Sanctions are one of the most commonly used tools of international diplomacy employed by countries to promote and advance their foreign policy objectives. Advocates claim that such restrictive measures are an important way for countries to coerce, deter, punish, or shame entities that endanger their interests or violate international norms of behavior, and that they serve as a good alternative to outright military confrontation or war. However, there is increasing evidence of the failure of sanctions in achieving their intended objectives, making them little more than mere political theatre. Critics have also sounded the alarm on the horrific consequences of such measures on innocent civilians rather than on their intended targets. Why then, do nations continue to use sanctions as the primary approach to all predicaments relating to foreign policy?
The simple and short answer is that there really are no other options available. Of course, states can condemn rogue behavior at international fora at any given time, for example, at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). However, unless they are willing to invade, organize a coup, or are ready to engage in a war to coerce a country into doing what they want it to, sanctions are the sole measures which impose tangible penalties on states in an effort to discourage and curb unacceptable and dangerous conduct.
In fact, the original thinking behind sanctions was not just political persuasion, but regime change. It may seem like a lofty ambition, but the logic was that exacting a significant economic toll on the general public of recipient countries would mobilize and inspire enough domestic discontent to either force the government in power to respond or be replaced. While this sounds logical on paper, sanctions have hardly ever achieved their stated purpose.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) provides the most glaring example of their shortcomings. The international community has pursued various economic and financial sanctions on North Korea since 2006 to pressure it into denuclearizing. Various governments have also sought to punish the regime for cyberattacks, money laundering, and human rights violations. Crippling sanctions have led to bans of the export of minerals, aviation fuel, arms and military equipment, along with metal, agriculture, energy, and labor-related goods to the country, which has not only significantly impacted the nation’s economy and stripped thousands of North Koreans of their livelihood, but has also adversely affected civilians in need of humanitarian aid, since the sanctions regime does not exempt such assistance. However, despite tightening restrictions, the measures have done nothing to dislodge North Korea's repressive leaders or force a rollback of its nuclear and missile programs.
Similarly, in the case of Iran, intensified US sanctions—to get Tehran to renegotiate the terms of the nuclear deal and surrender to American demands—have plunged the country into the deep recesses of a crumbling currency, spiraling prices, and increasing unemployment. Though Trump claims praise for severely hurting the Iranian economy, there is little to suggest any changes in the status quo. In both these cases, leaders have used the debilitating consequences of such “maximum pressure” sanctions to accuse the sanctioning countries—namely the US—of engaging in crimes against humanity and seeking to harm innocent populations, thereby undermining the effectiveness of sanctions as an external threat to their authority.
In 2018, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un commended his citizens for enduring the “difficult living conditions caused by life-threatening sanctions and blockade”. In early February 2019, a memo by North Korea’s UN ambassador, Kim Song, blamed the “barbaric and inhuman” international sanctions for the ongoing food crisis in the country. Earlier this year, Iranian Foreign Minister Javed Zarif accused the US of “economic terrorism” when the country was in urgent need of and unable to procure PPE for its fight against the coronavirus pandemic. Such circumstances produce the exact opposite of the intended result of sanctions—they can be used as a strategic tool by authoritarian leaders to consolidate their rule, and make them even more resistance to change.
In the case of bigger countries, like Russia or China, with strong leaders that are able to stifle internal dissent and conflict, extracting significant concessions—like regime change, for instance—through economic coercion becomes even more difficult. The US has imposed sanctions on Russia since 2014, in response to its invasion of Ukraine, and for various cyber-attacks, human rights abuses, weapons proliferation, use of chemical weapons, illicit trade with North Korea, its support to Syria and Venezuela, and election interference. The restrictions include limits on the access to the US financial system, visa restrictions for designated entities, as well as tight controls on defense and energy exports to Russia. However, all these years of economic warfare have done little to rein in Russia and barely made a dent in its economy. The Putin administration has not conceded an inch, and continues to remain in power. Moreover, Moscow was even able to interfere in the 2016 US presidential elections, despite the sanctions being in place.
The US and China in recent weeks have engaged in tit-for-tat sanctions over Taiwan, Hong Kong, the South China Sea, and human rights, but again, it is unlikely that such actions will yield any real compromises from Beijing, whose economy is already bouncing back following the COVID-19 outbreak.
It may seem puzzling that despite abundant evidence suggesting that sanctions aren’t as potent as their proponents believe them to be, severing countries and entities from trade networks and the global financial system remains the world’s foreign policy tool of choice. States are not blind to the inefficiencies and consequences of sanctions regimes, but rather make calculated decisions based on costs that they are willing to bear.
Sanctions provide a visible, and significantly less expensive alternative to outright military intervention, can signal official displeasure with belligerence and make states’ policy priorities evident to the general public. They can also help countries reinforce a commitment to behavioral norms such as opposition to arms proliferation, respect of human rights or dedication to climate action. The ease with which sanctions can be imposed (in comparison to using military force) makes their use all the more appealing, as it offers states the opportunity to boast that they are actively protecting the values they purportedly hold dear. However, more often than not, the economic and humanitarian toll of such measures on innocent civilians far outweigh any benefits they may incur. Unfortunately, that seems to be a price that countries are willing to pay in order to convince both their own populations and themselves of their resolve and ability to respond to global challenges.
The Misunderstood Logic and Role of Sanctions in International Diplomacy
Sanctions don't work. Why then are they still the most commonly used foreign policy tool?
July 21, 2020
Source: Kacper Pempel/Reuters