Economic sanctions have long been hailed as a peaceful substitute for military action, an efficient way of forcing countries to abide by international standards without resorting to the brutality of conflict. Sanctions are frequently regarded as a diplomatic tool that can advance peace and international security, from stopping Iran’s nuclear development to addressing human rights abuses in Myanmar. But history paints a more nuanced picture. Sanctions can exacerbate conflict, penalize innocent populations, and strengthen hostile regimes, even though they can occasionally persuade countries to reach a peaceful resolution. Do economic sanctions actually promote peace or do they act as a trigger for more hostilities?
Understanding Economic Sanctions
Coercive tactics used by a nation or group of nations to force another to change its policies or actions are known as economic sanctions. Trade embargoes, asset freezes, travel restrictions, and financial transaction limitations are a few manifestations of these. Usually, sanctions are put in place to address human rights abuses, discourage aggressiveness, or limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Although they frequently have peaceful intentions, their results can be erratic and very variable according on the circumstances.
Sanctions as a Tool for Peace
Diplomatic Leverage Without Military Force
The fact that economic sanctions provide a kind of pressure that isn’t war is among the strongest justifications for imposing them. Sanctions that target a country’s economy may motivate governments to reevaluate damaging or aggressive policies without using force. For instance, the sanctions imposed on Iran, which started in the 1970s and grew more severe in the 2000s, were successful in forcing the nation to engage in negotiations and produce the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. Economic sanctions played a key role in halting Iran’s nuclear aspirations without resorting to force, demonstrating that economic pressure may support diplomatic efforts without resorting to violence.
Preventing Human Rights Violations
Sanctions are often imposed in response to violations of human rights, sending a message that fundamental rights’ violation will not be accepted by the international community. Global sanctions, for instance, were instrumental in forcing the government of South Africa to abolish the apartheid system in the 1990s and remove the system’s institutionalized racial segregation. In this case, sanctions were viewed as an ethical choice that supported national justice and peace over the long run.
The Dark Side of Sanctions: A Catalyst for Conflict
Economic Strangulation and Civilian Suffering
Sanctions usually cause extensive harm to the civilian population, even though their main objective is to target military or political elites. For example, the extensive sanctions imposed following the Gulf War had disastrous humanitarian effects on Iraq. Iraq’s economy deteriorated between 1990 and 2003, and the ensuing shortage of food and medicine is thought to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Instead of promoting peace, the sanctions increased hardship and fueled anti-Western attitudes, which in turn led to further hostilities and resentment.
Similar trends have been seen in Venezuela, where the already unstable economy has been severely impacted by U.S. sanctions directed at the Nicolás Maduro administration. According to a 2019 analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), U.S. sanctions between 2017 and 2018 prevented more than 40,000 Venezuelans from accessing essential imports like food and medicine, which resulted in their deaths. This highlights how, despite their stated goal of altering government conduct, sanctions frequently make the suffering of the particular groups they are meant to safeguard worsened.
Strengthening Adversarial Regimes
Sanctions can also have the unintended consequence of strengthening the regimes they are designed to harm. In order to stifle opposition and solidify their hold on power, sanctioned governments frequently mobilize support at home by portraying the sanctions as acts of foreign aggression. For instance, the Kim Regime in North Korea has managed to withstand decades of severe economic sanctions by using international mistrust to strengthen its hold on power. Sanctions can strengthen authoritarianism rather than weaken it, as seen by North Korea’s continuous development of nuclear weapons and isolation of its people from the outside world.
In the same manner, sanctions imposed on Russia following the invasion of Crimea in 2014 were designed to exert pressure on Vladimir Putin’s administration. However, many Russians see the sanctions as proof of Western disapproval, which has led to a rise in nationalism rather than a decline in Putin’s standing. Putin’s hold on power has gotten stronger as a result, and Russia has started acting more aggressively rather than conciliating with the international community.
Economic Sanctions and Global Stability
The Effectiveness Debate
There is continuous discussion among academics and policymakers over the efficacy of economic sanctions. About one-third of the cases where sanctions were applied between 1970 and 2000 resulted in success, according to a study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics(PIIE). However, their effectiveness is frequently dependent on a number of variables, including the economic resiliency of the target nation, the degree of international cooperation in implementing the sanctions, and the specific objectives of the sanctions regime. As seen in the instance of South Africa’s apartheid government, sanctions are typically more successful when they are specifically targeted and backed by a united international front. On the other hand, sanctions frequently have less of an impact when they are imposed unilaterally or when the target nation has other economic partners, such as China and Russia.
Alternatives to Sanctions
Given the conflicting outcomes of penalties, it is worthwhile to take into consideration alternatives that might accomplish the same objectives without the negative side effects. Uncooperative nations can be steered into conformity with international standards via the use of diplomacy, engagement, and conditional aid. One example is the success of diplomatic attempts to engage Cuba following decades of sanctions. U.S.-Cuba relations significantly improved in the 2010s as a result of the progressive easing of sanctions on Cuba and diplomatic engagement, underlining the value of communication over pressure.
An alternative choice is “smart sanctions,” which target certain people, government officials, or industries rather than whole economies. The United States, for instance, has imposed such sanctions on Russian oligarchs, limiting their access to luxury items and Western banking systems. This strategy puts pressure on important decision-makers while minimizing the wider humanitarian impact.
Conclusion
There is a dilemma with economic sanctions. Although they are frequently used as diplomatic and peacekeeping instruments, their efficacy varies, and they occasionally make conflicts worse rather than better. In instances like South Africa and Iran, where international pressure resulted in substantial political change, sanctions have been effective. But they have also fallen short in places like North Korea and Iraq, where they have wreaked havoc without accomplishing their stated objectives. Policymakers must consider the possible advantages and disadvantages of sanctions before adopting them as a foreign policy weapon. They should also look at other approaches that can advance peace without needless harm.
The question yet stands: are economic sanctions a necessary evil in a world that aspires to peace, or are they a brutal tool that all too frequently backfires and fuels more intense conflict? History demonstrates that the solution is not quite obvious.