 Policy Debate:
Are Economic Sanctions Effective in Altering a Country's Actions?
Issues and Background
In today's fluid global marketplace, the failure of unilateral
sanctions has become apparent: sanctions simply alter trade patterns without
seriously damaging the target nation. Unless multiple countries deploy
trade sanctions, the targeted country can avoid their punishing effects
by turning to alternative suppliers. Although the United States enjoyed
near-monopoly status in the production of many goods earlier in the century,
that is not the case today. Instead, sanctions transfer business from
U.S. companies to foreign competitors in the same market....
By providing an external focus for hostilities, unilateral sanctions
also empower the targeted government in other ways. With the collapse
of the USSR and the subsequent end of subsidies to Cuba in 1990, the
Cuban military threat has disappeared; the sanctions have not. Indeed,
many observers argue that continued U.S. antagonism toward Cuba has
been the principal reason Castro has remained in power, despite the
Cuban economy's deterioration.
~Aaron
Lukas
Former President Carter was right to tell Cubans their country
is isolated without true democracy and human rights. But lifting the trade
embargo will remove the only incentive Castro has to reform. Instead,
the United States should cultivate closer relations with ordinary Cubans,
support those struggling for freedom and prod the dictatorship to loosen
its grip.
~Stephen
Johnson
Economic sanctions have often been used by the U.S. and other countries
in attempts to alter the behavior of the target countries. These sanctions
typically include general or selective trade embargoes, restrictions on
foreign investment, and restriction on travel to and from the affected
country. Among the most prominent examples of current or recent U.S. economic
sanctions:
- The U.S. has imposed sanctions on Cuba since the early 1960s in response
to the overthrow of the U.S.-supported Battista regime.
- A grain embargo was imposed on the Soviet Union in 1979 in response
to the invasion of Afghanistan.
- Sanctions were imposed on South Africa and Rhodesia to alter the racist
policies of their governments.
- Sanctions were imposed on Libya between 1986 and 2004 in response to its
past support of terrorist groups and its alleged connection to the bombing
of Pan Am Flight 103.
- Since 1984, economic sanctions have been imposed upon Iran in a response
to its support for terrorists groups and its attempts to acquire nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
- Economic sanctions had been imposed on Iraq since the end of the
Gulf War in response to its attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
- More recently, sanctions have been imposed on North Korea in response
to its development of a a nuclear program designed to produce nuclear warheads.
While economic sanctions have been a popular tool of international policy,
there is substantial disagreement over the effectiveness of these policies.
Advocates of sanctions argue that the imposition of economic sanctions
imposes substantial economic costs on the citizens of the affected countries.
Since the development of the theory of comparative advantage by David
Ricardo in the early 1800s, economists have argued that free trade provides
economic benefits for all participants. Under this argument, countries
may increase their level of per capita consumption by specializing
in the production of those goods that they can produce at the lowest opportunity
cost and trading these goods for those that can be acquired at a lower
opportunity cost from other countries. The imposition of sanctions eliminates
or reduces these potential gains from trade. (A more extensive discussion
of the possible gains from trade appears in the debate investigating whether
the U.S. gains from international trade).
It is also important to note that while multilateral sanctions may impose
a substantial cost on the target country, unilateral sanctions are most
likely to impose substantial costs primarily on the country that imposes
the sanctions since the target country has other trading options. For
example, the U.S. trade embargo on trade with Cuba initially resulted
in the development of close trading ties between Cuba and the Soviet Union.
In more recent years, Cuba has traded extensively with Europe and other
North, South, and Central American countries. The availability of alternative
trading partners substantially weakens the effect of the sanctions on
the target country.
Supporters of sanctions argue that U.N.-sponsored sanctions have been
effective in ending racist policies in Rhodesia and South Africa. Opponents
of sanctions, however, argue that sanctions generally seem to have little
or no effect in altering the behavior of the target country. They suggest
that the changes in Rhodesia and South Africa would have occurred as a
result of internal pressures even in the absence of sanctions.
The U.S. government has often imposed sanctions on countries in the
hope that these sanctions will lead to political unrest and the replacement
of the current government with one that is likely to be supportive of
policies advocated by the U.S. Opponents of economic sanctions, though,
argue that sanctions often make it easier for the current political leadership
to blame economic problems on the trade restrictions imposed by the U.S.
(and/or other nations). Health care problems, poverty, and so forth are
blamed on the effect of the sanctions instead of on political and economic
problems within the country.
One concern with sanctions is that the children, the poor, and the sick
are often the primary victims of the trade restrictions while the leadership
is largely unaffected. Long-term sanctions may lead to negative feelings
toward the U.S. (and other countries that initiate and support sanctions)
on the part of the general population in the target country. Concerns
are often expressed that this may lead to an expansion in terrorist activities
directed at U.S. targets. Proponents of sanctions argue that allowing
free trade trade provides support for governments that engage in substantial
human rights violations.
For better or worse, economic sanctions have become one of the most
frequently used foreign policy tools of the U.S. It is likely that the
debate over their efficacy will continue for some time to come.
Primary Resources and Data
Different Perspectives in the Debate
|
