorly conceived and rarely successful in changing a target's conduct, while supporters contend they have become more effective in recent years and remain an essential foreign policy tool."
Despite this general understanding of the dictation of sanctions, many remain perplexed regarding the effectiveness of these crack-downs.
The Sanction Debate: Helpful or Harmful?
Richard Haass of the Brookings exhibits the futile use of sanctions, stating the downsides to both countries.
"All too often sanctions turn out to be little more than expressions of US preferences that hurt American economic interests without changing the target's behavior for the better" he furthers that Sanctions alone are unlikely to achieve desired results if the aims are large or time is short, [proving a multitude of emperics]
"[Sanctions have fallen short] The Iranian regime continues to support terrorism, oppose the Middle East peace process, and press ahead with its nuclear weapons program. Sanctions did not deter India and Pakistan from testing nuclear weapons by the threat of draconian penalties. Libya has refused to produce the two individuals accused of the destruction of Pan Am 103. Sanctions could not persuade Haiti's junta to honor the results of an election. Nor could they dissuade Serbia and others from calling off their military aggression. And China continues to export sensitive technologies to selected countries and remains a society where human rights are violated."
Even now, with a rise in technologies, countries a frequently exploring cryptocurrencies, banking networks, and power-adjacent economies to bypass these sanctions. Despite these examples, individuals like Kimberley Elliot, a journalist for the Center for Global Development, advocate for a set checklist towards sanctions to ensure effectiveness:
"35 percent of the total were at least partially successful." Thus, Elliot concluded that the checklist of when sanctions are most likely to be effective starts with modesty.
"sanctions are most likely to be effective when the goal is modest, the sanctioning country voids high costs to itself, and the sanctions are imposed quickly."
The analysis concludes that sanctions aren't meant to solve every multilateral dispute but rather a fraction of them. In doing so, sanctions (can be argued) are on-net beneficial because they've prevented further conflicts in places like Greece, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, India, and El Salvador, to name a few.
Abiding by these regulations, sanctions can be a revolutionary tool to keep domestic and international peace: instead of invasion, one could respond economically. However, peace does not always equate to poverty reduction, economic growth, or at the very least, a reduction in the actions we sanctioned them for in the first place.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, puts it perfectly."Many policymakers view sanctions as a politically expedient alternative to war, but the fact is broad sanctions are economic warfare that punishes innocents."
Abdi states, "The human costs suffered by the hundreds of millions of people under US sanctions are an unacceptable collateral damage, and it's past time for serious efforts to reform our sanctions regime."
Conclusion
In this constant back and forth of International relationships, argumentative journalism, and comparative analysis, we must not forget the reason we advocate for peace: for the lives of those most vulnerable. If sanctions perpetuate the same harm war does while blanketing this destruction through a notion of "peace," we must reconsider our political choices.
Written by: Jonathan Wei | Junior @ NSHS, Waban MA
Resources:
Comments