Photo by Vladislav Klapin / Unsplash
Why Economic Sanctions Have Historically Never Worked to Achieve Their Aims
The preferred tool for repressive countries, including the U.S., has always been economic sanctions. The purpose is simple: to damage the economy or leadership in an attempt to force political changes, such as cessation of hostilities, ending human rights violations, or dismantling nuclear programs. However, history shows that such embargoes usually do not meet their stated goals. This article will consider how sanctions imposed on Russia, Iran, and Cuba have instead made life more difficult for the average citizen, thereby consolidating authoritarianism and instigating anti-American sentiment, even when imposed as “smart” measures. Additionally, there are tens of thousands of micro-sanctions against companies and individuals that are equally unsustainable, with no effective way to determine their impact.
Sanctions Against Russia: The Invasion of Ukraine and Beyond
The largest-scale sanctions in history were recently imposed by the United States and other Western countries as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Among other measures, assets belonging to Russian oligarchs were frozen, the SWIFT international payment system expelled Russian banks, and restrictions were placed on the importation of Russian energy products. The aim was to pressure the Russian leadership into withdrawing from Ukraine by making its economy uncompetitive with the rest of the world. However, these consequences have been unintended; instead of hurting Vladimir Putin’s government, such sanctions have failed to achieve this objective, as elites have managed to evade them through alternative markets like China or India, while others view it as an opportunity for business.
The average Russian felt the brunt of these sanctions more than anyone else, experiencing high inflation rates and a declining quality of life. Paradoxically, public opinion increased in favor of Putin three months after these measures were implemented, as they enabled his administration to consolidate power and further unite opposition forces.
Cuba: Decades of Sanctions Without Change
Cuba is a classic example of how economic sanctions cannot achieve their intended objectives. The U.S. has maintained an almost complete trade embargo against Cuba since Fidel Castro took power in 1959, aiming to push the country toward democracy and better human rights observance. Nevertheless, almost sixty years later, Cuba remains a one-party state under communist rule.
On the contrary, these very measures have worsened life for Cubans by drastically reducing the availability of goods, including humanitarian items such as medicines and other essentials for survival. Although the regime has exploited this situation to blame its internal problems on the embargo and to increase anti-American propaganda among segments of the population, it has not weakened its hold on power, all while compromising the welfare of ordinary citizens under sanctions. Successive U.S. administrations have, at times, failed to bring about democratization through adjustments in the sanctions.
Iran: Sanctions and Nuclear Ambitions
Iran has faced tough sanctions, particularly regarding its nuclear program, for many years. Sanctions on Iran’s energy sector and financial institutions are not new; major Western nations, including the U.S., have enforced them to compel the country to abandon its nuclear weapons aspirations, which are deemed unacceptable according to international standards of human rights and regional order. Like Cuba and Russia, achieving these objectives through sanctions has proven fruitless.
Consequently, despite skyrocketing inflation, unemployment, and shortages of basic commodities, the leadership refuses to conform to external pressures due to adverse economic conditions. Public support for the regime serves as an excuse for rallying nationalist sentiments among its people against Western aggression. Iran has managed to find new trading partners, such as China and Russia, allowing it to continue its nuclear program even after sanctions were imposed by multiple countries as a stance against its leadership. The ordinary populace in Russia, along with Cubans, has been worst affected, suffering more than those in power.
The Problem of Micro-Sanctions: A Sea of Ineffectiveness
While there are global sanctions targeting states, numerous minor sanctions exist against companies, individuals, or smaller entities. Very few people know about these sanctions or their impact since they are usually not publicized. For example, the U.S. government applies sanctions on individuals who violate human rights, firms believed to be doing business with countries under embargo, and entire sectors such as energy or financial services within specific economies.
One major problem with these micro-sanctions is that they are hardly measurable in terms of effectiveness. Often, these embargoes aim to squeeze a select industry or individual, but there is no concrete evidence to show that they have the intended impact. Worse still, they may promote economic stagnation without initiating any political or social transformations while allowing other forms of trade that disregard the rules and regulations attached to such measures.
The prevailing situation of micro-level sanctions presents a highly disordered and opaque system lacking transparency. Many of these sanctions are loosely monitored, with little coordination between different government departments or agencies worldwide. Consequently, it is difficult to measure their efficacy, and in most cases, they serve no purpose other than to send a message of disapproval.
Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work
Though common in international relations, economic sanctions often fail to reach their intended targets. When economic restrictions are enacted, the immediate casualties are typically ordinary people in the affected countries, as resources needed to mitigate the impact of sanctions are accessible only to politicians and elites who can bypass them through connections. As a result, ordinary people are forced to cope with higher prices, scarcity of essential commodities, and job losses.
Additionally, sanctions can lead to unintended consequences in global trading relations between countries subjected to them. Notably, economic blocs that exclude the U.S. have formed, as many countries prefer not to engage in trade ties that would reinforce American sanctioning power (Burkhardt, 2007). For example, trade cooperation between China and India has enabled even sanctions-stained Russia to meet its energy needs without excessive reliance on Western markets. Iran, too, has shifted eastward to find trade partners after being denied Western investments due to its nuclear programs.
Contrary to popular belief, economic sanctions are ineffective in fulfilling their objectives. Historical observations from Russia to Cuba and Iran reveal that the more sanctions are designed to pressure the ruling class, the harder ordinary citizens are hit. Leaders often perceive sanctions as a means to enhance nationalism, portraying the United States and its allies as hostile. In many instances, such actions have only strengthened their hold on power while stifling dissent internally.
Finally, the spread of micro-sanctions complicates the evaluation of sanctions’ impacts, as they often go unnoticed. These do not promote democracy nor deter harmful activities like nuclear proliferation; rather, they end up strengthening autocrats at home and turning populations against America, ultimately proving counterproductive. Policymakers must rethink their approach to imposing sanctions to promote global stability and introduce new diplomatic methods.
