BRYAN ONGJUSTYN PHOANG WEE HAN

Consider the view that imposing international sanctions on a

country is usually ineffective.

Introduction (Definition)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a sanction as an action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws by limiting or stopping trade with that country, by not allowing economic aid for that country, etc. Sanctions are a popular threat in international disputes because they are often considered relatively painless - no appropriation of government funds is needed and the parties imposing the sanctions sit back comfortably thinking that market forces are driving social and economic change.

Introduction

As a result, many think that imposing international sanctions are effective in resolving disputes and conflicts. However, these views are over-idealistic and impractical. I believe that imposing international sanctions are ineffective because sanctions increase the stranglehold that leaders have on citizens, are unenforceable, and are inefficient.

First Point (Increased Stranglehold)

Firstly, international sanctions have been rendered ineffective due to the fact that they usually do more harm than good.

Labelled the "true weapons of mass destruction" by American political scientists John and Karl Muller, international sanctions usually not only not achieve their intended outcome, but cause horrific impact to the innocent civilians of the country. By imposing sanctions on a country, those hardest hit are not the leaders who live in luxury, but the civilians who, as a result of the sanctions, are deprived of access to basic necessities such as food and a clean supply of water.

First Point (Increased Stranglehold)

Furthermore, sanctions might turn out to be counter- productive; instead of pressuring leaders into change, all the sanctions serve to do is increase the citizens' reliance on the government for food and water rations, further inflating the stranglehold the leaders have on the citizens.

First Point (Increased Stranglehold)

An example of this would be the harsh sanctions imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf War. According to a 2004 report conducted by the future of freedom foundation, over half a million children died as a direct impact of the sanctions imposed on Iraq, a figure larger than the number of children who perished in the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima. Many of these impacts have as such caused such sanctions to be labelled unequivocally illegal under international humanitarian law. When the sanctions were imposed, Saddam Hussein maintained an elaborate food-rationing program, providing citizens with subsidised homes, cheap energy and, most important, free food. This created a culture of dependency which till this date, American and Iraqi leaders still find difficult to eradicate.

Hence I believe that sanctions are not only ineffective, but do more harm than good.

Second Point (Unenforceability)

Effective sanctions require multilateral coordination. If sanctions are used unilaterally, and the sanctioned country is able to acquire sanctioned goods elsewhere, then the sanction is little more than a nuisance. While the United States and sometimes the European Union can weaken other countries through the use of a unilateral sanction, there is little chance of success without international cooperation.

Second Point (Unenforceability)

One example is the unilateral US sanctions on Cuba. Cuba has continued to maintain trade relations with many countries around the world. After decades of U.S. sanctions, Fidel Castro remains in power. The primary impact has been on the U.S. jobs that would have otherwise been created to sell products and services to Cuba. When a commodity becomes scarce due to sanctions, economic forces of supply and demand drive up its value. The economic incentive for other countries to ignore the sanctions increases.

Second Point (Unenforceability)

On the other hand, the UN has sanctioned Iran in an attempt to stop its nuclear program. Although the program has not been halted, it has definitely been slowed down greatly. Moreover, the threat of more sanctions have become a powerful bargaining tool in the recent negotiations between Iran and US. Hence, only with the cooperation of multiple countries, can sanctions be effectively imposed.

Second Point (Unenforceability)

Hence, by trading with a country with a unilateral sanction placed on it, the profits made are higher. This discourages cooperation and renders unilateral sanctions largely ineffective. Therefore, sanctions need to be multilateral to be effective.

Third Point (Inefficiency)

Sanctions are often ineffective due to the fact that most modern states have resources to last for a few months. Therefore, sanctions will have very little effect on countries who are self-sustainable as the effects of the sanction will take too long to be pronounced.

Third Point (Inefficiency)

For example, in the recent Arab Spring revolution which lasted 2010 to 2012, multiple protests, riots, and civil wars against the oppressive rule of Arab leaders throughout the Arab world happened. Sanctions were imposed on the Iranian economy and succeeded to bring it nearly to a stop. However it has failed politically as the people become the ones who suffer instead. Thus the sanctions become ineffective in this regard as they take too long for the effect to be pronounced, causing civilians to be stuck in a stalemate fighting for their freedom, causing them to suffer further.

Third Point (Inefficiency)

Hence, sanctions are often rendered ineffective due to the lack of direct impact and therefore inefficiency.

Counterargument

However, proponents for the imposition of sanctions argue that, should enough global superpowers band together to impose severe enough sanctions, the economic impact of the sanctions are enough to pressure a country into changing its behaviour. When a country’s economy is too greatly affected by the sanctions to continue running, it would have no choice but to comply to demands.

This can be seen in the sanctions imposed by the United States, European Union, and other large international organisations on Russia which has contributed to the collapse of the Russian Rouble and the 2014-present Russian Financial Crisis. This has caused a huge outflow of reserves from Russia as a result of wealthy businessmen taking money out of the country, further destabilising the economy and possibly affecting Russia’s war efforts.

Rebuttal

However, this argument is blinkered and fails to take into consideration the fact that many countries’ economy today are interlinked. This deters countries from imposing overly-severe sanctions in fear of adversely affecting its own economy as well, which then results in the sanctions imposed being too weak to cause any real change. For example, even though Russia’s economy has been badly hit by the international sanctions imposed, it has not stopped Putin’s advances into Ukraine.

Hence, I believe that the argument that sanctions can cause a large enough economic impact is in fact false and therefore, sanctions still remain ineffective in today’s society.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, while sanctions may look like effective solutions to conflicts, they are actually ineffective due to corrupt leaders, unenforceability and inefficiency

I recommend that countries aim to solve disputes through diplomatic means. While it may seem tedious, it gives both parties a chance to explain their perspective and work together on an agreement. It can also improve the relationships and cooperation within the parties involved.

Another solution would be through forming coalitions, when ultimately necessary, with like-minded countries to achieve their ultimate goal.

Conclusion

Hence, imposing international sanctions on a country is usually ineffective due to the reasons given above.