In many world crisis, the non-violent solution to disputes is usually economic sanctions. Does this ever work? I am thinking back to the countries I can remember us putting economic sanctions on - Cuba, Iraq, Iran - and in no case does it ever seem to resolve the dispute. Sure, it may impoverish (?) the country, but has any government ever said “OK, you win. We concede. Just lift these damn sanctions?”
Pakistan agreed to help us with just the threat of economic sanctions.
Haj
Economic sanctions work all the time. Every year there are countless trade disputes between nations where one nation will impose economic sanctions on another, and the sanctions will eventually drive the parties to the bargaining table so they can resolve the dispute.
Of course, you’re talking about something much more dramatic–sanctions used to overturn an entire regime.
I can’t think of any simple examples of that. Arguably, Germany surrendered in WW I because it was afraid of mass starvation caused by economic isolation, but of course it was also in the midst of a huge shooting war.
The West’s refusal to trade (in general) with the former Soviet Union helped hasten the USSR’s demise. The USSR’s economic system was so screwed up that it’s better to think of it as commiting economic suicide while we watched, though.
In the case of Iran and Cuba, I think sanctions were imposed primarily to express displeasure with the regimes. I doubt that anyone believed sanctions alone would bring a change in government. Some hoped that sanctions would help bring down Saddam after his defeat in the Gulf War, but obviously it didn’t work.
In the present situation, sanctions would have no effect on Afghanistan. It’s so poor and isolated that I doubt sanctions would even be felt. However, sanctions may still have a role to play. Sanctions may not be a good way of overturning governments, but they may still be effective in convincing governments to expel terrorists or freeze terrorist assets, for example.
The only instance I can think of where sanctions arguably have worked outside of minor economic disputes is in South Africa. Took a hell of a long time, but the apartheid government did finally bow to international pressure and dismantle their system.
My view is that sanctions only work as a way of changing the behaviour of a government when there is a fairly powerful group inside the country trying to achieve it that supports sanctions. Example: the ANC in South Africa. Of course there may be other reasons to have sanctions. This topic has been discussed on occasions here, and I’ll link to a couple of them I remember. Some interesting things are said, some of them by people who aren’t posting much now:
Despotic regimes: isolation or engagement? OP me, 4/00
Are economic sanctions moral? OP Rog668, 8/00
End Embargo on Iraq? Op Whack-a-Mole, 12/00
Do they work ever? Sure. Always?-- Castro has some opinions on that.
Economic sanctions are more effective against wealthier nations than they are against poorer nations (the rich have a lot more to lose and feel it more…if you’re dirt poor there isn’t much you can take away).
Economic sanctions are more effective against democracies than other political systems (elected leaders can be kicked out if the populace wants to see a change to lift sanctions).
Economic sanctions are effective in bringing governments back to the negotiating table but they rarely cause an overthrow of the government.
In history I think the economic sanction that had the biggest noticeable effect was against Japan. FDR embargoed oil and other products from reaching Japan in protest of their invasion of China. Since Japan felt compelled to attack the US in order to regain those supplies I would assume that this was an embargo that Japan felt and decided it could not tolerate.