Are Sanctions Really Effective?

With the Taliban taking over Afghanistan again, India has become an important region for dealing with them. India is the chairman of the Taliban Sanctions Committee and as the chairman of this committee India will stand firm against any move to ease sanctions against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The United Nations first put sanctions on Afghanistan in 2000 with Resolution 1333, which imposed a mandatory arms embargo on Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Since then the UN has also imposed financial and travel sanctions on Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Organisations and countries such as the EU and the US have also placed their own sanctions on Afghanistan. But who do these sanctions really affect? Are they actually effective?

First, let's look at what sanctions really are – sanctions are financial or commercial penalties applied by one or more countries on a particular state, group or individual for either political, military or social reasons. Sanctions are usually imposed to change the behaviour of the target regime in a country in such a way that improves the situation in that country. Different sanctions have different purposes. For example, trade restrictions can be imposed to hinder the economy of the targeted country. Sanctions may include, asset freezes, arms embargoes, travel bans and trade restrictions like mentioned above.

Though these sanctions usually have good intentions, like the economic sanctions on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the people are the most affected by these sanctions. Sanctions are not a viable method of dealing with authoritative regimes such as these. Sanctions are one of the ways the United Nations and other organisations show that they are doing something to deal with a problem. It is a sign to other countries that something is being done. Some people say that sanctions put pressure on the targeted country or regime and force them to change their internal dynamics or agree to negotiations, but that is not the case. Most of the time, economic sanctions have no effect on the targeted regime, only on the people.

Sanctions are not an effective system for two reasons:

i) Sanctions are often imposed on authoritarian regimes like the Nazi regime in Germany, etc. These authoritarian regimes have firm beliefs that cannot be easily wavered by the economic impact of sanctions. In fact, the placement of sanctions will just make the targeted group more hostile towards the sanctioners. These targeted regimes will also spread propaganda to their people and tell them that the reason for their economic hardship is the acts of foreign countries. Due to the nature of the situation and the attitude of the sanctioned actors, sanctions are, therefore, not a viable option.

ii) Sanctions are not properly enforced. There is no point in imposing sanctions if the targeted actor isn’t affected by it. Let’s say the UN imposes an arms embargo on Afghanistan, but the Taliban still produces weapons or acquires weapons from other countries. The arms embargo, therefore, does not affect the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. There needs to be a committee to enforce the sanctions. The UN did set up a Sanctions Monitoring Committee according to Resolution 1267 in Afghanistan in 2014 after the 9/11 attack and other terrorist activities, but this is one out of many cases. Most times sanctions are just placed and then forgotten.

Sanctions fulfil an alibi function, they act as a substitute for substantive action. The UN's repeated usage of sanctions shows that they are not willing to take real action against the targeted actor. Before placing sanctions they should ask the questions - Will these sanctions be effective? Will the targeted state/actor feel pressurised by these sanctions? Without answering these questions, the enforced sanctions will prove to be ineffective.

Let us take up the case of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The UN Security Council has placed commercial and economic sanctions on North Korea to show their disapproval of North Korea’s continued nuclear tests. North Korea considered this demand to be unjustifiable and ignored the UNSC’s statements. In terms of foreign trade, these sanctions had no effect on North Korea. Marcus Noland, the economist, has stated that “the imposition of these sanctions (resolution 1718) has had no perceptible effect on North Korea’s trade with the country’s two largest trading partners, China and South Korea”. Despite the economic measure taken against North Korea they have still been able to attain highly advanced nuclear technology. Overall, the economic sanctions imposed by the UN failed to achieve their objective – the de-nuclearisation of North Korea.

Even if the sanctions are effective in restricting trade in a country, the burden of the sanctions falls on the people and not on the sanctioned actors. Economic sanctions lead to an increase in the poverty gap and the underprivileged classes of society are the most affected by them. The elite members of society or the people in charge of the government are still able to live lavishly despite economic sanctions, and they push the burden of the sanctions on the lower class. Economic sanctions cause a stagnation in trade which may lead to a scarcity of goods in the economy. Scarcity leads to a rise in prices that only the higher classes of society can afford, leaving the lower classes even more impoverished. Sanctions often lead to an increase in income inequality and tend to harm rural areas as resources are refocused in the industrialised areas. Moreover, sanctions affect communities such as women, minorities and marginalised groups more than other sections of society. So, sanctions end up pushing a country backward in terms of social growth instead of forward. Sanctions work against humanitarian efforts in countries and adversely affect basic human rights. So, sanctions cause more harm than good.

Sanctions have resurfaced as a popular feature of public policy and interactions. The United States and the UN have frequently applied sanctions on countries and groups for political reasons. But, these days sanctions have become impractical. As said before, they do more damage than good; their negative impact surpasses their benefits. The frequent use of sanctions needs to be stopped or they should be placed in a more effective manner which pressurises the targeted group instead of ordinary civilians. Sanction should no longer be used as a cover for not taking real action.