International sanctions are one of the primary tools used by governments to exert diplomatic and economic pressure upon rival or rogue entities. A sanction regime’s effectiveness is determined by several factors: whether the target is autocratic or democratic; whether the regime has multilateral support; and whether the sanctions are explicitly targeted against individuals.
Comprehensive sanctions are usually most effective when levied against democratic states, as these states are more accountable to their populace and therefore more easily influenced by public opinion. Autocratic regimes are less susceptible to sanctions, as they usually have no fear of generating negative public opinion within their populace and can insulate themselves from economic hardship. As Haufbauer argues, it is difficult to “bully a bully,” with sanctions often proving counterproductive, and possibly reinforcing the despot’s position, as seen in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. For countries under the control of autocrats, it is usually the poorest in society who bear the sanctions’ brunt. To alleviate the humanitarian consequences, sanction regimes have become more targeted and tied to positive inducements in a carrot and stick approach to support a transition from autocracy to democratic governance. However, these more targeted sanctions have been criticised, as they often conflict with national and regional courts, violate due process norms, and are seen as more symbolic. Sanctions remain an imperfect but vital tool in diplomacy, and the international community has the onus to continue to innovate sanction regimes to reduce the human impact.
HUMAN COST OF SANCTIONS
International sanctions are political and economic penalties levied on another country or individual citizens within a country. They consist of various mechanisms, including tariffs, arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions.
Sanctions have seen varying success. Sanctions brought Iran to negotiate over its nuclear program, expanding restrictions against Iran incrementally to target Iran’s entire economy. Oil sanctions brought Iran’s official crude sales down by 40 percent. Financial and banking sanctions depleted Iran’s declared foreign currency reserves and triggered a dramatic depreciation of Iran’s currency. Central to its success was Iran’s integration into the global economy through its oil exports with the crippling sanctions convincing Iran to re-engage and ultimately agree to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or “Iran Nuclear Deal”) in 2015. However, despite their effectiveness, the impact upon the Iranian population was devastating. The Iranian rial plummeted almost 40 percent, leading to vast increases in food prices for staples such as milk, tea, fruits, and vegetables, leading to a rise in poverty from 22 percent to 40 percent.
In autocratic regimes, the situation is amplified, as even comprehensive sanctions do not always translate into meaningful political pressure. The target falls under siege and closes ranks to resist what is recurrently called “imperialist” pressure from the outside. The almost-complete United Nations trade embargo imposed on Iraq in 1990 had devastating humanitarian consequences for the Iraqi people but left dictator Saddam Hussein and his coterie largely untouched. This is brought into stark contrast when considering the civilian death toll of the Iraq war from 2003 to 2011—which has been estimated as high as 450,000—is less than the death toll attributed to the sanctions regime between 1990 and 2000, which has been estimated at about 500,000 deaths in children under five.
Another issue that arises is uptake, as sanctions are most effective when supported by a broad coalition of states and organisations. If certain states abstain, there is a risk of them acting as a “black knight,” providing an economic lifeline to the state. This is a common occurrence across Africa’s resource states, where companies and countries outside a sanction regime cultivate a state recently placed under international sanctions, denounced as a pariah in the West, mired in corruption and rich in natural resources.
As evidenced in countries including Equatorial Guinea and Niger, regimes can cling to power for years whilst the populace suffers from both the ineptitude and barbary of their leaders and solid economic sanctions from the West—reducing aid and worsening the condition of the country.
SMART SANCTIONS
As Kofi Annan has stated, sanctions are a “vital tool” in dealing with threats to international peace and security. However, they remain imperfect, as shown by the adverse humanitarian consequences caused by comprehensive sanctions during the 1990s and early 2000s. Recently there has been a more concerted effort to use “smart” and “flexible” sanctions to target specific entities whilst remaining humane. A central tenant is the use of signalling to name and shame suspicious individuals used in the enforcement of agreements such as the non-proliferation agreement. The UN has used targeted sanctions to name well over a thousand individuals and corporate entities since 1991, who have been subject to travel bans, asset freezes, and other sanctions. The shift contributed to an improved track record of sanctions by virtue of their limited nature and simplicity to mobilise. Today, all UN sanctions are targeted and used as a tool intended to be political and preventative rather than punitive.
Critics argue that these sanctions are often symbolic and have limited effect in inducing policy change. For example, asset freezes, an arms embargo, and selective export bans did not persuade Ian Smith to allow majority rule in Rhodesia, leading to the imposition of a comprehensive embargo. Additionally, despite seeming ideal and tightly-focused, these sanctions raise several serious issues. Names of individuals may be unfairly or hastily placed on council lists, named persons have little or no recourse if named unfairly, and common names may result in harm being done to entirely innocent persons. This shows that despite assuaging some humanitarian concerns, these sanctions are not a magic bullet for achieving foreign policy goals.
Humanitarian and human rights policy goals cannot easily be reconciled with a sanctions regime. Sanctions are designed to enforce and, therefore, will do harm. Some have seen targeted or smart sanctions as a panacea in avoiding the worst humanitarian consequences of comprehensive sanctions. However, they have been criticised by some due to ineffectiveness, acting more as symbolic gestures, more effective as a small part of a greater diplomatic effort. Countries need to learn to balance sanctions with more significant efforts in peacebuilding and civil society engagement. Misunderstanding the domestic political reality of the target country can have drastic impacts, and sanctions must be informed by fact and reasoning to ensure that they work to facilitate as peaceful of a transition as possible.
Zachary is a researcher and masters graduate in International Studies and Diplomacy from SOAS based in London. Zachary's research has focused upon prevailing human rights issues within the Asian continent, with a particular focus on South Asia. He is particularly interested in what solutions exist to ethnic and religious divisions and how the global community can be mobilised ensuring all people are guaranteed their basic human rights, regardless of class, creed and race.