Sanctions diplomacy has become a common talking point in political discourse over the past years. The Russia-Ukraine war and Israel’s actions in Gaza have both spurred discussion on whether the US should enact punitive political and economic measures against offending countries. Still, sanctions can take many forms, some more effective or damaging than others. This article will attempt to summarize the debate over international sanctions and to answer the following: what are international sanctions and when is their use appropriate?
Let’s start with that first bit. What are sanctions, anyway? Sanctions, basically, are political and/or economic decisions against states, organizations, or individuals that seek to forward some sort of geopolitical aim. Generally, they are intended to punish and/or to deter in the interest of protecting national security interests or international law. Sanctions include a wide variety of actions, such as expelling ambassadors, blocking athletes from competing in sporting events, banning trade, banning one’s country’s businesses from doing business with a person, and many others.
Now that we know what sanctions are, let’s discuss when sanctions are appropriate to use. We’re going to be focusing on economic sanctions here, since the others (especially sports sanctions) are generally not as significant to normal people and because most sanctions-related discourse centers on economic sanctions. When determining whether an action is justified, a cost/benefit analysis is a great way to ensure that we represent all variables. To start with the benefits of sanctions, these can range wildly but are generally related to policy changes. For example, the US placed economic sanctions on Venezuela in 2015 in response to perceived attacks on democracy and private industry in the country. These sanctions sought to force the country to hold elections that the US deemed free and fair. Years later, very little success has been observed. One case in which sanctions have brought about benefits was when, in 1994, Greece placed sanctions on Albania for arresting 5 ethnic Greeks. In the end, two were freed and sentences were reduced overall.
Yet, the costs must also be acknowledged. In the case of Venezuela, the Venezuelan government experienced an upsurge in popular support as the US was blamed for the country’s economic issues. A continuing humanitarian crisis at the Colombia-Venezuela border due to mass emmigration out of Venezuela has also become a pressing geopolitical issue. Yet, costs are not always so significant. In the 60s, the US placed agricultural sanctions on India, forcing it to change its agricultural policies while only reducing GNP by 0.08%, a negligible amount overall.
Overall, the main issues of the sanctions debate are the following: Do sanctions usually help to change policy, or do they more often empower dictators? Do the political changes of sanctions outweigh the human costs? And should any country have the power to exercise this kind of economic chokehold on another? Hopefully, by reading this article, you’ve gotten a little bit closer to being able to answer these questions for yourself.
コメント