Question

You must participate in taking part in favor or against the stated P/C topic. It is important to post your opinions, insights, and concerns for this statement. Therefore, take the time to read each section carefully and write down those ideas that you may put on the discussion table. Be sure to write a minimum of one paragraph for each initial post.

Should Governments Impose Trade Sanctions?

Point

Yes

Let’s face it: We’re now living in a global society where actions in one country can spill over and affect people all over the world. For instance, the development of a nuclear arsenal in one nation can escalate the damage that terrorists can do elsewhere. The failure of a country to protect endangered species can have long-term effects on the whole world’s environment. We simply can’t sit back and let things happen elsewhere that will come back to haunt us. At the same time, some pretty dastardly things occur in some countries that most of the world community would like to see stopped: human trafficking for forced prostitution, child slaves to harvest crops, political prisoners given near-starvation diets, to name a few. Even if we can’t stop such occurrences, we have a moral responsibility not to participate even if it costs us. I may get some economic benefits by buying from criminals, and I may not stop their activity by withholding my business; however, I refuse to deal with them because, in effect, that makes me a criminal’s associate. Although not all trade sanctions have been successful, many have at least been influential in achieving their objectives. These included UN sanctions against Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), U.K. and U.S. sanctions against the Amin government of Uganda, and Indian sanctions against Nepal. Sanctions against Myanmar helped bring the country to such economic disaster that its military leaders decided democracy was a better route to take. Sanctions against Iran helped terminate Iran’s nuclear program, and pressure on Brazil led to the greatly reduced cutting of Amazon forests. Further, even if sanctions do not completely change behavior, they may force countries not to escalate their unacceptable practices. Finally, when a nation breaks international agreements or acts in unpopular ways, what courses of action can other nations take? Between 1827 and World War I, nations mounted 21 blockades, but these are now considered too dangerous. Military force has also been used, for example, during the overthrow of the Saddam regime in Iraq, but such measures have little global support. Thus, nations may take such punitive actions as withholding diplomatic recognition, boycotting athletic and cultural events, seizing the other country’s foreign property, and eliminating foreign aid and loans. These may be ineffective in and of themselves without the addition of trade sanctions.

Counterpoint

NO

Every time I turn around, I see governments imposing a new sanction. Some of these cause law-abiding companies to lose revenue that took years to develop. For one, there is a chance of retaliation. Trade sanctions on Russia after its annexation of Crimea were costly to Norwegian fish exporters because Russia turned to Chile. Thus, the trade sanctions aimed at hurting the Russian government ended up hurting non-Russian companies even though they’d never engaged in any objectionable behavior. Besides, I really question whether these sanctions even work. When the United States was maintaining its 20-year trade embargo on Vietnam, Vietnamese consumers could still buy U.S. products such as Coca-Cola, Kodak film, and Apple computers through other countries that did not enforce the sanctions. The more than 50-year trade embargo with Cuba weakened over time and became ineffective as countries ceased their trade suppression. Oil embargoes against South Africa, because of its racial policies, merely spurred South African companies to become leaders in converting coal to oil. Even if trade sanctions succeed at weakening the targeted countries’ economies, who really suffers? You can bet that the political leaders will still get whatever they need, so innocent people bear the costs of sanctions. This occurred in Iran, where there were widespread reports of deaths because of sanction-induced shortages of medicine. Moreover, the people adversely affected usually blame their suffering not on their internal regime but on the countries carrying on the sanctions. Despots are very good at manipulating public opinion. In addition, critics of sanctioning point to import restrictions that are not fully effective because they aim too much at curtailing supply rather than demand (e.g., U.S. actions aiming to curtail the production of opiates abroad rather than efforts to restrain U.S. demand). In another example, many countries restrict ivory imports so that countries (mainly African) will limit ivory supplies by protecting elephants. However, although restrictions may have slower elephant slaughter, poaching still continues (in the five years between 2010 and 2015, Tanzania and Mozambique lost 60 and 48 percent of their elephants respectively) because of high demand for ivory. The below photo shows part of 1.5 tons of imported ivory products seized and destroyed by the Belgian government. Finally, governments sometimes seem to impose trade sanctions based on one issue rather than on a country’s overall record. For instance, some critics have suggested using trade policies to press Brazil to restrict the cutting of Amazon forests, even though its overall environmental record—particularly its limitation of adverse exhaust emissions by converting automobile engines to use methanol instead of gasoline—is quite good.

Answer 1

I am participating by taking part against the P/C topic. In other words I am supporting the argument that governments should not impose trade sanctions.

The global economy today is largely an integrated economy and trade sanctions as well as economic sanctions have limited utility as far as changing the behavior of the target countries is concerned. Trade sanctions and economic sanctions often have a spillover impact and the effects of sanctions can be felt for a considerable period even after the sanctions are lifted. For instance USA, under President Trump, imposed several economic and trade sanctions on China. Some of the sanctions were later relaxed and even lifted totally but still many US companies came to be regarded as unreliable suppliers in the Chinese market. This leads to many US suppliers and exporters losing their competitive advantage in the near future.

Trade and economic sanctions end up depriving economies of the benefits of international trade and commerce. Besides the economic and trade costs involved the trade and economic sanctions also increases the political tension between the two countries that are involved. Thus besides economic ramifications there are political and geo-political ramifications as well of trade sanctions.

Lastly trade and economic sanctions are effective to curb the supplies only. These sanctions are not at all effective at controlling and curbing demand side of international trade. Without being able to control the demand aspect of a trade the sanctions can be said to be only half effective or partly effective as such.