Why Brussels Loves to Sanction Things

Great Debates
1

“When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”.

One of the few powers the EU has is to sanction things it doesn’t like, which happens to be a great many things. Having no military to speak of, and no longer being strategically important, Brussels finds economic regulations one of its few tools to use in world affairs. Some examples, these are links I found within 20 minutes of searching, there are probably much more out there.

Other countries
EU Sanctions Zimbabwe
EU wants to sanction Burma
Sanctions against Angol (1999)
Sanctions against Yugoslavia lifted later
Israel may be sanctioned by the EU
Myanmar still under EU sanctions
EU threatens Russia with sanctions
Within the EU
Sanctions on marine polluters
Sanctions against France for exceeding borrowing limits
Sanctions against Germany over budget deficit
Sanctions against Austria for having a right-wing political party, later lifts them
Against Rome for not supporting foreign language instructors
EU sanctions a cement cartel
Ryanair to be fined

Against the U.S.
Sanctions against Microsoft
Sanctions against US for FSC provisions
Steel sanctions
Sanctions over ‘dumping’

Is sanctioning everything in sight a practical way to exert your influence in the world? Or is all this futile diplomatic thrashing that will ultimately reduce the EU’s stature in world trade?

I tend to agree with the latter, and even do a few European statesmen, some who concede that there is little hope of the EU ever reaching parity with the US. Moreover, all of Brussels’ interferences with the market are creating a prohibitive environment for competitive businesses. I find it unlikely that mountains of rules and regulations are the foundation of any great power in the future. Opinions?

2

I’ll be friendly and assume you’re just confused.

The EU is not the counterpart of the US. It is simply an economic union that does not wield any penal or military power. It can furthermore offer a forum to coordinate political action of member states, but in that case it is not the EU but the states themselves who act. You might as well complain that GATT only puts out economic sanctions and does not intervene with military power.

The US, on the other hand, is a full nation-state with all the accompanying penal an military power. So there is no comparing the two.

The instrument for European military power is NATO. They have acted in the past. Furthermore individual European member states are as we speak involved in several messy military situations, including Iraq. The EU cannot force or prohibit member states with respect to military action.

The only field where the EU is competent to act is in providing for a common European market. Hence the EU can sanction whatever stands in the way to such a market. These sanctions can be aimed at each company that interferes with such a market, regardless whether it is a European or an American company. It is disingenious to suggest that sanctions against Microsoft are aimed at America. The U.S. does the exact same thing in researching cartels and the like: in both cases the actions are AFAIK aimed fairly and equally at national and foreign companies.

The actions against the US as a nation are different: these are actions between trade blocks. If the US as a trade block puts up illegal tarriffs, the EU (after blessing of GATT, IIRC), is allowed to strike back. In international affairs the usual legal rules do not apply in the same way as between citizens and companies.

Lastly, sanctions against questionable states. I must admit that my knowledge here is somewhat lacking. AFAIK this falls under the sundry subjects in which the EU can act as a coordinating force. It must act coordinated since a sanction is an economic instrument which is not left up to member states to decide on, but the sanction itself is not aimed at furthering the common market. Such sanctions are often also coordinated internationally by the UN, like the sanctions against the UNITA in Angola. You may laugh all you like, but the truth is that such sanctions may prove a very effective additional measure to force rebel troops into surrendering. If you don’t get any weapons or money, you are not going to keep up a fight for long.

So your complaint boils down, after an examination of the facts, to the statement that the EU is refraining from doing what it legally is not allowed to do, and is doing what it is meant to do. What’s next: police arrest criminals? President signs laws?

Caveat: for the sake of brevity I had to simplify the above somewhat.

3

Pretty good summary Tusculan.

4

I agree with what Tusculan said.

Besides, i don’t think the EU is particularly “sanction happy”. See here for a list of US sanctions. They include Burma, Cuba, Iran, Liberia, Libya, Norht Korea, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Also see here for a list of official UN sanctions, which i imagine the US also follows. Please don’t interpret this as criticism of the US, i am merely pointing out that the EU sanctions are comparable to US ones.

Also, your “within the EU” sanctions are actually fines, for breaking competition laws, breaking the growth and stability pact etc… I am unsure what the US competition authority is, but i imagine it has the power to fine companies? Its a similar thing.

As for your “against the US” sanctions, Microsoft is being fined for abuse of market position (something which i believe individual US states were considering). The last three are limited retaliatory tariffs for breaking WTO world trade rules. If the US hadn’t broken WTO rules, the EU wouldn’t be threatening them…

5

Sure, how is that ‘favoured trading partner’ deal coming along over there . . . ?

What’s the context of your complaint; what other options do you consider available beyond the threat of sanction and invasion under a false pretext - i.e. the threat of sanction is usually a step in diplomacy.

In considering each cited issue individually, I’m more than a little confused by the point you’re making (or not, as the case may be); without taking each and every point this one made me smile more than most:

The EU, by raising the spectre of sanctions, is “ . . . creating a prohibitive environment for competitive businesses” – you do know those sanctions in relation to the US were proposed because of Bush’s old style protectionism (which he later had to back down from).

In that case, the EU protected competition from the erstwhile do-whatever-we-want USA. In other words, without the EU and without the threat of sanction, the US would be continuing its very long history of anti-competitive behaviour.

Just as the threat of sanction ‘saved the day’, so it did in those other examples, as best I can tell.

Would you like to concentrate on one case as a case study because this shotgun approach isn’t happening for me ?