Sanctions as a Political Tool: Are They Effective?

Sanctions, a widely used economic and political tool, have long been at the forefront of international diplomacy. But do they work as an effective tool for enforcing global norms, or do they merely serve as an economic tool that punishes the people more than the policymakers? With increasing geopolitical tensions, the question of its effectiveness as a political tool becomes more relevant than ever.

From imposing economic penalties designed to cripple national economies to enforcing diplomatic sanctions that isolate entire nations, history presents a complex narrative with varying outcomes. On one hand, proponents argue that these measures serve as essential tools to uphold international law, deter aggression, and compel nations to comply with global norms. On the other hand, critics contend that penalties frequently produce unintended consequences, exacerbating economic hardship for ordinary citizens and destabilising entire regions. In some cases, rather than pressuring governments into compliance, penalties have fuelled resentment, strengthened authoritarian regimes, and prolonged conflicts, raising questions about their overall efficacy and ethical implications.

“Sanctions are rarely the decisive factor in political change; they often work best when combined with other measures such as diplomacy and economic incentives.” – Professor Adam Roberts of Oxford University

So, are these an effective tool, or are they merely symbolic gestures that hurt civilians more than their leaders? Let’s dive into the details.

Understanding Sanctions: Types and Mechanisms

Sanctions are strategic measures imposed by countries or international organisations to achieve foreign policy objectives, exert pressure on targeted entities, or deter undesirable actions. They can be classified into several key categories, each with distinct objectives and consequences.

1. Economic Sanctions

These are the most commonly used and involve trade restrictions, asset freezes, or financial penalties to weaken the economic foundation of a targeted nation. These sanctions can be comprehensive or selective.

• Comprehensive : Involve a total ban on trade and financial transactions with a nation. For example, the long-standing U.S. embargo on Cuba restricted almost all economic activities between the two nations.
• Selective (Targeted) : These are aimed at specific industries, businesses, or financial institutions. The sanctions imposed on Iran’s oil and banking sector exemplify this type.

Economic penalties can have unintended consequences, such as strengthening internal nationalism or causing severe humanitarian crises by disrupting essential supplies.

2. Military Sanctions

These are designed to limit a country’s military capabilities by imposing arms embargoes and restricting the sale of defence-related technology.

• Examples: The UN arms embargo on North Korea prevents the sale of military equipment and technology to curtail its nuclear ambitions.
• Challenges: Some countries circumvent military embargo through clandestine arms deals and illicit trade networks.

3. Diplomatic Sanctions

These restrict official diplomatic interactions, symbolising political disapproval. These measures include:

• Expulsion of Diplomats: Nations may expel foreign diplomats as a punitive measure. For instance, Western countries expelled Russian diplomats following the Ukraine crisis.
• Suspension from International Organizations: Countries can be suspended from global bodies like the UN, WTO, or regional organizations, isolating them from international decision-making processes.

4. Targeted (Smart) Sanctions

These focus on specific individuals, corporations, or institutions rather than an entire nation, minimizing collateral damage.

• Examples:
  • Asset Freezes: Blocking financial assets of foreign leaders or oligarchs, such as the Magnitsky sanctions on Russian elites.
  • Travel Bans: Preventing specific individuals from entering certain countries, as seen in the travel restrictions on Iranian officials.

5. Cyber and Technological Sanctions

In the digital age, cyber panelties have emerged as a new tool to curb cyberattacks, espionage, and intellectual property theft.

• Examples: Restrictions on Chinese tech giants like Huawei, banning them from accessing critical semiconductor technologies.
• Implications: These can limit a nation’s technological progress but may also lead to the emergence of alternative domestic innovations.

6. Multilateral vs. Unilateral Sanctions

These can be imposed by individual countries (unilateral) or in coordination with multiple nations (multilateral).

While multilateral sanctions tend to have stronger enforcement mechanisms, they require consensus, which can slow down implementation. They come in various forms, including:

The Effectiveness Debate: Do They Work?

Sanctions are a powerful yet controversial tool. Their effectiveness has been widely debated, with mixed results across different geopolitical contexts. According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), sanctions are successful 34% of the time, mainly when they aim for modest policy changes rather than regime change.

Success Stories

1. South Africa and the End of Apartheid: The most cited success story of sanctions is their role in ending apartheid in South Africa. Economic sanctions, including trade restrictions and financial penalties imposed by the United Nations, the United States, and European nations, played a critical role in pressuring the South African government to transition toward a democratic society. While other factors like internal resistance and political negotiations contributed, penalties helped isolate the regime economically and diplomatically.
2. Iran and the 2015 Nuclear Deal: Economic sanctions imposed on Iran significantly weakened its economy, forcing its leadership to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. Restrictions on oil exports and financial transactions crippled Iran’s economic growth, leading to a diplomatic agreement. However, the deal later collapsed, raising questions about the long-term effectiveness of such penalties.

Failures and Unintended Consequences

1. Cuba: Decades of Economic Isolation: The U.S. has imposed economic sanctions on Cuba since 1960, aiming to weaken the communist government. However, despite over six decades of embargoes, Cuba’s regime remains intact. These panellise have hurt ordinary Cubans more than the leadership, leading many to argue that such measures only entrench authoritarian rule.
2. Russia: Sanctions Post-Ukraine Invasion: Following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the West imposed extensive sanctions, including financial restrictions, asset freezes, and trade embargoes. While these measures led to a decline in Russia’s GDP and currency devaluation, they did not stop Russia from continuing its military operations. Moreover, Russia adapted by increasing trade with China and Middle Eastern nations, reducing the impact of Western sanctions.
3. North Korea: Persistent Nuclear Threat: Despite facing some of the harshest penalties in modern history, North Korea has managed to sustain its nuclear weapons program. The regime has circumvented economic restrictions by engaging in illicit trade, cyber theft, and reliance on China as a key economic partner.

Key Factors Influencing Effectiveness

1. Global Support & Enforcement: Sanctions are more effective when multiple countries enforce them. Unilateral sanctions, such as those imposed by the U.S. on Cuba, often fail because targeted nations find alternative trade partners.
2. Economic Resilience of Target Country: Countries with diversified economies, like Russia and China, can better withstand embargo. In contrast, nations heavily reliant on exports, such as Iran, face severe economic downturns.
3. Black Knight Effect: Some nations support these countries by providing alternative trade routes. For example, China and Russia have helped North Korea and Iran bypass economic restrictions.
4. Unintended Humanitarian Consequences: They often hurt civilians by causing inflation, unemployment, and shortages of essential goods. In countries like Venezuela, economic sanctions have worsened humanitarian crises rather than forcing political change.

When Do They Work?

• When they target specific economic vulnerabilities, such as Iran’s oil industry.
• When they are part of a broader diplomatic strategy, as seen in South Africa.
• When they have strong international backing, ensuring limited workarounds.
• When they are flexible and adaptable, allowing adjustments to maintain pressure.

When Do They Fail?

• When they lack multilateral enforcement, allowing evasion through third-party nations.
• When they target autocratic regimes, where leaders shift economic burdens onto citizens.
• When they are long-term without results, like the Cuba embargo, making them ineffective over time.
• When they lack clear exit strategies, leaving targeted nations without incentives to comply.

Case Studies

Iran: Mixed Results

• Background: The U.S. and its allies have imposed economic sanctions on Iran for decades, primarily to curb its nuclear program and limit its regional influence.
• Impact: Sanctions have significantly restricted Iran’s oil exports, banking sector, and foreign investments. The Iranian rial has depreciated, and inflation has skyrocketed, leading to economic instability.
• Adaptation: Iran has developed informal trade routes with China, Russia, and other non-Western nations to bypass penalties. The government has also encouraged domestic production to reduce reliance on imports.
• Outcome: While sanctions pressured Iran into signing the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), they failed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The U.S. withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 led to renewed penalties, making economic recovery difficult.

Russia: Economic Isolation vs. Resilience

• Background: Following its 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Western nations imposed severe embargo on Russia, targeting its banking sector, energy exports, and oligarchs.
• Impact: Russia’s economy faced a sharp decline in foreign direct investment, the rubble devalued, and inflation surged. Many multinational companies withdrew from Russia, impacting various industries.
• Workarounds: Russia has strengthened economic ties with China, India, and other non-Western nations. It has also adopted a policy of self-reliance, developing domestic alternatives to imported goods.
• Outcome: Despite economic hardships, Russia continues its geopolitical ambitions. The sanctions have not forced a policy reversal, highlighting their limited effectiveness in coercing large, resource-rich nations.

Cuba: A Decades-Long Embargo with Limited Results

• Background: The U.S. imposed an economic embargo on Cuba in 1960 to weaken the communist government led by Fidel Castro.
• Impact: The Cuban economy has faced chronic shortages of essential goods, limited trade opportunities, and stagnation in various industries. Tourism and foreign investments have also been restricted.
• Adaptation: Cuba has relied on alternative allies like Venezuela and China for economic aid. The government has also focused on developing sectors like biotechnology and medical exports to generate revenue.
• Outcome: Despite economic struggles, the Cuban government remains in power, proving that long-term embargo do not always lead to regime change.

South Africa: A Rare Success Story

• Background: In the 1980s, global sanctions were imposed on South Africa to pressure its government into ending apartheid.
• Impact: Trade restrictions, financial sanctions, and diplomatic isolation severely weakened South Africa’s economy. Businesses withdrew investments, and the country faced rising unemployment and capital flight.
• Outcome: Facing economic collapse and internal resistance, South Africa transitioned to democracy in 1994, ending apartheid. This case remains one of the few clear examples where they achieved their intended political goals.

The Indian Perspective: Should India Implement such Measures ?

India has historically avoided broad economic penalties, preferring diplomatic dialogue and trade partnerships. However, as a rising global power, should India adopt these measures?

India’s Strategic Approach

India has maintained a neutral stance, often prioritising economic growth and diplomatic relationships over punitive measures. Unlike Western nations, which actively use sanctions as a foreign policy tool, India carefully assesses the geopolitical and economic implications before making any such decisions.

Historical Stance

• Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): India, as a founding member of NAM, has traditionally opposed economic penalties that serve as instruments of coercion.
• Iran Relations: Despite U.S. embargo, India continued trade relations with Iran, particularly in oil imports, until stricter secondary sanctions forced a policy shift.
• Russia-Ukraine Conflict: India refrained from imposing embargo on Russia, citing strategic partnerships in defence and energy sectors.

Pros for India:

Strengthens geopolitical influence: Using such measures strategically can enhance India’s position as a global leader in diplomacy. 

Aligns India with global standards: Embargo can be used to take a stand against human rights violations and terrorism. 

Could pressure adversaries: Targeted sanctions could deter hostile actions from countries like Pakistan and China.

Cons for India:

Economic repercussions on trade partnerships: Many of India’s key trade partners, such as Russia and Iran, are often sanctioned by Western nations. Imposing these could impact essential imports like oil and defence supplies. 

Could alienate long-standing allies: India’s foreign policy is built on maintaining strong ties with both the West and Eastern nations. Imposing embargo or economic penalties could disrupt these delicate relationships. 

Risk of retaliation: Imposing these could lead to counter-sanctions, affecting key Indian industries like pharmaceuticals, IT, and agriculture.

Alternatives to Sanctions

India has developed alternative methods to address international disputes and policy concerns without imposing direct penalties or embargo:

• Strategic Diplomacy: Engaging in backchannel diplomacy to influence policy changes in other nations. For instance, India has used backchannel diplomacy with Pakistan to defuse tensions after major cross-border incidents, such as the 2016 Uri attack and the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot crisis.
• Trade Restrictions: Instead of outright embargo, India has used selective trade restrictions and tariffs to apply pressure. For example: Restrictions on Chinese Imports: After the Galwan Valley clash in 2020, India imposed restrictions on Chinese mobile apps and increased scrutiny of Chinese investments. India also restricted Chinese participation in critical infrastructure projects.
• Global Alliances: Working through multilateral organizations like BRICS and the G20 to address economic and political concerns collectively. For instance BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa): Through BRICS, India advocates for a multipolar world order and works toward reforming global financial institutions. India collaborates with member nations to challenge Western-dominated financial systems, offering developing nations an alternative.

Conclusion: A Policy of Caution

Sanctions remain a controversial tool—sometimes effective, often symbolic, and occasionally counterproductive. Their success largely depends on enforcement, global cooperation, and the economic resilience of the targeted nation. While economic sanctions may exert pressure on non-compliant states, they often create economic hardships that disproportionately affect civilians.

Moreover, history has shown that these penalties rarely lead to immediate political change; rather, they contribute to long-term economic stagnation and geopolitical realignments. Countries under heavy sanctions often seek alternative alliances, reducing the effectiveness of these measures over time. For example, Russia has deepened its trade relationships with China and the Middle East, while Iran has strengthened economic ties with non-Western partners.

For India, navigating the world of economic penalties requires a strategic balance between maintaining global diplomatic ties and ensuring national economic stability. Unlike Western nations that frequently employ embargo as a tool of statecraft, India has largely focused on economic engagement and dialogue-driven conflict resolution. This approach allows India to preserve its neutral stance while benefiting from trade with embargoed states.

Going forward, policymakers must assess whether sanctions align with India’s long-term foreign policy goals. Should India begin leveraging these in a more assertive manner, or should it continue its tradition of diplomatic mediation? The answer lies in carefully weighing the benefits against the unintended consequences.

📢 Share this article with your friends and family to keep them informed!

🔍 Explore More: https://thinkingthorough.com
📩 Let’s Connect: Have thoughts or suggestions? Drop us a message on our social media handles. We will be waiting to hear from you

References

Marcus, J. (2010, July 26). Analysis: Do economic sanctions work? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-10742109

WTO | Research and Analysis – working paper: When bad trade policy costs human lives: tariffs on mosquito nets. (n.d.). https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201803_e.ht

Abdelbary, I., & Elshawa, R. (2023). Economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool: A case study of the Iran-West conflict. migrationletters.com. https://doi.org/10.59670/ml.v20iS7.4392