- By: Aitemad Ahmad Khan
Woodrow Wilson once described economic sanctions as a “peaceful, silent, deadly remedy.” Sanctions have been used since ancient Greece’s “Age of Pericles” to the rules of Napoleon, and the period after World War I. While governments view sanctions as an appeal way to express disappointed of another country’s actions, it is unclear whether sanctions achieve the economic changes they seek.
In today’s world, sanctions have well known tool for governments looking for to affect the behavior of other countries. The United States and the European Union has imposed sanctions on Iran and Russia respectively. These economic penalties areregularly viewed as a conceivable way to evade war while maintaining pressure. But; Do they actually work? Understanding; the possible consequences of sanctions as a complex issue.
Economic sanctions are implemented restrictions by either a single country or a group of countries on another country to fulfill specific political or economic objectives. These can range from trade embargoes and financial restrictions to travel bans and asset freezes. Sanctions can be targeted usually entire economies, and they are often implemented in response to human rights encroachments, military ill will, or nuclear development. There is no denying self- evident surge in the threat and utilize of economic sanctions in this century. Between 1945 and 1990 there was an average of 13.5 sanctions episodes per year; between 1990 and 2005 that average extended to 53.5 per year.
The effectiveness of sanctions is a subject of progressing debate among economists and policymakers. Arguably, the sanctions can be a compelling way for a nation to change its behavior without turning to war. Case like South Africa, where international sanctions played a part in ending apartheid, or Iran, where sanctions brought the country to the negotiating table over its nuclear program. However, the success of sanctions is not inclusive. In many cases, the targeted country finds ways to deceive restrictions, frequently with the assistance of allies. For example, despite decades of sanctions, North Korea continued its nuclear program, while Russia adjusted to sanctions by shifting its economic focus towards domestic production, ignoring Western markets.
Sanctions come with noteworthy economic costs, both for the targeted country and the country imposing them, and can lead to a severe economic downturn, with decreased access to foreign capital, technology, and markets. This can result in inflation, unemployment, and a decline in living standards. The sanctions on Venezuela another example; that has contributed to the country’s worst economic crises in history, led to hyperinflation and widespread poverty. South Africa The End of Apartheid 1980-1990; confronted comprehensive global sanctions due to its policy apartheid, the United Nations along with European Union and other individual countries trade embargoes against South Africa, which resulted in economic isolations along with internal resistance.
However, the economic pain is not constrained to the target country. Businesses can also suffer, especially those that had strong trade ties with the targeted nation. European companies with investments in Iran’s energy sector faced significant losses following the re-imposition of US sanctions in 2018. Besides, global supply chains can be disrupted, driving to higher prices for consumers around the world. The oil and gas sector is especially helpless, as sanctions on major energy producers like Iran and Russia can lead to increased energy prices globally. The sanctions on Russia after its annexation of Crimea in 2014 caused significant fluctuations in global oil markets contributing to higher energy costs in Europe and beyond.
- Do Sanctions Achieve Their Goals?
The main criticisms of economic sanctions are that it often fail to achieve their aimed objectives. Instead of weakening a regime, sanctions can in few cases make it stronger by increasing domestic support against foreign interference. Countries leaders often blame sanctions for economic problems as a scapegoat, which help them consolidating their power. In addition, sanctions can worsen humanitarian crises by restricting access to essential goods and services. In Iraq during 1990s, United Nations (UN) sanctions led to severe deficiencies of nourishment and pharmaceutical, resulting in widespread malnutrition and wellbeing crises among the civilians. Similarly, in Syria, sanctions have added to suffering of civilians by restricting access to vital goods, worsening already dire humanitarian situation in a country already devastated by civil war.
Economic sanctions are often seen as a strong way to influence other countries without dragging a country to war, their true impact is questionable. Although sanctions have sometimes helped bring about change, as in South Africa and Iran, many targeted nations find ways to bypass these measures, and in some cases, their governments even grow stronger. Sanctions can also cause severe economic and humanitarian issues, not just for the targeted countries but also for those enforcing the sanctions. They can worsen crises, as seen in Iraq and Syria, and disrupt global markets, especially in critical sectors like energy. As a result, while sanctions will likely continue to be used in international relations, their potential risks and downsides must be carefully weighed to avoid harmful outcomes.
- The author is a Master of Science scholar at the Institute of Management Sciences Peshawar.
- Can be contacted at aitemadahmad10@gmail.com.