Economic sanctions have been used as a tool of war for centuries. In 17th- and 18th-century Europe, economic sanctions were frequently implemented by countries at war. They included prohibitions on trade, the closure of ports against enemies, and bans on trade in certain commodities. Economic sanctions continue to play an important role in the response to terrorism, nuclear proliferation, military conflicts, and other foreign policy crises.
The United States and its western European allies repeatedly increased economic sanctions against the Russian regime and also on millions of ordinary Russians.
Source: https://www.acamstoday.org
This is by excluding Russian trade and Russian finance out of international markets. Moody's and S&P Global have both downgraded Russia's credit rating. The US has frozen Russian reserves and cut many Russian banks off from SWIFT. Europe is planning on big cuts to its purchases of natural gas from Russia. The ruble has fallen to a record low against the dollar. Russia is at risk of defaulting on its foreign debts for the first time in more than a century. Many of the sanctions appear targeted at only certain wealthy Russians, but these moves greatly increase perceptions of geopolitical risk for anyone invested in Russian investments, or investments connected to Russia. That means many investors and corporations will "voluntarily" cut back their activities in Russia.
Ground-up pressure is mounting also: corporations like Coca-Cola and McDonald's are being pressured to close their operations - and thus lay off all their workers - in Russia. This means a real decline in overall investment in Russia far beyond just some Russian banks and oligarchs.
The trickle-down effect to ordinary Russians is immense. Purchasing power, income and employment will be significantly impacted. Many Russians will suffer serious setbacks to their standards of living. The Russian ruling class will be affected too, but given they live much further from subsistence levels, they'll fare much better overall.
And yet, if history is any guide, sanctions won't work. The idea behind sanctions has long been to make the population suffer so that "the people" will revolt against the ruling regime. In many cases, the stated goal is regime change. It's essentially the same philosophy behind Allied efforts to bomb German civilians during World War II.
Instead of convincing the domestic population to abandon their own regime, foreign attacks on civilians - whether military or economic - often cause the domestic population to double down on their opposition to foreign powers.
There are at least three reasons they (sanctions) fail:-
(i) Unless there is near-universal cooperation from other states.
Cuba is an example where U.S. sanctions has been on for decades but other states continue to
trade with Cuba.
The situation with Russian sanctions is likely to lie between Cuba and Iran. While several key
Western states like the US and the UK have taken a hard line against Russia, many others have
been reluctant to impose similar sanctions. Germany, for example, has refused to impose sanctions
in the near term.Most importantly, China has not cooperated with US-led sanction efforts.
So long as Russia can continue to trade with sizable states like China, Mexico, Brazil, and possibly
India, Russia will not face the sort of isolation the US hopes to impose.
(ii) Nationalism - a potent force among most populations - tends to impel sanctioned populations to
support the regime when threatened.
As Robert Keohane has noted, even in non-crisis situations, nationalism can be a general source of
strength for a state since nationalism can unify populations behind the regime. Moreover, as John
Mearsheimer shows inThe Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities:
"Nationalism is an enormously powerful political ideology. ...There is no question that liberalism
and nationalism can coexist, but when they clash, nationalism almost always wins."
US sanctions have not exactly invigorated pro-American or anti-regime efforts in Cuba, Iran,
North Korea or Venezuela.
(iii) If sanctions "worked" that would be insufficient to justify their use.
Sanctions remain popular because they placate the voters who insist "we" must "do something". And government officials are more than happy to engage in policies that grow state power.
But having the regime "do something" is a dangerous game. If the voters want to signal their virtuous opposition to perceived foreign enemies, voters can always take action on their own. If Americans don't like Russian goods and services, they're free to boycott these goods. But embracing yet more federal power in the name of teaching foreign regimes a lesson tends to harm ordinary people in many ways.
Instead of sanctions, why can’t we “kill them with kindness”? That sounds odd but that’s the title of a song by Selena Gomez. We can amaze the opposition/autocracies with kindness. Will they not react differently? Biden says it’s a clash between democracies and autocracies – and, of course, democracies are the “good’ guys. But the U.S. supports selected autocracies – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and a slew of African states. Why? Because it is in the strategic interest of the U.S. All its adventures to propagate democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya have seen dismal results. So, try a little kindness, and overlook the blindness, we may have a better and peaceful world (paraphrased from Glen Campbell).
References:
Why sanctions don’t work, and why they mostly hurt ordinary people, Ryan McMaken,
10 March 2022 (https://seekingalpha.com )
What do sanctions help achieve? An expert explains, World Economic News, 24 March 2022-03-28 (https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment