Since we were discussing sanctions this past week I wanted to look at smart sanctions more closely because I think that they are becoming increasingly more of a tool that the US and other countries are turning to in the international arena. I think that smart sanctions can definitely have some great success that we would not be able to achieve otherwise. This article in Foreign Policy (Foreign Policy) really points out how smart sanctions can be successful. In US has started a large coalition of countries that are sanctioning or greatly cutting their ties to Iranian oil in order to stop their nuclear proliferation plan. The Iranian economy has been greatly hurt by this by reducing oil exports by 40%, and the value of the Iranian dollar has dropped dramatically. The high amount of pressure that these sanctions have put on the regime could explain why their new president has been reaching out more to the western nations than the previous president, and has made more of an effort to show Iran's interest in stopping any nuclear weapons program. The Iranian example shows how targeting something specific into a country, in this case oil, can put just enough pressure on a country that it will stop the behavior. I think that smart sanctions can be a tool that can work well in order to avoid more drastic action such as war.
While smart sanctions might work in some instances, they come at a high cost in some instances. A problem with smart sanctions is that they can have large humanitarian costs. In a policy brief by the Brookings Institute (Brookings Institute) it addresses in several places that the probability for humanitarian costs is high. And empirically we have seen this happen in the past. In the case of Iraq, the US orchestrated sanctions against goods such as chlorine in order to hinder Iraq's ability to build weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately for the US, chlorine is also used to clean water. The civilian casualties from the Iraq sanction, granted not merely from the sanction on chlorine, are extremely high. Although the numbers cannot be truly known, the highest estimates are in the hundreds of thousands (Time). So while smart sanctions might be politically successful, it could lead to major affects on the civilian populations of the country.
Overall, I think that smart sanctions are a hard subject to make a definitive opinion on. On one hand you have tool that allows the government to avoid war and avoid potential thousands of deaths; but on the other hand this same tool could potentially kill thousands of innocent civilians. I don't think the calculus there is necessary easy to make. But I thought it would be an interesting discussion to have.
I enjoyed reading this post, I find sanctions to be an interesting topic. I agree that there is potential for sanctions to turn out poorly for us when we use them, and they may in fact have turned out poorly for us in the past, but as with many things we've discussed in this class it may not be very easy or clear to make a yes or no statement regarding their use.
ReplyDeleteI feel that sanctions are a necessary evil. However I feel that if there is one perfect sanction, it would be bans on the sale and importation of weapons for the government, since it would in effect strengthen the people of a government that is targeted, while simultaneously making the people stronger due to the government having less weapons. However as was discussed in class, its easy to manufacture weapons. One point I did not get to make in class however is that while the government may be able to reload shell casings and make new small arms, weapons sanctions on larger tools of war such as fighter jets, bombers, advanced missiles and such would be much harder to produce domestically, especially considering that many of the weapons in the countries we are studying are old soviet surplus.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, it is very difficult to sanction a country without any repercussions and consequences. Beside its intentions to affect a particular area of a country's activities or economy, smart sanctions have a much greater effect, not just on the economy, but on the political and social standing of a sanctioned country. Sanctions have the potential to hurt civilians in unmeasurable ways. However, no matter how much personally, I am committed in figuring out various, more ethical ways of dealing with world problems, the international community, country leaders per se, are committed to certain foreign policy strategies that inflict a lot of damage and bring relatively decisive victories.
ReplyDeleteYou make alot of good points in this article. Smart sanctions might target governments but their effects have a trickle down effect. Sanctions can be just as destructive as military intervention. The long drawn out process of bleeding a country with sanctions can cause damage that can affect a country for decades. An argument might be made that a quick decisive military strike on the government might be more compassionate and effect in terms of the scope of damage.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone, this is an interesting post. I think that sanctions are a tool that must be utilized all the time, especially by powerful countries like the US. They can be very effective, as the example with Iran and their nuclear intentions shows. However, using that same example, issues with sanctions can be seen. Iranian civilians, the majority of which do not agree with Islam extremist views, suffer from the harsh sanctions placed on Iran. ALthough the sanctions are effective in halting Iran's nuclear program, they make it difficult for people to get anything from food to medical aid. It really is a double sided sword in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI believe well thought out sanctions which are broadly supported in their implementation and have the ability to endure are definitely powerful tools of modern foreign policy. The problem with sanctions is too often they are either relaxed too quickly or they are easily bypassed in the first place. With Iran, the US thought their sanctions out well and realized they needed the EU to come on board and agree to boycott Iranian oil. This wasn't easy but the political capital expended to make that agreement with the EU was certainly worth while as we can see Iran slowly but surely destabilizing, providing opportunity to weaken and topple the corrupt and virulently anti western regime.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that to truly be truly smart sanctions they would have to be created specifically to impact the civilian population as little as possible. The example about banning the use of chlorine seems to be an instance where it was not a smart sanction because it had such a large impact on ordinary citizens. Bans on items that specifically impact the leadership should be the sanctions that countries focus on. The sanctions on Iranian oil for example target the leadership since that is one of the very biggest items that the government profits off of, while giving very little of those profits to the general population. Bans on weapons are also another idea.
ReplyDeleteThis post has a lot of very good and solid points throughout. Smart sanctions may in fact be able to have an effect on governments but can at the same time cane lead to other issues, sort of a domino effect. Smart sanctions have the opportunity of still leaving devastating effects, maybe not to the extent of military intervention, but sanctions can still often times cripple an economy leading to other issues that would then need to be addressed. One aspect of sanctions however is it forces people to think long and hard about the sanctions that would be placed as opposed to the possibility of making a quick decision in deploying military personel.
ReplyDeleteI like what Seth said above about sanctions having a trickle down effect. Burdening civilian populations with sanctions that impact daily life is unfair and unjust to the people who had nothing to do with whatever is being sanctioned. I thought the chlorine sanction on Iraq was interesting and it makes me wonder if the US is sticking it's nose a little too far into the affairs of other states. Maybe there's a little too much pre-emptive sanctions on issues that aren't really issues.
ReplyDelete