Relaciones Internacionales – Comunicación Internacional

Sanctions: war by other means

| 0 Comentarios


By Geoff Dyer
March 30, 2014 9:03 pm
There are many reasons why the 1956 Suez Canal crisis was a pivotal moment in modern history. It symbolised the twilight of British imperial power, demonstrated the new force of Arab nationalism and created a rare breach between the governments of the US and Israel.

The Suez crisis was also a solitary example where sanctions have persuaded a government to withdraw its army from territory it had seized. When US President Dwight Eisenhower threatened to block crucial international loans to the UK, precipitating a run on the pound, the British, French and Israelis decided to pull out of the Suez Canal area that they had seized from Egypt.

After Russian troops moved into Crimea last month, the US and European governments warned that Russia would face tough international sanctions. The Obama administration has talked about “isolating” Russia from parts of the global economy, both as a punishment for the annexation of Crimea and as a warning about further military adventurism.

“Together, we are imposing costs through sanctions that have left a mark on Russia,” Barack Obama said in Brussels on Wednesday. “And if the Russian leadership stays on its current course, together we will ensure that this isolation deepens.”

Despite enthusiasm in the US, the history of sanctions since Suez demonstrates a decidedly mixed record in changing the behaviour of determined states, especially when it comes to military occupations. “Sanctions are not going to force Russia out of Crimea,” says Prof Daniel Drezner, at the Fletcher School at Tufts University and an expert on sanctions.

The US currently has 24 different sanctions programmes covering countries such as Côte d’Ivoire, Belarus and Syria, and companies involved in “conflict” diamonds. But as recently as the 1990s, support for them seemed to be waning. At that time, the broad trade sanctions implemented against countries such as Iraq and Cuba were widely considered to have failed. In Iraq, they actually allowed the regime to cement its hold on power by giving it more control over who conducted trade and opened up ample opportunities for corruption. In Cuba, five decades of sanctions have still not managed to bring down the Castros.
Then the Clinton administration started to introduce “smart sanctions” – measures targeted against specific individuals or entities, rather than entire populations… MORE

On this story

On this topic


Deja una respuesta

Campos requeridos marcados con *.

Este sitio usa Akismet para reducir el spam. Aprende cómo se procesan los datos de tus comentarios.