There are many studies showing the ineffectiveness of sanctions and the damage they cause. For an overview look for example at this article by the Conservative think-tank Cato. No need to repeat all this here.
The question arises, why sanctions are so popular among politicians taking into account their lack of effectiveness. Firstly, there is a positive explanation. Sanctions are viewed as an alternative to military action (invasion, war, bombardments), so if the alternative is war, we have to welcome sanctions as the lesser evil. But the other explanation is the “we have to do something” argument, when faced with human rights abuses, unjust electoral processes, suppression of NGOs, military coups or the like. The most vociferous proponents are often Human Rights Organisations and a dispassionate debate over the issue is impossible as people who are against sanctions are labelled as supporters of this or that “regime”. The voices supporting sanctions are often this strange coalition of Cold War warriors and Human Rights groups, and politically they are supported by both right- and left-wing parties.
Les us for the moment disregard sanctions targeting “adversaries” (China, Iran, Russia etc.), where the objective normally is simply to weaken the adversary in a geopolitical competition, and let us disregard the absolute lack of consistency in the defence of human rights (the Syrian Government's bloody war against islamist rebels is condemned while the Saudi-led war against Houthi rebels in Yemen, where the death-toll is now reaching 377,000, is met with a deafening silence). Let us instead take a look at the sanctions against two smaller countries considered to be misbehaving: Syria and Afghanistan (I have an analysis of the sanctions against Venezuela here).
Starting with Syria, there is no doubt that serious human rights abuses were committed during the civil war, both by the islamist rebels and the Government forces. Since Government forces retook East Aleppo in 2016, the Syrian Government is controlling most of the country, except for parts of the East and Nort-East, occupied by US and Kurdish forces, and the North, occupied by Turkish forces and their islamist allies. The islamist rebels supported by the US, EU and their Middle East allies have been defeated, so the reality is that president Assad is still in power and effectively governs most of Syria. Syria has been under extremely severe economic sanctions by the US and the EU since 2011, which are causing incredible hardship for the Syrian people. Millions have left the country and many of these have migrated to the EU (more than half a million to Germany alone). Even if they wanted to return, there is not much to return to as sanctions have made normal business operations extremely difficult. What is the purpose of these sanctions? Punishing the Syrian people for not having backed the islamist rebels against the Government? Or punishing them for not starting a new rebellion? Or incentivising more Syrians to migrate to the EU? It is time to change policy. The US and the EU don’t have to cooperate with the Syrian Government, they can simply stop punishing the Syrian people with sanctions that make normal economic relations with the outside world next to impossible (particularly so-called “secondary sanctions” against companies in countries that are not sanctioning Syria). To give the Syrians a chance to get on their feet again is not “morally unacceptable” by forgiving past human right abuses. It is morally unacceptable to continue the sanctions regime. Give the Syrian people a chance, whichever their government may be.
The Citadel of Aleppo, Syria, has been reconstructed after the war, but due to sanctions reconstruction of the City is painstakingly slow. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Citadel_of_Aleppo.jpg
And then to Afghanistan. After invasion and 20 years of occupation by NATO troops, the NATO supported government and its army collapsed last year with very little bloodshed. It simply imploded and President Ghani fled the country. The Islamist Rebels, the Taliban, are not likeable people. They look more as something taken out of a medieval horror story. But they won the war against the world’s most powerful country, USA, and its NATO allies, and nobody can question that they are de facto governing the country.
Now, what has the reaction been? No diplomatic relations with the new Government and all Western Embassies closed. Freezing of the Afghan government’s assets, including the Central Bank’s foreign currency accounts. All aid to the country cut off (some humanitarian aid has been resumed by UN agencies). What is it exactly that the Western powers expect to get out of this? That the Taliban Government implodes as did the Ghani government? An invitation to the NATO troops to return? It is worth remembering that the Afghan economy is completely distorted after 20 years of occupation, where everything has been revolving around the occupying forces and their money making the economy totally dependent on these (everything from support functions for the foreign troops and NGOs, funding for the army and the general Government, pervaded by corruption, etc.). To get a ‘normal’ economy working again will be difficult. And as long as the country is isolated, its farmers will continue with the opium trade, which by the way thrived during the foreign occupation.
So again: Give the Afghan people a chance, and do it fast. It is not necessary to like the Taliban to give the country a chance to get to its feet again. Engage in diplomacy (and tell them of course that their treatment of women and girls is unacceptable). Or continue abhorring the Afghan Taliban government, lean back, enjoy the suffering, and be prepared for millions of Afghan refugees trying to reach Europe to escape from hunger.
On some international issues the Norwegians have taken initiatives that are laudable. Their involvement as mediators together with Cuba in the Colombian peace process despite US opposition is one example. The initiative to invite an Afghan Government delegation to Norway is another. There have been comments that it was inconceivable that the Norwegian Government should be talking to people who have carried out terror attacks against Norwegian soldiers. Well, if you want peace, this is what you do when a war is over, particularly when you lost the war.
Trum shows his signature to Iran sanctions in 2019, continued by Biden. Sanctions are easy to impose, but difficult to lift again. Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian
While it is easy to introduce sanctions, it is extremely difficult to get a political majority to lift them again, as proposals to lift sanctions are presented as an intent to condone human right abuses. However, it should be remembered that collective punishment during a war is considered a war crime. Sanctions that punish common people to get at perceived individual criminals (Assad, Taliban, whoever) are themselves collective sanctions and as thus human right violations (the fact that for example the organisation Human Rights Watch, closely linked to the US Government, supports this use of sanctions is telling). But sanctions punishing common people are unacceptable as a foreign policy tool and should be considered crimes against humanity.
