Are sanctions a useful foreign policy tool?

Topic:
Global Debates

25 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
68% of users

  • Sanctions are a useful policy tool, because they can have serious trade consequences.

    While no country can control the actions of another country directly, the former can express its concern by applying sanctions and embargoes to show how serious the situation is. The country that has sanctions levied against it must carefully consider its actions and how they affect the country's standing in the world community of nations. No country can go it alone.

    Yes ShiveringGerard

  • Sanctions provide a clear set of rules overseas.

    Without sanctions, the globe would be a landscape of piracy and rule-bending for our country. Keeping sanctions keeps everything in a healthy balance for markets and military.

    Yes NumberlessClemente63

  • Yes, economic sanctions are useful tools when it comes to international relationships, because they are an effective way to fight without using violence.

    Countries should consider economic sanctions as useful tools when dealing with other countries. To ban trades with countries who are causing international waves is a way of fighting with force, but fighting without violence. It will affect the economy in these countries, and demand that the government respond in a manner that works with the countries who are stopping the trade.

    Yes TedieDelight

  • I agree sanctions are a useful foreign tool, because it punishes those nations who do not serve the will of its people.

    If a country decides to do something and it is not benefiting the people, sanctions should be placed and used. The goal of any government should be to serve its people and country. If a country is not complying to what its people want, then sanctions are useful. With no aid, and if it is not able to survive on its own, maybe then the sanctions can be uplifted.

    Yes StripperMor

  • Yes, because sanctions work, and are effective in many different ways.

    Sanctions normally only work to pressure smaller countries into abiding by the laws of the governing NATO nations. A majority of smaller countries rely on bigger countries to supply them with most of their goods, such as foods, building materials and raw goods. Most of the time, these smaller nation will have to give in to the larger nation in order to meet the demand to sustain their government.

    Yes SlipArnal

  • Imposing sanctions is a useful tool when negotiating with another country.

    I believe that issuing sanctions against another country is a useful tool when in negotiations with them or their allies. Additionally sanctions can also be useful when attempting to stop a country from committing inhuman acts against its people such as rape, apartheid, human trafficking, and slavery.

    Yes Quibarce

  • Yes, they have been proven to work.

    There are two ways to look at this. First, would sanctions against the US hurt us? Certainly, they would. We're dependent on other countries at this time. Secondly, should we put sanctions on other countries. It's the same as a friendship. Sometimes a friend needs to be punished for what they're doing, helped, or corrected. We need to be a good friend to our allies and our enemies, sanctions are a form of discipline that are warranted at times.

    Yes R34d3Homey

  • It's a vital, but not that effective.

    Sanctions basically show others that we have the power, but are not willing to go for blood directly. But, sometimes, it creates an opposite reaction of hatred, violence and challenge, which will end in war.

    Yes R0xbarm

  • Sanctions can be helpful when dealing with a nation that is unwilling to cooperate.

    Sanctions are a safe and non-lethal way to deal with foreign nations that are not cooperating with the international community. A nation is more likely to be willing to negotiate if it's profits and exports are affected. Although this does negatively affect the citizens of the country; it is a better option than violence.

    Yes VasilBuddy

  • Yes, much more effective than using military force.

    I think using sanctions as a foreign policy tool is a much better way to deal with certain countries that insist on trying to make trouble. This is much more diplomatic than using military force which can just lead to more unnecessary violence and more war. To deprive a country of the ability to trade or do business with other countries hits them economically and money kind of makes the world go around.

    Yes PinkMych

  • I believe sanctions are a useful foreign policy tool because there is evidence to support that sanctions work to reign in oppressive governments.

    It is my belief that sanctions do in fact work. I say that with the caveat that they don't work in every situation however. But let us take into account the history of South Africa and its struggle with apartheid. Sanctions were enforced by the international community in a consistent and considered manner. They hit them (the regime) where it hurts. There were boycotts of their fruit exports, and international banks discontinued loaning the apartheid regime money leading to lack of funding for their operations. The oil embargo had a huge impact on their bottom line as they were dependent on foreign oil. As a result the people of South Africa saw the end of apartheid in 1994 after almost three decades of violence against its peoples.

    Yes g0ggleslife

  • I think in most cases a country that is more powerful can convince one less powerful through sanctions.

    The question asks if this is a useful tool, and with that I do agree. Who can argue that a bully standing over you saying 'if you don't give me your lunch money I'm going to clobber you' will be listened to? That being said I don't agree that they should always be used, there should only be special circumstances that allow for their use. They should be restricted to when countries are violating the basic human rights of their people, and the people themselves should not be included in those sanctions only the country. I know this sounds tricky, but it can be done.

    Yes MariaR

  • Sanctions are a great nonmilitary option for dealing the countries that break international rules.

    If you consider sanctions as a nonmilitary option then sanctions are an excellent foreign policy tool. They allow countries to put pressure on other nations without having to resort to military force. Once you've used force then your options are very limited plus not everything that a nation does is worth the expense or the risk of using military force to impose the will of the global community on a nation. Economic sanctions can be very effective in convincing countries to follow the rules.

    Yes TasticBran

  • Sanctions are a useful foreign policy tool because it gets your opinion on record.

    Sanctions are a useful foreign policy tool because it gets your opinion on record. It's better than starting unnecessary wars and sometimes gets results peacefully, even though generally it's just for show. It gives politicians credibility with their constituents without having to really do much. They look tough without having to really put their money where their mouth is.

    Yes H0bi3Invader

  • Sanctions help to let other countries know what will not be tolerated by the country that is imposing the sanctions.

    Sanctions are certainly justifiable when one country threatens to do harm to another country. They let the country against which sanctions have been placed understand what the country that imposes the sanctions is unwilling to accept. Sanctions can be a deterrent against aggression and can sometimes lead to negotiations between the countries where some kind of an agreement can be reached.

    Yes R0d0Ferdy

  • Sanctions provide a way showing a country or leader that we mean business.

    Military force should be a last resort. Sanctions should be a next to last resort. When dealing with hostile countries, it is important to note that all options must be on the table. If a country risks the threat of sanctions, then they may think twice about pulling stunt that may be looked down upon by other nations. It's a good way of calling a foreign dignitaries bluff, so to say.

    Yes R3ubHockey

  • Sanctions with teeth can achieve meaningful ends.

    Sanctions in and of themselves will achieve little in the way of instrumental, lasting changes when applied towards rogue nations. Throughout the 1990?s, Iraq was subjugated to embargos and sanctions that impacted the people of that nation as opposed to its ruthless dictator, who was the desired target. The major failure of these sanctions centered on the fact that the nations of the world were not unified behind them. France, for instance, continued to engage in business practices with Iraq while offering meaningless lip service to other nations. Sanctions are most effective when nations work together in a harmonious manner and apply pressure as needed. Of course, sanctions can have greater effectiveness when also used in conjunction with incentives, as was seen with U.S.-Libyan Relations. By offering normalized relations and a comprehensive aid package, Libya abandoned nuclear aspirations and no longer experiences global isolation.

    Yes snuggle muffin
Voice Your Opinion
No
32% of users

  • Economic sanctions do not put pressure where pressure needs to be put.

    Sanctions are not a useful foreign policy tool. While it does choke the economic power of nations under sanction, this does little to impact problematic governments. Instead, economic sanctions tend to place undue pressure on local markets, which, in turn, causes citizens to suffer further harm. This does nothing to displace the harmful power of regimes.

    No ExoticCurt

  • Sanctions are bad for foreign policy, because it is bad for trade between countries.

    Sanctions do not allow certain items to be traded between countries. Sanctions are bad foreign policy tools, because they slow trade and affect an entire country, just because the country which passed the sanction wanted to "punish" the other country. For example, the embargoes in Cuba and Iraq affected the country as a whole, and not just the dictator leaders. Sanctions do not help foreign policy. Instead, they make the countries with embargoes hate the country even more.

    No AberrantGail67

  • I believe that sanctions are not an effective policy tool in today's world, because most countries are independent enough for it to not matter.

    Sanctions were an effective tool 20 years ago, when we used them on countries like South Africa to stop apartheid. However, in today's world, the countries that we'd impose sanctions on are already quite independent from the U.S. If we were to impose sanctions on, say, Iran, it would not be worthwhile, because Iran does not rely on many American products. Our enemies today are much more independent, and can get by without U.S. help, thereby making sanctions not very useful.

    No ConsciousNolan82

  • Sanctions are not useful because of the implicit assumptions attached to them.

    Sanctions are useful only when viewed within the context of economics, but economics that takes into account a variety of different organizing principles. Not every country uses a free market capitalist system. For instance, if a small country faced sanctions but was an autarchy, meaning it produced all of its goods, then the sanctions would be useless. Further, it assumes that the country would be unable to find other partners to make up for the trade deficit resulting from sanctions. Finally, the last assumption that proves incorrect is that all countries will act in unison. Frequently international players have divided loyalties, and thus will not always act together for the purpose of sanctions.

    No UpforPerc

  • No, these tools remain a point of contention among policymakers.

    People are in talk that sanctions will fail to squeeze foreign leaders while wreaking havoc on local communities that are not their intended target. Lobbying hard for tougher measures, the effectiveness of sanctions more generally remains a point of contention among policymakers

    No lacitacamil

  • Sanctions are a horrible foreign policy tool, they only hurt the people and rarely those in charge.

    Sanctions as a disciplinary tool rarely harm the government they are aimed at. Instead it is the people who suffer, as supplies and resources they depended upon run out. While eventually something is done, it usually involves a lot of suffering from the average person. How does inflicting more harm solve the problem?

    No R0II4Icy

  • Sanctions are not a useful foreign policy tool in producing positive results.

    Sanctions are not a useful foreign policy tool because they are too wide in their application and lack the necessary impact to make a change. A government that is attempting to assert their presence as a world leader can only do so by garnering attention to their cause, and sanctions directed at them can often be a good public relations stunt.

    No ThegaXen

  • Sanctions hurt the poor and do not affect the rich and powerful. We cannot be an example if we are working through cruelty.

    Sanctions tend to harm the poor in a society who do not have the social resources or additional money to get what they need through alternate channels Even if the sanctions are primarily to effect luxury goods and services some of these goods will get through, and when they do class distinctions and characteristics will be more obvious and organized crime will have a natural life support system. It's even worse when medical goods or basic foods are what is sanctioned, they poor and unconnected will be most hurt, not the people who have the power to change policy.

    No groovybox
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Are sanctions a useful foreign policy tool?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource