Sanctions have become a preferred instrument in international diplomacy applied either to avoid war or when war is politically unpalatable. In theory, sanctions are meant to pressure countries into changing their political course or forcing them into compliance with demands, usually by Western powers, over certain issues of dispute. According to a 2023 UN report, the US, UK, EU and Canada are “prolific” users of sanctions, including banking sanctions that affect the entire population of a targeted country.
Yet sanctions – especially those aimed at entire economies – have repeatedly failed to force political change. Instead, they often cause devastating consequences for civilians while leaving political elites unscathed. They simply morph into a collective punishment against an entire population.
History is replete with examples when sanctions have punished populations far more than they have pressured governments. From Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Iran and North Korea, sanctions raise a fundamental question: how does the UN, a body founded to promote peace and human dignity, justify the use of tools that so often inflict collective suffering? The preamble to the UN Charter says the UN is “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.” At the same time, Article 41 of the same document gives the UN Security Council (UNSC) full power to impose sanctions including the “interruption” of communications such as the postal service.
Zealous supporters of sanctions, quite deceptively, came up with a term to minimize their devastating human cost. They describe them as “smart” or “targeted,” meaning they only target the political class and elites while minimally affecting the wider population. However, this is not the case in reality. Sanctions, both smart and otherwise, include assets freeze, travel bans, economic boycotts, diplomatic isolations and threats with penalizing measures.
You must be logged in to post a comment.