Countries also be imposed due to social,

Countries have numerous alternatives
for ensuring that other nations conform to certain requirements. Economic
sanctions are one of them: they are mostly imposed on countries whose
governments violate internationally accepted standards or threaten regional
stability. Sanctions are
commonly used across the globe to penalize those governments who do not want to
obey commonly established guidelines. Nevertheless, quite often punitive
measures have little if any effect on the targeted country. With regard to such
an occurrence, this paper seeks to address some of the factors which mitigate
the effectiveness of sanction imposition.

Various incidences exist which
support the assertion about sanctions’ inefficiency. One of the most recent
ones is an imposition of UN sanctions against Russia(Ashford). Out of many
factors leading to such an occurrence, the most frequent ones are the
following. Firstly, the use of minor sanctions fails to get the attention of
regimes which are perceived to be hard. The ability to bring pressure on a
given country relies on whether or not the effects can indeed be felt by the
individual nation. Further, there is the notion that military action is rarely
applied and is mostly unpopular. Consequently, the country receiving the
sanction feels less threatened by any decisions met in light of too weak effect
of punitive measures against it.Defined as financial and commercial
penalties by one or more nation on a targeted individual, group, or country, they
are designed to bring about reforms and minimize conflicts (Fishman, 2017).
Sanctions may include restrictions on financial engagements and different forms
of trade tariffs and barriers. They may
also be imposed due to social, political
and military issues. Prohibitions effect change by crippling trade, capital
inflows, market activity; they also and interrupt the flow of goods and
services in and out of a county or region.Overall, the success of santions
directly depends on the extrent and level of international participation.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            As opposed to other forms of governance and regime change,
such as take-overs and war, sanctions provide nonviolent avenues for effecting
policy changes and ideals. However, there lacks enough clarity regarding the
viability and effectiveness of economic prohibitions based on previous
occurrences. According to Selden (2010),  the engagements on the “use of trade sanctions
has fallen into a debate between proponents who champion their use as an
alternative to armed conflict, and detractors who argue that they are a vastly
overused and an ineffective tool of foreign policy” (p. 92). However, the effectiveness
is largely hinged on political cooperation among the involved countries. Even
if the financial implications may not be immediately apparent, sanctions act as
important signals in international relations.

            Considering the broad options and the varying definitions
of international laws and ideals,
different methods of employing sanctions exist. The
mode and extent of each approach depends on the nature of the issue at hand,
the nations involved, and the targeted result.
Different sanctions are employed for various
reasons depending on suitability. The international fraternity can implement three
options of economic pressure that to influence the policies of a state exist.
The sanctioning countries can place export restrictions or limit the
importation of goods to the state under focus. While the former tends to
benefit domestic consumers due to reduced prices on goods that are ideally meant for export, the latter
promotes domestic suppliers and smugglers. The third mode of restriction,
financial sanctions, curbs a state’s ability to access financial and capital
instruments in the global market. Financial
restrictions effectively impede the running of development and
government functions as they prevent access to affordable capital provided by
lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary fund (IMF),
therby increasing the interest rates associated with alternative forms of
borrowing (Selden, 2010).  The sanctions are therefore aimed at interfering with the
normal order of trade and business. This
destabilizes the targeted regime from capital and financial perspective,
eventually making it to weaken. 

            Furthermore, global
policy formulators such as the World Bank and leading governments delicately
formulate and pursue economic sanctions. According to Kim (2009):

Leaders in democracies are very careful when pursuing
policies regarding economic sanctions, which leads to the relative
effectiveness of the sanctions imposed by democratic states. Democracies are
also very credible in their threats related to economic sanctions, and this
credible signal of resolve leads to more successful outcomes of sanctions
imposed by democratic states compared to those instituted by nondemocracies.
(p. 104)

Consequently,
while sanctions are targeted on specific
leaders and players, their effects sometimes spill over to untargeted citizens,
regions, and governments. Most of the times, the line between the targeted
leader, regime, or region and the rest of the population
is usually not well defined. A review of the sanctions in Iraq embolden the
above claim and form the basis of calls to review and audit such policies.santions  tend to hit the
people instead of their rulers, who are usually their targets. The experience
in Iraq during the ’90s is a good example. The air strikes of the US-led war to liberate Kuwait they hit the
Iraqi infrastructure hard. They complicated the already difficult situation
that had caused the imposition of sanctions.

            After the Gulf War, international players agreed on the
need for sanctions, a high-level
commitment in enforcing them, and institutional structures for controlling the
imports and exports of Iraq, (Selden, 2010). Spearheaded by the United Nations Security
Council (UNSC), the sanctions involved the imposition of a comprehensive trade
embargo on oil and other key trade engagements. 
The sanctions, occasioned after the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990,
stayed in effect until the forceful removal of Saddam Hussein from power in May
2003. The major goals were to compel the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, to
oversee reparations, and to unravel and eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass
destructions program. However, the eventual impacts of the sanctions were of
tremendous effect to the people of Iraq, the region, and the international
community as a whole. In effect, the challenges brought to front the underlying
structural and systematic problems that transformed the face of international
politics.

            The sanctions on Iraq resulted in significant political problems. Firstly, they were ineffective as
they failed to yield the desired outcomes. Hussein declined the UN Security
council access to the country’s biological, chemical, and nuclear weaponry
program for inspection. Moreover, the UN’s strategy of putting strict controls
on the oil exports and the goods that Iraq could import so that the regime
could be financial disabled was ineffective. 
With Hussein still in-charge of selecting the oil buyers and the
suppliers of humanitarian goods as well, he managed to profit from the
sanctions regime to the detriment of millions of civilians (Selden, 2010).Consequently,
Hussein was able to abscond from fulfilling the UN’s requirements because he
still had resources and wielded much influence. Secondly, the political blame
for the humanitarian disaster that ensued was
squarely placed on the UN and the United States. Between 1991 and 1998,
more people died from the effects of the sanctions than those slain by the
controversial mass destruction weapons (Drezner, 2011). While the sanctions were targeted on Hussein, innocent civilians
bore the brunt of the ensuing crisis from lack of water, high rates of
malnutrition, unavailability of medical services and abject poverty. As this
was happening, the world’s focus was on the leading forces behind the sanctions
to reconsider and reevaluate the approach. Therefore, the failure of the United
Nations and the United States to foresee and prevent the humanitarian
catastrophe ultimately laid the blame on them. Lastly, sanctions tend to
encourage economic crimes. The economic siege in Iraq demonstrates the presence
of a position connection between sanctions and corruption as individuals
resorted to illegal means to fulfill different needs (Drezner, 2011). By
strangling ordinary market operations, sanctions give entrepreneurs a strong
resolve to take the criminal pathway, allowing them to make extraordinary
profits. The black market activities thrive during spells of sanctions as so
does organized crime syndicates and international smuggling networks (Drezner,
2011). Therefore, sanctions always create a gap in the market chain which
conniving entrepreneurs use to acquire wealth. 

            The humanitarian crisis was especially the most
significant concern. Lack of medical supplies, high malnutrition rates and
diseases from lack of safe water featured prominently. In addition, the country’s economic prospects regrettably dwindled,
with agriculture majorly devastated. Furthermore, other key development pillars
such as education and recreation suffered a major blow. Consequently, the lives
of the poor citizens of Iraq were characterized
by drought, misery, and destitution. Therefore, the people suffered the most
while Hussein continued to enjoy power from strategic engagements and deals,
albeit under diminished privileges. 

The empirical research is conclusive:
generalized economic sanctions (for example, the US trade embargo
against Cuba), do not usually achieve their declared objectives (in
the example, the end of the communist regime in Cuba). Partial
sanctions (for example, towards a specific sector of the economy), and
with limited objectives (for example, the change of a specific policy by the
sanctioned State), have a somewhat higher probability of success, but
neither are they particularly effective. It is not only that generalized
sanctions tend to be ineffective, it is also counterproductive. On the one
hand, Daniel Drezner’s research suggests that authoritarian regimes have
the capacity to redistribute the impact of sanctions, in such a way that their
cost falls on vulnerable groups of society (or on their adversaries), while the
rents sanctions could generate (for example, through the smuggling of goods
that cannot be imported by legal means), benefit their allies (thereby
guaranteeing their loyalty). On the other hand, according to a study by
economist Ronald Wintrobe, the adverse effect that sanctions could have on the
performance of the economy, increases the likelihood that a regime appeals to
repression as a means to compensate for the loss of social support that could
to imply. It
is not only that generalized sanctions tend to be ineffective, it is also
counterproductive. On the one hand, Daniel Drezner’s research
suggests that authoritarian regimes have the capacity to redistribute the
impact of sanctions , in such a way that their cost falls on vulnerable
groups of society (or on their adversaries), while the rents sanctions could
generate (for example, through the smuggling of goods that can not be imported
by legal means), benefit their allies (thereby guaranteeing their loyalty). On
the other hand, according to a study by economist Ronald Wintrobe, the adverse
effect that sanctions could have on the performance of the economy, increases
the likelihood that a regime appeals to repression as a means to compensate for
the loss of social support that could to imply. To
verify those facts was the origin of what today is
called “Intelligent Sanctions”. Essentially, these are
sanctions that affect the interests abroad(for example, freezing assets or bank
accounts in Europe and the United States), of specific companies and
individuals. In this way, it seeks to ensure that most of the cost imposed
by the sanctions is assumed by those to whom they are directed, thus giving
them incentives to make the concessions that are expected of them. However, some problems remain. When the policies
subject to sanctions are considered a matter of national interest and represent
something close to a consensus position within their society (such as Russia’s
policies towards Ukraine), the regime would prefer to assume extremely high
costs rather than change them. Achieving the outlined objective could then
imply more severe sanctions than foreseen, which are risky when there is a high
economic interdependence between the States that apply the sanctions and the State
on which they fall (for example, around 30% of the energy that consumes Western
Europe comes from Russia).

Sanctions
also have weaknesses, such as those countries that counteract the effects of
sanctions. One of those countries is China. It is not in China’s best
interest to have a reunited chorea in his frotnera heiress of a dozen atomic
bombs. He is a great strategic partner of Iran where he has investments in
oil. He has signed a gas purchase agreement with Russia for several
decades and beyond. Economic
sanctions have brought Iran to the negotiating table, as with the country’s
nuclear program. The sanctions were directed at the oil sector and, for
example, reduce Iran’s chances of securing its oil tankers. Particularly important is the blockade in international
financial markets, especially the exclusion of the “Society for the Global
Interbank Financial Telecommunications System” that enables electronic
transactions.

            The use of economic sanctions in Iraq was a failure
because Hussein ultimately failed to comply with the Security Council
resolutions that necessitated the sanctions. This
refusal was despite the devastating humanitarian and economic effects that were seen (Kim, 2009). Consequently, there were
calls to review the policies behind sanctions and their implementations. The
humanitarian and political disaster brought about by the sanctions, therefore, inspired policymakers to
search for innovations and more effective channels of dealing with global
conflicts and disagreements. Accordingly, it became clear that sanctions needed
proper crafting and oversight to limit unintended effects and humanitarian
challenges. Furthermore, blanket restrictions required due diligence because
the resulting consequences had the effects of altering lives and nationhood.

            A
priori, the economic literature on the subject, even the most skeptical about
the ability of sanctions to dissuade an aggressor State from persisting in its
line of action, requires a series of minimum conditions to evaluate its
potential effect: First, the greater a country is, the more capable it is of
absorbing that type of reprisal; secondly, the intensity of the commercial and financial ties
of the State sanctioned with the sanctioners is another fundamental variable to
be taken into account; third, the smaller
the international coalition that bears the sanctions, the lesser is its
possibility to change the behavior of the aggressor.

            Iraq’s case cannot be solely used to assess the need for
sanctions and their effectiveness. Moreover, the
effectiveness, ineffectiveness, or even counter productivity of economic
sanctions depend on the mode of implementation and the specific policy shifts
that they are designed to induce. In the Iraq’s case,
for example, the sanctions strengthened the regime’s resolve despite intense
pressure from the international players. With the ultimate goal being to prompt
policy changes, the eventual impacts should be beneficial to the common
citizens and make the world better, secure, and prosperous.

The sanctions can help to make some policy more flexible,
such as enriching Iranian uranium or curbing the chemical weapons program that
the late Muammar Gaddafi was developing in Libya. But
to promote democracy have been a complete failure. The population suffers all
the consequences. Countries stop exporting, money stops entering and products
become more expensive.

Sanctions
should be applied to the extent that they indeed can coerce a given nation to
respond. However, they need to be applied universally to ensure the attainment
of the identified objectives. In essence, they should be applied in
collaboration with other measures.Overall, the application of sanctions most
frequently fail to attain the expected goals. Disobedient nations usually keep
on violating universally held proceedings or simply do not acknowledge
committed crimes. In this respect, supplementation of sanctions with additional
measures is imperative.

x

Hi!
I'm James!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out