WHY ARE SANCTIONS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE AND OFTEN YIELD OPPOSITE RESULTS?

Fady Asly - February 27, 2024

 Over the past 50 years, numerous countries have been subjected to sanctions from Western countries; these sanctions have been imposed for a variety of reasons, including concerns over human rights, nuclear proliferation, and aggression against other countries.

 The list of countries that have faced such sanctions includes, but is not limited to, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, Libya, Zimbabwe, Myanmar (Burma), Sudan, and Belarus. These sanctions have ranged from economic and trade restrictions to more targeted measures such as travel bans and asset freezes against specific individuals within the government or military apparatus of these nations.

 The success of sanctions in changing sanctioned governments or their policies over the past 50 years varies significantly and is a subject of considerable debate among scholars, policymakers, and analysts.

 In very rare cases, sanctions have contributed to changes in policy or even changes in government, often as part of a broader strategy that includes diplomatic and, in some cases, military measures. However, the impact of sanctions is frequently mixed and can depend on various factors, including the sanctions' design, scope, duration, and the targeted country's economic resilience and political structure.

South Africa is one of the very rare cases where sanctions have been perceived to contribute to policy or regime changes. International sanctions were part of a broader international effort to end apartheid. Economic sanctions, alongside widespread condemnation and divestment campaigns, increased internal pressure on the South African government.

The lifting of apartheid and the transition to majority rule in the early 1990s is often cited as a success story of international sanctions.
However, there are also numerous cases where sanctions did not achieve their intended outcomes or where the outcomes are contested:

1.         Cuba: The US has maintained various forms of sanctions against Cuba since the early 1960s. Despite their longevity, these sanctions have not succeeded in overthrowing the Cuban government, though they have placed significant economic pressure on the country.


2.         North Korea: Despite extensive international sanctions aimed at denuclearization, North Korea has continued to develop its nuclear weapons and missile programs.


3.         Iraq (1990s): Sanctions imposed on Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait were intended to compel Saddam Hussein's regime to disarm and comply with UN resolutions. While they caused significant economic hardship, the sanctions are also criticized for their severe humanitarian impact without directly leading to the regime's collapse (which eventually happened following military intervention in 2003).


 Sanctions alone rarely lead to direct changes in government or policy. They are more effective when used as part of a comprehensive strategy that includes diplomacy and, where applicable, incentives for compliance. The effectiveness of sanctions is often measured not only by their impact on the targeted government's policies but also by their broader humanitarian implications.

 Sanctions imposed on nations often aim to pressure governments into changing their behaviour by targeting their economies. However, these measures can have unintended consequences that, paradoxically, may strengthen the very regimes they're intended to weaken, while harming the general population and legitimate businesses.

 When sanctions are applied, they directly impact legal businesses by restricting access to international markets, limiting the import and export of goods, and cutting off financing and investment from abroad. These restrictions can severely hamper the operations of legitimate businesses, reducing their revenues and forcing some to close.

 As the formal economy weakens, unemployment rises, and economic instability grows. In response to these challenges, a shadow economy often flourishes. Sanctions create lucrative opportunities for smugglers and illegal businesses that can navigate the restrictions to supply banned goods and services.

 These operations are typically well-connected to the government or have the resources to bribe officials, securing their operation despite international restrictions; they exploit parallel markets and third countries not participating in the sanctions to import or export goods, often at dramatically inflated prices due to the risks involved.

This not only generates significant profits for those running the operations but also provides the sanctioned governments with much-needed revenue and goods, thereby inadvertently increasing their resilience.

 The growth of the shadow economy under sanctions can lead to governments increasing their grip on their countries. As legal businesses suffer or close, the economic landscape becomes dominated by entities aligned with or protected by the state, which can use this control to further consolidate power. The government might depend more on these entities for economic stability and leverage them to reinforce its authority, often at the expense of the rule of law and economic freedom.

 Moreover, the general population suffers from this shift. Sanctions often result in increased prices for goods and a general scarcity of essential items, leading to a decline in living standards. The poorer segments of society are hit hardest, as they struggle more to afford basic necessities. Meanwhile, the wealth generated in the shadow economy rarely benefits the average citizen and instead enriches a small elite close to the government. This exacerbates economic inequality and can entrench the power of authoritarian regimes.

 In this way, while sanctions aim to pressure governments into changing their policies by targeting their economies, they can have the unintended effect of weakening the formal economy and fostering the growth of a shadow economy that benefits those in power. Instead of leading to the desired political change, this dynamic often results in poorer populations, the destruction of legitimate businesses, and an even stronger grip by sanctioned governments on their countries.

 Instead of fostering democracy, peace, or human rights, sanctions can inadvertently entrench authoritarianism, radicalize governments, and destabilize regions. This counterproductive effect unfolds through several mechanisms.

 Initially designed to weaken targeted governments by constraining their economic resources, sanctions can end up isolating these nations from the global community. Such isolation often fosters a siege mentality among the populace and the ruling elite. In situations where the government successfully frames these sanctions as hostile actions perpetuated by foreign powers aiming to undermine national sovereignty, it can rally nationalistic support. This narrative can significantly bolster the government's standing, solidifying its control rather than loosening its grip on power.

 Economically, while sanctions aim to pressure regimes by hurting their economies, they can also decimate the middle class and the private sector, often the very groups capable of fostering democratic change or challenging authoritarian rule. As legitimate businesses collapse under the weight of economic restrictions, illicit economies and state-controlled enterprises fill the void, further centralizing government power and providing regimes with income streams impervious to external pressures.

 The reliance on these alternative economic mechanisms strengthens autocratic regimes, offering them the financial means to suppress dissent and entrench their rule. As the sanctioned state adapts to its isolation, it often seeks and finds allies among other nations that are similarly marginalized or that oppose the hegemony of Western powers.

 This can lead to the formation of alliances based on mutual interests or shared adversaries, creating blocs that operate outside the norms and regulations that govern international relations. Such alliances can embolden rogue states, offering them economic, military, and political support that offsets the impacts of sanctions.

 Furthermore, sanctions can radicalize governments by eliminating moderate voices within the regime, as the state apparatus concentrates on survival, hard-line elements often gain prominence, advocating for more aggressive stances against perceived external threats. This can escalate conflicts, making diplomatic resolutions more challenging and increasing the likelihood of regional or even global instability.

 In essence, instead of weakening targeted governments and promoting democratic reforms, sanctions can reinforce authoritarian regimes, contribute to their radicalization, and lead to the rise of more destabilizing and rogue governments.

 The removal of economic and social freedoms required to fuel democratic sentiment and change, coupled with the rallying effect of nationalistic fervour, often delivers an outcome starkly at odds with the aims of the sanctioning nations. This underlines the complexity of international relations and the unpredictable consequences that can arise from interventions intended to foster positive change.

 In the realm of international relations, the search for effective strategies to influence state behaviour without resorting to sanctions has led to the exploration of various approaches that prioritize diplomacy, economic engagement, and international cooperation. These strategies aim to address conflicts and policy issues constructively, seeking to mitigate the unintended adverse effects that sanctions often produce.

 One such strategy is engaging in direct diplomacy, including dialogue with adversarial governments, to facilitate conflict resolution and negotiate peaceful settlements. This can involve bilateral talks or the utilization of third-party mediators to foster communication and agreements.

 Offering economic incentives for compliance with international norms represents another approach, contrasting with the punitive nature of sanctions. This might include removing trade barriers, providing development aid, or facilitating access to global financial markets and institutions.

 Supporting civil society within countries can also play a critical role in promoting democratic values, human rights, and governance reforms from the ground up. This involves backing education initiatives, free media, and independent institutions that contribute to a more open and democratic society. Additionally, working through international organizations and embracing multilateralism can ensure collective efforts to address global issues, enhancing their legitimacy and adherence to international law.

 Investing in conflict prevention and peacebuilding initiatives can address the root causes of instability before they escalate, focusing on governance reforms, poverty alleviation, and strengthening the rule of law. Where interventions are deemed necessary, they should be highly targeted to minimize harm to the general population, focusing on individuals or entities directly responsible for undesirable actions.

 Assisting states in building institutional capacity can also be pivotal in tackling issues like corruption and poor governance, thereby promoting stability and positive change. Establishing clear conditions for engagement and offering tangible rewards for meeting those conditions can provide incentives for states to alter their policies. This strategy should be characterized by transparency, with well-defined benchmarks and expectations.

 Engaging with the people of a target country through public diplomacy efforts like cultural exchanges and education campaigns can foster mutual understanding and goodwill, potentially supporting internal demands for change.

 Each of these strategies presents its own set of challenges and potential impacts, often requiring a combination of approaches tailored to the specificities of each situation. The guiding principle behind these alternatives is a commitment to international law, sovereignty, human rights, and democracy, aiming for solutions that bring lasting positive outcomes.

 In conclusion, and in light of the evidence presented over the past fifty years, it is evident that the use of sanctions as a tool of international policy has often led to outcomes that starkly diverge from their intended goals. Rather than facilitating the promotion of democratic values, human rights, and peace, sanctions have frequently resulted in the entrenchment of authoritarian regimes, exacerbated human rights abuses, and led to significant socioeconomic hardships for the civilian populations of targeted nations.

 The direct impact of sanctions on legal businesses, by restricting access to international markets and cutting off sources of financing and investment, serves to undermine the formal economy. The resulting economic instability and rise in unemployment create fertile ground for shadow economies; these illicit networks, often operated or sanctioned by the state, not only help to sustain the regime financially but also reinforce its control over the economy and, by extension, the population. As legitimate businesses flounder and close, the government's economic dominance grows, often at the cost of the rule of law and economic freedom.

 The adverse effects of sanctions extend beyond the economy to influence the political landscape of the targeted nations; by fostering a siege mentality among the populace and the ruling elite, sanctions can inadvertently rally nationalistic support for the regime. This support can solidify the government's standing and contribute to its longevity, particularly when the regime successfully portrays the sanctions as an external threat to national sovereignty.

 Moreover, the isolation caused by sanctions often leads to the radicalization of governments; in the struggle for survival, moderate voices are side-lined in favour of hard-line elements that advocate for aggressive stances against perceived external threats. This shift not only makes diplomatic resolutions more challenging but can also lead to regional or even global instability. Additionally, the formation of alliances between sanctioned states or those that oppose the hegemony of Western powers can embolden rogue states, offering them a form of support that further undermines the impacts of sanctions.

 The exploration of these unintended consequences of sanctions highlights the pressing need for a reassessment of their use as a foreign policy tool. Instead, there is a compelling argument for the adoption of alternative approaches that prioritize direct diplomacy, economic incentives, and the empowerment of civil society to foster positive change from within. Such strategies promise a more effective and humane way to address international conflicts and policy disputes, focusing on constructive engagement rather than punitive measures. It is imperative that the international community moves towards these alternatives, not only to improve the efficacy of its efforts to promote global peace and security but also to uphold the principles of human rights and economic prosperity for all.