Debate: Effectiveness of Sanctions

In my opinion, the economic sanctioning of countries has, to date, been misused, overused, and has proven a relatively ineffective foreign policy tool or economic weapon. Now that I have laid that qualifier out, I must take the position that sanctions remain tool that should not be abandoned. I maintain that states, particularly major powers, may make effective use of sanctions if they are practiced with less frequency, greater strategic consideration, and within certain constraints.

There are many examples of where sanctions have failed. US sanctions on Cuba did contribute to Cuba’s turn to Russia, nor has their continuation since the end of the Cold War brought any advantage to the US or any political change in Cuba. Iran has not quailed under the pressure of US sanctions, instead, it has turned to Russia and China for trade and weapons. The Iranians have also demonstrated that sanctions alone will not end their nuclear program. North Korea too has refused to bend to economic pressure, even though its people have suffered great starvation.

Perhaps I exaggerate but it appears that sanctions have been used as some great economic club that can be slammed down upon countries with the expectation that this will force their governments and people to surrender unconditionally. This is clearly not the case. Sanctions have appeared unsuccessful at effectively turning public opinion against their governments in states like Iran and often resulting in increased public hostility toward the state imposing the sanctions. Additionally, the long-term implementation of sanctions perpetuates hostility and exacerbates the miserable conditions of the common people.

So, what has gone wrong? I think that trade sanctions have been ineffective primarily because they have been improperly utilized. Too often, sanctions have been employed (particularly by the US) in disputes without being coupled with meaningful negotiations. For international disputes to be resolved, negotiations must take place. Even Teddy Roosevelt, who advocated carrying the “big stick,” admitted that you need people who “speak softly.” Sanctions are not a substitute for diplomatic bargaining. They are, rather, a tool, or a “stick,” to be used in tandem with various “carrots.”

As a diplomatic stick, sanctions would be more effective as a rather short knife than a giant club. Sanctions would be most effective when used as a short term tool, to make an economic or diplomatic point. Any elegant strategy, like an eloquent speech, should not rest too long on one point, but move on before the effect become stale. In addition to being used in the short term, sanctions could be more effectively utilized by targeting specific industries. If several key countries used this strategy, sanctions could strike at key economic targets within another offending country without necessarily creating hardship for the general population. This tactic might even allow pressure to be exerted more directly on those who hold greater influence within that country’s government, as key players often tend to be closely tied to a country’s key industries. Essentially, it is time to turn sanctions into surgical airstrikes – carpet bombing went out with World War II.