Has economic sanctions ever worked?

Question

Economic sanctions were first used (I think!) in 1935 following the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. They failed, as they have more recently against Iraq and North Korea. They are now going to be imposed against Iran.

Have they ever been successfully used to acheive a particular bjective? What and when?

Answer 1

I believe that it is a rare case when economic sanctions work. Their have been a few instances to where economic sanctions have had a great effect but this depends upon the ability of enforcing the sanctions. Most of the time there are ways around them, or other nations are not willing to participate in enforcing these sanctions. Rarely has econmic sanctions every obtained the desired objective.

Answer 2

The short answer is no.

Sometimes they have the absolute opposite effect; USA cutting off oil and steel sales to Japan in 1939 probably pushed the JApanese decision for war over the edge.

They've never worked against a dictatorship or theocracy that doesn't have to answer to it's people; sanctions are applied, the poor suffer, the elites continue to rule much as before.......that's why Saddam was able to bank a billion dollars out of the oil for food program while Iraqis died from lack of medicine, why North Korea has famines while the Kims rule unimpeded...sanctions are great for hurting exactly the wrong people.

As opposed to a few laser guided bombs into a few mansions and offices......

Answer 3

If a dictator is removed from skill, it may be just about impossible to music the clarification in specific back to financial sanctions. Embargoes can truthfully improve the region of a dictator. while commerce is unfastened, the folk basically go through below the dictator. although, while sanctions are imposed, the folk go through below the dictator AND as a effect of the sanctions. The dictator can then factor on the rustic implementing sanctions and blame them for all the concerns. Freedom of commerce is the only component which could help the oppressed people.

Answer 4

Economic sanctions are economic penalties applied by one country (or group of countries) on another for a variety of reasons. Economic sanctions include, but are not limited to, tariffs, trade barriers, import duties, and import or export quotas.

Economic sanctions are frequently retaliatory in nature. For example, in 2002 the United States placed import tariffs on steel in an effort to protect its industry from more efficient foreign producers, such as China and Russia. The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that these tariffs were illegal. The European Union threatened retaliatory tariffs on a range of US goods, forcing the US government to remove the steel tariffs in early 2004. Economic sanctions frequently result in trade wars. The World Trade Organization is the world governing body for trade disputes.

Economic sanctions are not always imposed because of economic circumstances. For example, on May 13th 1998, the United States and Japan imposed economic sanctions on India, following its second round of nuclear tests. The United States has imposed economic sanctions on Iran for years, stating Iran's "state sponsor of terrorism" as its main reason.

The United Nations imposed stringent economic sanctions upon Iraq after the first Gulf War, and these were maintained partly as an attempt to make the Iraqi government co-operate with the UN weapons inspectors' monitoring of Iraq's weapons and weapons programs. These sanctions were unusually stringent in that very little in the way of trade goods were allowed into or out of Iraq during the sanction period (further information about these sanctions and their effects can be found at www.casi.org.uk and at [1]). The sanctions were not lifted until May 2003, after the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, was overthrown.

There is a United Nations sanctions regime imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1267 in 1999 against all Al-Qaida and Taliban associated individuals which has undergone years of modification by a dozen UN Security Council Resolutions. The cornerstone of the regime is a consolidated list of persons maintained by the Security Council. All nations are obliged to freeze bank accounts and other financial instruments controlled by, or used for the benefit of, anyone on the list.

and more
Even at the height of the McCarthyist furor in the early 1950s, the anti-Communist crusade was relatively mild. Many prosecutions faltered on appeal and only a few foreign-born radicals were actually deported. Only Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were put to death; and of the roughly 150 people who went to prison, most were released within a year or two. Certainly compared to the horrors of Stalin's Russia, McCarthyism was not a drastic form of political repression. But it was an effective one.
The punishments were primarily economic. People lost their jobs. The official manifestations of McCarthyism--the public hearings, FBI investigations, and criminal prosecutions--would not have been as effective had they not been reinforced by the private sector. The political purges were a two-stage process that relied on the imposition of economic sanctions to bolster the political messages conveyed by public officials. The collaboration of private employers with HUAC and the rest of the anti-Communist network was necessary both to legitimate the network's activities and to punish the men and women identified as politically undesirable. Without the participation of the private sector, McCarthyism would not have affected the rank-and-file members of the Communist movement or so effectively stifled political dissent.

Answer 5

Economic sanctions have never had their intended effect because it is neigh on impossible to achieve consensus, and even if that is done, there are enough rogue states through individuals to assist in breaking them.

Answer 6

they had some success in ending apartheid in South Africa