Sanctions are penalties applied to countries, organizations and individuals because of economic, political, military and social disagreements. Sanctions typically include trade barriers, tariffs and/or restricted access to money and are administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), an agency of the US Treasury Department.
The effectiveness of sanctions is debatable:
In a report to the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights in 2000, Marc Bossuyt suggests “these international economic sanctions are based on the assumption that economic pressure on civilians will translate into pressure on the government, thereby inducing political changes. But “this ‘theory’ is bankrupt both legally and practically, as more and more evidence testifies to the inefficacy of comprehensive economic sanctions as a coercive tool,” continues Bossuyt, a former member of the Sub-Commission.
In authoritarian regimes, it is rare for civilian pressures to effect change in the government, advises the study. On the contrary, the government being sanctioned can use the reprisals as a scapegoat for its problems.
The suffering of the civilian population, allegedly the effective factor in comprehensive economic sanctions, undermines the efficacy of the sanctions while potentially strengthening the government in question and its policies.
A UN report about the impacts of economic sanctions on the full exercise of human rights is “incorrect, biased and inflammatory,” charged George Moose, ex US Permanent Representative to the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva.
The US reaction to the report included the warning that its conclusions “risk the credibility of the Sub-Commission.” Moose also insisted that “the report reflects unfavorable on the Sub- Commission and on its author.”
U.S. Sanctions
Afghanistan: For over twenty years, the U.S. government has implemented an array of measures against Taliban-related targets, increased significantly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Since the Taliban now has full control over the Afghan economy and political institutions, the U.S. administration is presented with a new list of economic and sanctions policy considerations to deal with the Taliban.
An estimated 22.8 million Afghans are now facing mass starvation with the potential of one million children dying over the winter according to a report by the UN.
So, after twenty years of military occupation we have signed the Doha agreement with the Taliban and left Afghanistan with the same ruthless rulers that we started with. We have used and abused Afghanistan while the Iron Triangle has thrived.
Cuba: The United States embargo against Cuba prevents American businesses from conducting trade with Cuban interests. It is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history. The US first imposed an embargo on the sale of arms to Cuba on March 14, 1958, during the Fulgencio Batista regime.
Professor William M. LeoGrande an expert on Latin America reminds us that the embargo against Cuba is “the oldest and most comprehensive US economic sanctions regime against any country in the world. It comprises a complex patchwork of laws and presidential determinations” imposed over half a century ago, which long-time Cuban leader and former president Fidel Castro once called “a tangled ball of yarn.” According to LeoGrande, “presidents have tightened or relaxed it to suit their own strategies—some seeking to overthrow or punish the Cuban regime with economic pressure, others seeking to improve relations by resorting to soft power rather than hard. The impact of US sanctions has also varied, at times inflicting serious harm on the Cuban economy and at other times being merely an expensive annoyance. But the embargo has never been effective at achieving its principal purpose: forcing Cuba’s revolutionary regime out of power or bending it to Washington’s will.
Iran: The United States has imposed restrictions on activities with Iran under various legal authorities since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Successive Administrations and Congresses have used economic sanctions to try to change Iran’s behavior. U.S. sanctions on Iran—primarily “secondary sanctions” on firms that conduct certain transactions with Iran—have adversely affected Iran’s economy but have arguably not, to date, altered Iran’s support for regional armed factions and its development of missiles.
Sanctions did contribute to Iran’s decision to enter into Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, an agreement that put limits on its nuclear program. The related sanctions relief enabled Iran’s economy to return to growth.
But, on May 8, 2018, President Trump ended U.S. participation in the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions. Sanctions were at the core of Trump Administration policy to apply “maximum pressure” on Iran, with the stated purpose of compelling Iran to negotiate a revised JCPOA. The policy caused Iran’s economy to fall into significant recession as a result, in part, of reduced sales of oil and isolation from the international financial system. Yet, Iran continued to develop its missile capabilities and to provide arms and support to a broad array of armed factions operating throughout the region.
Sanctions that hang around for decades with no positive impact and cause suffering for the people of another less powerful country need to be cancelled and another strategy tried.