Monday, September 28, 1998
Imposing economic sanctions not sound policy
EMBARGO: All parties lose in game of political moves, trade
measures
Since the end of the Cold War, the use of economic sanctions has
increased as a means of dealing with those who violate principles
of international law. Sanctions are meant to be coercive yet
non-violent means of achieving this end. They are supposed to
alleviate the sufferings people endured during war, while still
forcing the country’s compliance. However, this is rarely the case.
Often, sanctions fail to achieve the intended goal, while at the
same time, the suffering of the people in the country is worse than
it would be under an actual war.
What are economic sanctions? Makio Miyagawa defines them as "the
use of economic capacity by one international actor, be it a state
or international organization, or by a group of such actors,
against another international actor … with the intention of (a)
punishing the latter for its breach of a certain rule; or (b)
preventing it from infringing a rule which the party applying
sanctions deems important."
In other words, economic sanctions are forceful economic
measures that aim at a particular political goal.
A number of problems exist with the implementation of economic
sanctions. One is that it becomes possible for other countries to
profit off the embargo. While country A is imposing an embargo on
country B, other countries can come in and initiate trade with
country B, limiting the effects of the embargo. One example of this
is during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United States
imposed a grain embargo on the former Soviet Union. Yet, while the
United States cut off its supply, Canada and Argentina continued
theirs, with Argentinas exports actually increasing. This served to
enfeeble the U.S. attempt to force Soviet compliance.
In addition to economic gains, other countries can achieve
political gains through undermining sanctions. Countries can form
new alliances by aiding those who are the victims of sanctions. One
example is the case of the United States against Cuba. Beginning in
1960, the United States began to take punitive economic measures
against the Castro government. However, at the same time, the
Soviet Union and China increased their purchases of Cuban sugar,
with the Soviets increasing other forms of economic aid. This
effectively made Cuba a Soviet satellite until the Soviet Union
fell.
Another instance now lies in Burma. The United States has
attempted to isolate Burma by suspending all trade with them in
order to force the Burmese government to improve its human rights
record. These actions, however, have merely sent Burma right into
the hands of China, who can now use them as a military ally. Our
influence in the region is abated, while Chinese influence is
aggrandized.
One important factor in dealing with sanctions is the issuing of
collective responsibility. By imposing economic sanctions, the
people of a country suffer because of something done by the
government. Generally, the aim of particular sanctions against a
country are to incite the people to overthrow the government. But,
if anything, this gives the current government a greater
legitimacy. Now, all problems can be blamed on the sanctions. This
also allows the government to exert more power over the people. For
example, since sanctions were imposed on Iraq, the government has
had to resort to rations to feed much of the population. Because of
this, the government now has more power than it ever did. The
general populous is now completely dependent on Saddam Hussein for
their food supply. That will never foster a revolution. This has
created another class of people that has profited from the embargo
by providing essential goods on the black market. The group seeks
to maintain the status quo in order to continue their gains. All of
these factors come together to ensure that the regime our
government wants out will instead remain in power, while innocent
civilians needlessly suffer.
Another factor that hurts the efficacy of economic sanctions
concern those who hurt the initiating country. At times, the costs
of imposing the sanctions outweigh the benefits. Constant patrols
are necessary to ensure that the sanctions are being imposed and
that they are not being violated by smugglers and other loopholes.
Also, there is the impairment of trade that results, which affects
both sides. By closing itself to a market, the imposing country is
denying itself goods and resources. Export markets and vital
imports are rescinded while payments on investments made abroad are
cut off. The imposer will still pay a high price for the sanctions,
and often the imposer has to pay a higher price than does the
target country. The U.S. embargo of Cuba can be looked at as an
example of this. Through our embargo, we are denying ourselves
valuable Cuban goods such as tobacco and sugar. These actions have
not brought down Castro after nearly 40 years, and we are still
denying ourselves valuable goods needlessly.
The target country can always take measures to minimize the
effects of sanctions, such as stocking goods, or in some cases,
supplying itself with goods from a rival power, as in the case of
Cuba allying itself with the Soviet Union. The target may also take
counter-measures such as nationalizing property of the imposing
country, canceling its debts, or freezing funds deposited within
the state. It is even possible for sanctions to strengthen the
target’s economy.
Sanctions may serve as a protection for a domestic industry or
industries, allowing them to develop without foreign competition.
Once the sanctions are lifted, the target is no longer dependent on
foreign industry, thereby nullifying the effects of the
sanctions.
Overall, what is seen is that economic sanctions rarely achieve
their goals.
While in some instances they do work, more often than not,
factors come into play that mitigate the potential effects,
rendering the actions futile.
Gever is too stressed out over the Graduate Record Examination
(GRE) to care about anything you have to say. Nevertheless, you can
e-mail him at [email protected].
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]