The Pros and Cons of Economic Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool

Sanctions are usual instruments of foreign policy of many states nowadays, primarily after the Cold War. Measures in the form of restrictions on trade, freezing of assets, or the imposition of barriers to investment efforts to pressure a particular country into acting a certain way but whom no use of force is threatened. However, their efficacy and their ethical viewpoints are points of wedlock too. Sanctions have been for some time called a necessary tool to pressure other countries to adhere to international norms while others have also dismissed them due to efficacy in bringing about the intended political change, which brings suffering to ordinary people. In this op-ed, however, the two sides of the economic sanctions are explored, giving a vantage angle to understanding the nuance of their functionality in the diplomatic sphere.

The Pros  of Economic Sanctions:

People Pressure in Promoting Diplomacy, Repression

Another good argument that governments use sanctions is that they are a peaceful way of dealing with an enemy as opposed to war. Given the fact that many conflicts in the international system involve military operations thus provoking severe losses in terms of human and economic lives, then sanctions provide a comparatively softer approach to pressure. Such a message can be delivered without bloodshed, not to mention that people of the targeted country may have been subject to human rights violations, international law infringement, or acts of aggression. The success of this approach though is often related to the political goal to be achieved and its Venezuelan equivalence.

For instance, the sanctions that were imposed on South Africa during the period of apartheid contributed to the pressuring of the regime into the dismantling of the apartheid system. The aim of the sanctions was to cut the country off economically, politically, and socially, which played a long haul in the dismantling of apartheid and the elaboration of a democracy. Here, sanctions served as an official diplomatic approach alongside other forms of intervention such as international pressure, and indigenous rebellions.

Economic influence and Political pressure

It is crucial for the target state to understand that economic sanctions as a strategic pressure can also be used as a political weapon in order to influence the change of political regime in the targeted country by exploiting the nation's vulnerability in the sphere of international trade and investments. Some countries are more vulnerable to sanctions than others since they slow or prevent their ability to access needed exports or foreign investment. Sanctions therefore provide the desired pressure in which the targeted government is forced to change its behavior or engage in talks with those powers that sanctioned them.

For example, measures of enforcing penalties with Iran, especially the ban on oil exports to the country have greatly affected the energy-starved country resulting in an almost zero contraction in the economy. Though the humanitarian costs have been high, the sanctions have been cited as making Iran come to the negotiating table during the Obama presidency hence the Nuclear deal informally known as the JCPOA or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of 2015. The nuclear agreement which restricted Iran's capability to expand nuclear capacity in return for the sanctions, is an example of how economic pressure can generate a diplomatic opportunity.

On the subject of the unity of the International Community and moral prestige

Sanctions can also have a positive effect on international cooperation because almost always sanctions need more states support in order to be efficient. Sanctions are a powerful way of communication by the international community, be it formal organizations like the United Nations, or informal groupings like the European Union; it says that whatever has been done is wrong: violation of sovereignty, human rights abuses, or support for terrorism is wrong. Multilateral sanctions provide certain moral legitimacy to assert that certain structural problems require international cooperation to protect global order.

At some point, sanctions have been very effective in making countries of the world conform to what is right. The United Nations placed a sanction on Iraq after it launched an invasion of Kuwait in early August 1990 as one way of preventing Saddam Hussein and Iraq from going further than their borders. These measures though listed below were disputed regarding their effects and process, nonetheless, it was an international move to preserve the peace and sovereignty of the states.

The Cons of Economic Sanctions:

Potential humanitarian implications of  NAFTA for Americans

As much as they are political instruments, economic sanctions have terrible implications for the affected populations. It needs to be mentioned that sanctions are intended to punish a country's leadership, but in reality, penalties impact certain citizens much more than the elite or ruling party. The direct victims tend to be civilians and in most cases poor people who are worst hit by the shortages in basic commodities such as food and drugs.

Sanctions applied to nations such as Iraq in the early 1990s had adverse effects of denying many of its citizens, and thousands of children to die from malnutrition, and inadequate medical supplies. The long-term socio-economic impact can be disastrous insofar as they cause social unrest and give rise to a kind of environment that may in turn foster more violence and extremism. It became thus rather painful to watch the sanctions applied to North Korea that make most people hungry and further question the morality of using people's hardships as weapons when those people are already in critical conditions.

Arguable Impact in Realization of Politico Political Objectives

The success of sanctions in bringing about the intended change politically is also in most cases doubtful. Sanctions can thus inflict economic hurt on the targeted country and yet not necessarily bring about a change of behavior in the regime. Sometimes to preserve power governments escalate confrontations intensifying nationalist and anti-foreigner sentiment. Sanctions can be used by leaders as an external fear and domestic mobilizer where the nation is depicted as being under attack by another nation.

States such as North Korea have been under sanction for a long time; however, its leaders have been not only able to maintain their positions but also escalate the nuclearise process. Likewise, the sanctions on the country, made an attempt to deter the authoritarian government and push for democratisation have not led to a change of government. However, the country's economic crisis has aggravated social upheaval and led to a humanitarian catastrophe while failing to pave the way for the removal of Maduro's government.

Concerns that Engagement with Indigenous People will Offend Allies, and Weaken International Relations

A main limitation of sanctions is their ability to polarize the international community and push away good partners. Sanctions on particular countries are usually possible only with the help of several countries, but it can be hard sometimes. Even when a country is floated with sanctions due to its relation with the target country's economy, that country may not act on the sanctions for it may affect its own economy. For example, some European countries have been rather skeptical about the sanctions against Russia spearheaded by the U.S., because economically Russia and the U.S. depend on each other. Even when sanctioning partners hold similar positions as to the utility and morality of sanctions, disagreement over their efficiency weakens a united front and limits the efficiency of sanctions.

In as well, sanctions are known to cause irritation and displeasure and are viewed to be damaging the diplomatic relations between countries. Sanctions may be regarded by sanctioned countries as interference with their sovereignty, and therefore efforts may be made to rebalance by increasing relations with actors outside the West such as China or Russia. Thus, sanctions can inadvertently generate new political aligns that are contrary to the interests of sanctioning nations thus negation the goals that were tucked by the sanctions.

Conclusion

Sanctions have their advantages, and they also have their drawbacks. On one hand, they can put compelling force on those regimes, encouraging political transformations, and demonstrating the interest of the rest of the world in implementing international standards. On the other hand, their efficacy is frequently blunted because they have inadvertent and unpalatable humanitarian consequences and because they can turn crucial international partners into enemies. Sanctions although effective in specific situations should not be regarded as a magic wand to deal with foreign policy issues. Such a sophisticated strategy is needed to oscillate between diplomacy and multilateralism, on the one hand, and the assessment of the humanitarian effects of sanctions, on the other hand, to achieve the highest degree of sanctions effectiveness and minimize the costs. Finally, the imposition of sanctions has to be done carefully, primarily, by having a specific plan in mind and, secondly, knowing that there are risks of sanctions going wrong.