The Role That Economic Sanctions Have In Diplomacy - Essay Example

Are Economic Sanctions A Humane Alternative To War or Are They Simply a Tool of Coercion Support Your Arguments with Relevant Examples This paper attempts to analyse and assess the role that economic sanctions have in diplomacy, and whether they can ever be successfully used as an alternative to military action. Do economic sanctions achieve their goal Does imposing economic sanctions damage the leader, or cause harm to the poor Are sanctions an answer, or do they cause more suffering Introduction: Economic sanctions are one of the main diplomatic weapons in the armoury of both sovereign states such as America, and international bodies such as the UN. There are several different types of economic sanction, depending upon who initiates the sanctions, and what the aim is of the enforcing nations. Some sanctions, such as that placed upon South Africa during the 1980's, have proven very successful; others, for example the one waged upon Cuba by the United States, have proved to be singularly unproductive and even harmful to the sanctioning nation. In between these poles are examples such as that of Iraq, where various kinds of sanctions were tried over the years before war finally ended the impasse. These three examples are also interesting because each represents a different kind of sanctioning body. International, unilateral, and consumer bodies were involved in Iraq, Cuba and South Africa respectively. As well as considering the role each group plays in creating and developing the sanctions, it is also necessary to consider whether economic sanctions actually prevent military action, whether they help or hinder regime change, and whether there are any better alternatives to the current system of economic sanctions, with specific reference to 'Smart' or targeted sanctions. Economic sanctions: Firstly, it is necessary to explain what is meant by economic sanctions. For basic discussion, they can be defined in this way: Economic sanctions are economic penalties applied by one country (or group of countries) on another for a variety of reasons. economic sanctions include, but are not limited to, tariffs, trade barriers, import duties, and import or export quotes. (Wikipedia) Wikipedia also notes that: "Economic sanctions are frequently retaliatory in nature". Some consider that there are three general policy objectives which make the application of economic sanctions useful. National security objectives, other foreign policy objectives, and international trade and investment dispute resolution. (Haass) The national security objectives also can be applied to international security, such as that enforced by the UN. Clearly, the first two categories are the most well known, but nations may impose sanctions for economic situations, sometimes in connection with the WTO. The question of who approves and enforces these sanctions also makes a considerable difference when examining the impact of sanctions upon all of the countries involved, and why, is also relevant. Countries usually apply economic sanctions as a diplomatic measure between condemning a certain regime and taking military action: It has become almost a diplomatic necessity to level sanctions prior to military intervention to show that all other options have been exhausted. (Slate.com) It is therefore clear that some economic sanctions are put in place as an appeasement measure to other countries before invasion takes place. Economic sanctions are popular because they offer what appears to be a proportional response to challenges in which the interests at stake are less than vitalthey thus satisfy a domestic political need to do something and reinforce a commitment. (Haass) There is no unanimous opinion on why sanctions are a valid way of controlling another country's government. While the late Pope was firmly opposed to the use of sanctions, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops considered sanctions to be a "Non-military alternative to the terrible options of war or indifference" (usaengage). Whether international, unilateral, or consumer-based, economic sanctions are there are effect changes in the policy of another country through financial and market deprivation. IRAQ Shortly after the first Gulf War, the Security Council of the United Nations arranged for the implementation of economic sanctions on the country of Iraq. This Security Council represents the world's major powers, with special powers granted to those members who were on the Allies' side during the Second World War. Whilst the Council has the ability to impose and remove economic restrictions on nations, other branches of the UN are free to analyse and criticise these sanctions without actually being able to change them. In essence, the UN: Has no sovereignty, but is a mechanism created by independent nation states as a forum for negotiation, diplomacy and display in the furtherance or defence of National polices. (The Ecologist). This co-operation of large nations is both the strength and the flaw of the United Nations - powerful nations will not often agree on ways to discipline and restrict other sovereign states. In fact, even as the UN was developing its Oil-for-Food programme for Iraq, France and Russia were critical of the sanctions, and it was only due to the US and the UK's desire to maintain the restrictions that allowed them to remain in place. At the same time, there is some evidence that US citizens were responsible for exploiting the Oil-for-food programme which led to Saddam Hussein's regime being provided with the money it needed to remain in power. Some US officials have counter-charged that the UN's people also broke the sanctions, a farcical situation which implies that there is no system of checks and measures to ensure that international sanctions are enforced. Douglas Eden, of the Ecologist, seems to confirm that there is no way of assessing how the Oil-for-Food programme was being used: UN officials are scarcely in a position to assess how the Saddam regime applies receipts from the smuggling or The Oil-for-Food programme. (The Ecologist) The sanctions in Iraq are now seen by many as a terrible mistake, with even branches of the sanctioning body declaring that the restrictions were damaging the Iraqi people very seriously. The WHO found, in 2000, that around 80,000 children below the age of five were "chronically malnourished", and death rates among those children had more than doubled (The Ecologist). What this means for the long-term future of Iraqi families is probably not yet clear, since this kind of deprivation has the potential to affect this generation's mental and physical health and abilities for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, the Kurdish leader Barzani, the US and UK ally, made several million dollars from illegal transactions of oil and gas (VITW). The campaigning group Voices In The Wind calls the restrictions "The weapon of Economic Sanctions", and "The most comprehensive siege against a country" (VITW). The Oil-for-Food programme which was meant to help Iraqi civilians "was a band aid for a UN sanctions regime that was quite literally killing people" (Iraqinfo). Some sources suggest that as many as 1 million Iraqis were killed as a direct result of sanctions - about half of these deaths again being that of children under five. However, despite the great suffering of his people, Saddam Hussein remained in power until removed by force through military invasion; sanctions had not made him withdraw from Kuwait in 1990, and future sanctions seemed unlikely to have any better effect. He successfully ignored the sanctions and, in fact, many Arab nations covertly supported him, and their citizens seemed to feel that the US was engaged in a war with Iraq. Millions of people have died or become permanently impoverished as a result of the sanction, and restrictions may have considerably worsened the situation: Economic sanctions can lead to reinforcement of the power of oppressive elites, the emergence.of a black market, and the generation of huge windfall profits for the privileged elites which manage it (High Commissioner for Human Rights) Further more, if part of the intent of the sanctions is to encourage regime change, how can this be possible with a population which is malnourished, crippled, and surrounded by avaricious war lords CUBA An example of a unilateral regime of economic sanctions is that imposed by the United States upon its close neighbour, Cuba. This country has been under embargo for around forty years, economic sanctions which are not supported by the wider international community. The most famous of these examples is the Cuban cigar, which is still unavailable within the United States of America. American sanctions have reduced investment into Cuba, hindering living standards there, but of course Cuba has trading relationships with the rest of the world. (globalisationinstitute) As the Globalisation Institute has observed, forty-three years after the first sanctions, Fidel Castro is still in power. This is clearly in part to do with the fact that the other economic powers, such as the European Union, have continued to trade with Cuba. While the sanctions have not really damaged the government of Cuba, and have served to focus some of the discontent away from Castro, it is still the case that Cuban buyers face the dilemma of finding and acquiring the medications set by the country's health parameters, at the lowest possible price (Cubasolidarity). The evidence is clear: Cuban nationals have to struggle to get hold of necessities which people in America take for granted. In addition, recent assessment has shown that those economic sanctions also cost the nations involved in bringing about the sanctions. In 1995, economic sanctionseliminated more than 200,000 jobs in relatively high-wage export sectors, and caused American workers of lose nearly $1 billion in wages (O'Quinn) Unilateral sanctions not only damage the citizens of the nation under embargo, they also have economic impact on other, and businesses on the initiator of the sanction may also suffer, as other nations take up the slack: In today's global economy, foreign rivals quickly and easily replace American companies to meet the needs of a larger country's market (O'Quinn) When a country embarks on unilateral sanctions, its economic allies become its rivals. The long term effects of this sanction upon the initiating nation could be economic downturn, unemployment, and a boom in rival companies in other countries. In addition, there is some indication that imposing unilateral economic sanctions can distance the imposer from its peers and allies: Economic sanctions imposed by individual states or localities are disruptive and tread on tenuous constitutional ground. (O'Quinn) All of these factors limit the usefulness of sanctions imposed by one country alone. Another issue is that unilateral restrictions on another country may be unconstitutional, as they potentially violate the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses of the US constitution. Imposing sanctions renders the head of the country unable to deal on an equal basis with other leaders, and can interfere with the development of foreign policy. South Africa A totally different kind of economic sanction occurred during the breakdown in relations between South Africa and the rest of the world, which eventually led to the ending of apartheid. The significance of this policy, as opposed to the other two discussed previously, is that the significant actions was initiated by grassroots consumers: A coalition of civil rights, religious, and student organizations in europe and North America known as the Free South Africa movement mounted a disinvestment campaign. (O'Quinn) This consumer based action was in part the direct result of the failure of governments to impose strict enough sanctions on South Africa. Free South Africa Movement pressured banks, and other investors, into calling in loans to the South African government and businesses. When Chase Manhattan Bank refused to renew $400 million in short term loansthis decision provoked a financial crisis in South Africa. (O'Quinn) In this case, the sanctions imposed by the Congress was not seen as strong enough, even though in 1986 Congress overruled the president in order to ban the importing of South African products, and investment in South African business deals. Most observers agree that international economic sanctions contributed to Pretoria's decision to free Nelson Mandela they also took a long time to work. (O'Quinn) with South Africa, grass-roots pressure in the United States and Europe forced multinational companies to divest beyond the requirement of government embargoes (Slate.com) The South Africa success demonstrates that economic sanctions can work, and can be very effective, so long as there is a clear objective, and commercial businesses such as the Chase Manhattan Bank can be brought into the fray. It may be significant that in fact, the South African government was prepared to ignore the Congress sanctions, but bowed to the pressure of grass-roots opposition and consumers activating their own sanctions against the country. Many boycotted South African goods in Europe, for example, causing a lot of anxiety in businesses. The eventual impact of all of this economic pressure made the movement to end Apartheid one of the most successful sanctions that didn't require force to complete the process. In these three examples, a trio of very different political outcomes is demonstrated. The first two were each unsuccessful, as the sanctions did not affect the leadership in Iraq, and caused significant suffering, and was undermined by other countries in the second. The third worked, perhaps due to co-operation between big business, grass-roots consumers, and political pressure. It seems that withdrawing money from those in charge is the axis around which the success or failure of a venture succeeds. There is one method of introducing economic sanctions which brings in the benefit of international restrictions with the direct action upon the leaders themselves, and this is a form of sanctions known as 'smart' sanctions: Economic pressure would only work if it generates political costs for the leaders it targets. Specifically, if leaders are more likely to lose office following thesanctions (Marinov, 566) Targeting the elite has a number of benefits, including keeping the sanctions away from the general population. Experience has shown that, when economic sanctions are not targeted towards leaders, they usually hit the least influential first, resulting in starvation and deprivation amongst the population, and not affecting the leaders at all: Economic sanctions "Most seriously affect the innocent population, in particular the weak and the poor, especially women and children (and) have a tendency to aggravate the imbalances in income distribution already present" (Commissioner) As well as targeting the elite, Sanctions can also focus upon targets areas: The principal alternative to broad sanctionsis sanctions that are narrow and germane to the issue at hand. With Pakistan for example, sanctions would focus on specific defence articles and technologies, but exempt all economic assistance. (Haass) Allowing a greater number of non-food items, such as computers and electronic systems, means that the low level economy can be maintained - part of the current problem with Iraq is that the economy collapsed years ago, and cannot sustain the huge need. Concentrating upon luxury items, such as: Financial sanctionsTrade restrictionsdiplomatic constraintscultural restrictionsair traffic restrictions (SECO) Targeting in this manner will help to reduce the amount of problems within the practice of economic sanctions. Conclusion: As seems clear from these examples, the current usage of economic sanctions, whether by international bodies such as the UN, or independently by nations such as the United States, seems ineffectual, causing harm to the citizens while leaving leaders unmoved. Only the consumer-led sanctions actually achieved their aims, (Though it is perhaps harder to be clear about the suffering caused to the poor and dispossessed in South Africa). This success can be in part attributed to the targeting of government and businesses, rather than general trade. As soon as the banks started to recall their loans, the government was destabilized. Targeted sanctions may be able to put pressure on leaders, while ensuring that the country's economy is not permanently damaged. BIBLIOGRAPHY Can we ever Justify Economic Sanctions Rai, M, in The Ecologist, May 2001 Do Economic Sanctions destabilize Country Leaders Nikolay Marinov in The Journal of Political Science Vol 49, July 2005. Economic Sanctions at www.slate.com/id/1034 Economic Sanctions at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sanctions Economic Sanctions: do they promote Human Rights Danzek, W. at www.globalizationinstitute.org. The Evils of Economic Sanctions Richman, S, at www.fff.org/freedom/0297c.asp The Human Rights Impact Of Economic Sanctions on Iraq-Background paper for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 5 September 2000 The Labyrinth Of the Minotaur Prada, P, and Martin L. at www.cubasolidarity.net/rights.html Sanctioning Madness: A Rotten Core Haass, R.N. Usa Engage November-December 1997 at www.userengage.org/archieves/news/97novfa/html "Smart Sanctions" Mahajan, R, and Jensen, R. at www.mediamonitors.net/mahajan &jensen1.html Smart Sanctions at WWW.Seco.admin.ch/themen/assenwirtschaft/sanktionen/smart_sanctions The Weapon of Economic Sanctions at vitw.org/economic sanctions A User's Guide To Economic Sanctions O'Quinn, R.P. Usa Engage June 24 1997 Read More