In 432 BCE, in the lead-up to the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, the Athenian government approved a set of economic sanctions called the Megaran Decree against the city-state of Megara. Athens, by this point, was one, if not the most, powerful state of the Hellenes and held enormous influence, rivaled only by Sparta and its allies. The motivation behind the sanctions was political, with Athens accusing Megara of opposing its empire and of assisting its enemies. These sanctions isolated Megara from most Hellenic trade, resulting in economic hardship for the city, and eventually led Megara to side with Sparta anyway.
The Megaran Decree is widely considered the first usage of economic sanctions in history, and its issuance has had a profound impact on the world, especially on U.S. foreign policy.
In a world where one state is the hegemon of trade, as is the case with the U.S. and Ancient Athens, the use of economic sanctions can be an effective tool that doesn’t require bombs or a fleet of triremes to harm a nation’s adversaries. All you need is the approval of your legislature to isolate, starve, and cripple your enemies into submission. But oftentimes, this act of crippling does more than disable; it annihilates everyone and everything in its path.
Today, in contemporary political affairs, economic sanctions are seen as an acceptable alternative to guns and bombs for states to get what they want. It is often seen as a less aggressive and sometimes more coercive tool in foreign policy, with less collateral damage and fewer deaths. However, this view of economic sanctions must address the question: What causes the most civilian deaths in a conflict?
Is it bombs and direct fire? Possibly, but only in the case of complete devastation of a high-density area, where explosions are almost guaranteed to kill or injure someone. We’ve seen in the Gaza Strip what bombs can do to civilians in an incredibly dense area, in what most NGOs and even many Israeli organizations are now calling a genocide. Israel’s war on Gaza has resulted in an incredibly high civilian death rate, with roughly 83% of all deaths coming from civilians, demonstrating the profound effect that arms can have on high-density civilian targets.
Of course, many of these deaths (although exact data is hard to find) have and will continue to come from food insecurity, lack of water, lack of healthcare, and other necessities for human survival. The destruction of these essentials and the inability, or, rather, the prohibition, of the government and international organizations to provide these resources and aid will undoubtedly lead to the greatest loss of life.
This is the effect that bombs can have indirectly on a populace, by forcing the displacement of the people from their homes, destroying their places of work, and relegating them to camps filled with blue helmets. But this is precisely the effect economic sanctions can have directly on a population through their targeting of the economy. Costs of goods and services increase, increasing unemployment, forcing entire families into poverty, and decimating a country’s economy to the point that famines, emigration, and instability become rampant—the things that destroy entire nations.
An action with such a profound impact must have a valid justification. The U.S. International Trade Commission outlines it as follows: “By attempting to influence the target’s behavior, sanctions may pursue a range of foreign policy and/or national security goals, such as improving human rights, deterring aggression, or preventing the proliferation of weapons.”
The inclusion of human rights as one of the justifications is ironic, especially given that more often than not, sanctions fail to improve the lives of the people they’re meant to help. Not only do sanctions harm the well-being of the recipient country’s inhabitants by eroding economic stability, but they also force authoritarian regimes to choose between succumbing to foreign pressure or doubling down on their power.
In the eyes of an authoritarian leader, the choice is easy: maintain their status as leader and further crack down on dissent. Regime change is often cited as a justification for sanctions, especially in the case of Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and many others. However, research has shown that sanctions are ineffective for attempting to bring regime change and instead add further fuel to the fire of authoritarianism.
Let the record show from the obituaries of dead children that sanctions are a tool to cause an incredible amount of deaths rather than regime change. The sanctions placed upon Saddam Hussein’s regime after the 1991 Gulf War have directly caused the deaths of at least 100,000 children, with some numbers exceeding as high as 500,000. The Center for Economic and Policy Research concluded in Venezuela that an estimated 40,000 people died from the economic sanctions imposed upon the country. And in Cuba, where the government has been sanctioned and blockaded for over 60 years, the quality of life is significantly diminished, prohibiting energy, medicine, and food imports—leading to an unprecedented amount of suffering.
Looking at the immense cost of sanctions, it wouldn’t be entirely mistaken to say that they shouldn’t be used or have little to no place in foreign affairs. The issue I have with sanctions is not just the horrific suffering they cause, but also their large scope, which diminishes their effectiveness. Vague justifications such as “regime change” are actually ineffective. However, very specific demands, and those aimed at a democracy rather than an autocracy, are much more effective, as democratic governments are much more receptive to diplomacy and the demands of their citizenry.
While being a flawed democracy, apartheid South Africa faced an arms embargo and sanctions from a number of countries, including the U.S. The country was pressured to free political prisoners such as Nelson Mandela and bring an end to the country’s system of apartheid, which was ultimately successful.
Sanctions can be a tool used for good when used correctly. However, their severity and their ability to harm innocent people should be recognized, and not be masqueraded as simply an economic tool, but one that can do as much, if not more, damage than bombs can.
Double major who loves to talk about the political and economic state of the world right now. Really enjoys hiking, practicing latte art, and trying to understand the complex planet we call home.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.