Imposing economic sanctions not sound policy

Monday, September 28, 1998

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 mgever@ucla.edu.

Comments, feedback, problems?