Sanctions
Introduction
Sanctions are an economic policy intending to coerce a targeted country or entity into
complying with foreign policy and internationally accepted norms by limiting the country’s
trade relations and economically isolating the entity.
Sanctions are an economic tool of foreign policy that essentially involve a major
interruption if not a withdrawal of normal economic exchanges of trade, aid and financial
dealings in order to obtain a political goal.
Sanctions are restrictions imposed on a country by one or more other countries with the
intent to pressure in effect some desirable outcome, or conversely to condemn and punish
some undesired action already taken.
It is used as a ‘peaceful’ and non-violent method of punishment, instead of wars.
Working principle: if you increase the economic pain on a target to extract political
concessions, you will get the outcomes that you would not have gotten any other way
short of military force.
Measures include:
● Asset freezes- A government directs banks and financial institutions within its
jurisdiction to withhold assets and funds connected to sanctioned individuals or
entities.
For example, the United States froze the assets of numerous Russian leaders and
banks as punishment following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. The
targeted individuals and entities reportedly lost access to hundreds of millions of
dollars held in U.S. financial institutions.
● Travel Bans- A government denies sanctioned individuals entry into its country.
In 2020, the United States imposed travel bans on fourteen Chinese officials for
undermining democracy in Hong Kong. The following year, China barred several
former senior U.S. officials, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, from
entering the country, in response to actions pursued by President Donald Trump’s
administration that “seriously disrupted China-U.S. relations.”
● Arms Embargoes- A government bans the sale or transfer of weapons,
ammunition, and other related materials.
In 2011, the United Nations imposed an arms embargo on Libya, which was quickly
descending into a civil war. The sanctions prohibited all countries from selling arms
to Libya or purchasing weapons from the country.
● Foreign Aid Reductions- A government reduces the amount of money, services,
or physical goods given to another country as a form of coercion or punishment.
In 1988, for instance, the United States sharply cut its foreign aid to Sudan after
the Sudanese military overthrew the government and proceeded to support
terrorist efforts. The level of aid dropped from $216 million in 1987 to an average
of $48 million a year from 1988 to 2001.
Categorising Sanctions
● Unilateral sanctions are sanctions imposed by only one targeting country or
entity.
● Multilateral sanctions are sanctions imposed by several countries together, or by
organisations such as the UN.
● Comprehensive sanctions are sanctions imposed on an entire country.
● Smart/targeted sanctions are sanctions imposed on an individual, a group of
individuals, an organisation or a group of organisations.
● Primary sanctions are sanctions imposed on a country who is violating
international norms.
● Secondary sanctions are sanctions imposed on third-party countries that
continue trade with black-listed countries. Trying to convince a country to join in on
a sanction regime against a target that it is unwilling to sanction by threatening to
impose secondary sanctions on it only makes matters worse and gives rise to
hostility.
Unilateral vs Multilateral Sanctions
Multilateral sanctions are considered more effective than unilateral sanctions because
they make use of the combined force of several countries cutting off the target. This does
a better job at isolating the target and delivering the economic pinch that is intended to
put the target in a position where it is more open to change. However, it is sometimes
tricky to gain consensus of committee members of the UN Security Council and decide
on a sanction proposal to implement. Also, a lot of the time, coordination between senders
can weaver which causes mixed signals and confusion with the target. Such
miscommunication causes multilateral sanctions to sometimes be ineffective.
Sanctioning Process in the UN
The UN Security Council (UNSC) is the trouble-shooting body for any international crises.
On the occasion of a global crisis, The UNSC responds by cutting economic and trade
ties with the responsible country or entity.
For a sanction resolution to pass, the draft resolutions are passed through the fifteen
members with a majority vote and no veto from the P5 countries (Russia, China, France,
US and UK).
Important points to end sanctions
Senders must end sanctions in a way that best contributes to their initial object, or in a
way that doesn’t damage their reputation as committed sanctioners when the sanction
was unsuccessful.
●
Review provisions and sunset clauses ensure regular assessment of the
measures’ political utility.
●
Sanctioners should send a strong and transparent signal upon the imposition of
sanctions as sanctions have higher chances to succeed at the early stages. This
necessitates the articulation of clear – and ideally attainable – goals required for
the eventual lifting of the imposed measures.
●
Sender coordination is important for the removal of sanctions, not only for their
implementation. If different actors such as the EU, UN, and US lift sanctions at
notably different paces, this sends mixed signals to the regimes under sanction to
which these governments can hardly react in a consistent way.
●
Timing is key. The gradual removal of sanctions can incentivise incremental
change in the target state if that rolling back is tied to clear political benchmarks.
Sanction Effectiveness and Impacts
Sanctions are known to be ineffective majority of the time, however, still cause harm to
vulnerable groups in the targeted country’s economy.
Why are sanctions ineffective?
● Sanctions sometimes already fail in the threat stage. Sometimes even the most
clear and credible sanction threat is ignored by the potential target because it does
not seem like something that the target cannot handle. Unless the target
underestimated the sanction in terms of the severity of its score or the time of
implementation, the sanction regime will fall flat.
● Sanctions are also a very blunt instrument. Even with targeted sanctions, the
intended objective is rarely achieved but sanctions are almost always
accompanied by ‘collateral damage’ affecting a lot of groups in the country that
have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
● Targeted countries can sidestep them by finding support elsewhere.
● Over time, the effectiveness of sanctions diminishes as targeted groups become
better at avoiding these economic restrictions. Moreover, sanctions can in some
ways actually help authoritarian governments, as they restrict an open market and
can provide regimes with more control over the economy and distribution of goods.
● Sanctions can have severe consequences—for political or business elites as well
as everyday civilians. Broad sanctions can cut the public off from economic
opportunities and cause harmful supply-chain disruptions. This can create
shortages of food, gas, and medical supplies, exacerbating already precarious
humanitarian situations.
For example, look at U.S. sanctions against Venezuela during the COVID-19
pandemic. Despite exemptions for humanitarian efforts, U.S. sanctions have
reportedly slowed or prevented critical medical products—including COVID-19
vaccines—from entering the country. The issue, Venezuelan officials and human
rights organisations say, is that international financial institutions and logistics
providers delay or refuse deliveries to avoid running afoul of U.S. sanctions.
Successful sanctions end quickly. If a sanction were to be successful, it would be early
on in the process because if a country does not consider itself capable of withstanding
the external pressure of being cut off from the imposing countries, the target will be willing
to concede early to avoid the unnecessary costs that come with enduring.
Sometimes, in cases where the endurance of sanctions is expected to be highly
challenging for the target, the government of the target implements the changes at the
mere threat of the sanction without actual imposition. So the sanction ends before it even
starts.
An ex­ample of short-lived measures that result in some degree of desired political
change are sanctions imposed by the AU in response to coup d’états. The AU
unequivocally condemns such unconstitutional changes of government and imposes
sanctions – most notably, suspension of the respective country’s membership in the
organisation – until constitutional order has been restored. These sanctions usually end
quickly once political actors agree on a transition of power to civilian rule. Examples
include the AU sanctions against Mauritania (2005–2007), Guinea (2008–2010), and
Niger (2010–2011), none of which ultimately lasted for more than two years.
Factors affecting the effectiveness of sanctions
● Well-rounded- sanctions should start with moderately strict action with the threat
of more punitive action on the occasion of disobedience (flexibility) while also
proposing a package of relevant economic incentives and aid to encourage the
target to comply.
● Attainable and realistic- the more objectives of the sanctions or the more
concessions the sanction demands, the more unrealistic it is and the more difficult
it is to actually achieve the objective. Even when singular, objectives such as the
change of a whole country's regime, for example, are unrealistic.
● Multilateral support- The point of sanctions is to economically isolate the target.
Sanctions placed by only one country are easy to recover from, whereas there is
an actual pinch when the country is restricted from doing trade with several
countries.
● Credibility and flexibility- the target should believe that how punitive sanction
measures are depends on its behaviour. The sanctions should start to loosen up
when the targeted country starts becoming inclined to comply.
● Diplomacy- the position of the target should be assessed before tightening
sanctions. The objectives shouldn’t be rigid, instead, after a certain point a
compromise can be made.
● Reasonable and humane- overly-strict, strangling sanctions that intend to
collapse the entire economy do not work. They make matters worse and create
hostile relations.
● Trade relations- the sanctions imposed are effective only if the targeted and
targeting nations carry out a significant amount of trade and exchange because
that is when it will affect the economy of the target.
● Duration of threat- long durations of threat without actual action can buy the target
time to protect itself from the effects of the sanction, especially if the target is
stubborn.
Other Foreign Policy Tools
Foreign policy is how countries try to influence each other in order to advance their own
interests. There are several foreign policy tools that countries could use to achieve this.
They fall under three broad categories: political, economic and military.
The primary political tool is diplomacy. This is simply when the concerned countries
communicate directly. This can be a high-level meeting/gathering of the country leaders
or a regular interaction between delegates or ambassadors of the country. It could either
be a friendly consultation or a heated negotiation. Direct diplomacy between countries
allows for clear understanding of each other’s goals and priorities. It is also good for clear
communication when negotiating agreements and coordinated action.
Loans, aid, and other economic statecraft can generate goodwill, help stabilise another
country and increase its capacity to govern. It also makes the recipient country more open
to the providing country's influence. Trade policies can also influence behaviour by
providing countries with access to domestic markets and foreign investment to provide
countries with incentives to act in favourable ways. Economic sanctions are also
economic foreign policy measures.
The most ‘powerful’ measures lie in the military department. When all other measures
have failed, or when a country feels directly threatened, the country will use armed forces
against the other country until it alters its behaviour. This could be through limited air
strikes or through a full-on invasion. Armed forces cause wars between two countries and
creates a situation where there is no clear winner or loser but there is destruction on all
sides. Armed force action is often prevented using the tool of deterrence. This is
convincing country A that if they were to attack country B, country B and its allies are
capable of causing serious damage to country A. This acts as disincentive to country A
and prevents it from attacking in the first place.
Another way to lower the temperature is through an arms control agreement, which can
create transparency and limit the development, deployment, number and use of the
world’s most dangerous weapons. This decreases the likelihood and potential costs of
any possible conflict.
Military actions may not always be about forcing another country, sometimes it could have
to do with supporting or helping a country; for example to resolve a conflict between two
other countries or a civil war in a country. This is called peacekeeping, when a country
tries to resolve the conflict by sending in their military and restoring stability.
Tools like Intelligence fall into multiple categories. This involves gathering information on
another country. If leaders have insight on what is going on in other countries, and what
their leaders and citizens are thinking and/or doing, they can use other foreign policy tools
more effectively and strategically. They can also share this information with their allies.
This could also include covert actions working to influence political, economic and military
situations abroad without the other country knowing about their efforts.
Another such tool that falls into multiple categories is nation-building, where countries try
to build functioning political, economic and security institutions in other countries, such as
international embassies. This requires several tools like military, intelligence,
humanitarian assistance, trade and diplomacy.
Soft power is a tool that doesn’t really fit into one specific category. It is when one country
A gets another country B to adopt the same goals as country A by providing evidence
that its measures such as domestic and foreign policies for achieving these objectives
are successful and worth following. This can be done by internationally promoting the
country’s cultural and political values abroad.
It is up to policy makers to decide on the most appropriate and effective combination of
these policy measures for the situation at hand.
United Nations Sanctions
The United Nations imposes sanctions for a reason. The subject might be a terrorist,
criminal, or trader that might harm your business. The United Nations sanctions
individuals, organisations, and countries to prevent terrorism, the proliferation of
weapons, violation of international treaties, money laundering, drug trafficking, and
destabilisation of sovereign nations.
● Diplomatic Sanctions: Removals of diplomatic ties such as country's councils or
embassies
● Economic Sanctions: Trade prohibitions on certain economic sectors such as
agriculture, arms, medical
● Sport Sanctions: Disqualification of a particular nation from participating in
international events
● Environmental Sanctions: Preserving the environment and safeguarding natural
resources
The UN currently imposes sanctions on Afghanistan,Central African Republic, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, ISIL and
Al-Qaeda, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Yemen, Eritrea, GuineaBissau, Iraq, Lebanon.
Sanctions against Afghanistan
Related to Taliban. Travel restrictions.
Sanctions against Central African Republic
In the wake of a civil war in the Central African Republic in 2013, worsening security and
humanitarian situation in the CAR, including a breakdown of law and order, inter-sectarian
tensions and widespread human rights abuses by armed groups, the UN has imposed
sanctions on the CAR in the form of an arms embargo on all persons, except those with
a licence that permits them to use certain weapons.
Sanctions against the Democratic Republic of Congo
The UNSC has imposed sanctions in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC) since 2003, in response to acts of violence systematically perpetrated against
civilians including violations of international humanitarian law and human rights.
Sanctions against North Korea
UN Security Council Resolutions were passed after North Korea conducted nuclear tests
in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, and 2017. Initially, sanctions were focused on trade bans on
weapons-related materials and goods but expanded to luxury goods to target the elites.
These include arms embargo, asset freeze, export bans on fossil fuels and other listed
items, import bans on listed items such as gold, machiners, textiles, etc., financial
services, travel bans, etc.
Sanctions against Iran
Between 2006 and 2010, the UNSC passed five resolutions imposing sanctions in relation
to Iran in response to Iran's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program. On 20
July 2015, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2231, which endorsed the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA). After Iran’s breach of JCPOA, sanctions were placed on Iran
once again. The sanctions placed include asset freezes, export prohibition on nuclear or
ballistic missile materials, restricted transactions, training on nuclear or ballistic missile
related areas, doing business with Iran, etc.
Sanctions against ISIL and al-Qaeda
The UN imposed sanctions against ISIL and al-QAEDA as part of the global effort to fight
terrorism and promote international peace and security. Under this regime, the UNSC
ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee can designate persons and entities
subject to sanctions.
Sanctions against Libya
The Battle of Tripoli was a series of clashes in Tripoli, Libya from 27 August to 25
September 2018 during the Second Libyan Civil War. As a result of this, the UN imposed
sanctions on Libya in the forms of arms embargo, asset freeze, prohibitions related to
aircraft, petroleum and ships, training and assistance bans, travel bans etc.
Sanctions against Mali
A series of human rights violations in Mali in 2017 by armed Islamists lead the UN to
impose sanctions on the country in the form of asset freezes and travel bans in 2018
Sanctions against Somalia
Many faced dire living conditions, with limited assistance, and faced a range of abuses,
including indiscriminate killings, forced evictions, and sexual violence. Between
November and May, at least 60,000 people were forcibly evicted, including by
government forces. The UN imposed sanctions on Somalia in the form of arms embargo,
IED components embargo, asset freeze, travel ban, training ban and import prohibition
on charcoal.
Sanctions against Yemen
In the wake of the Yemeni civil war that began in 2014, the UN imposed sanctions in the
form of an arms embargo, asset freeze, travel ban and training and assistance ban in
May 2014.
Sanctions against South Sudan
Following fighting between government and defecting Nuer soldiers in Juba on December
15, government forces conducted a brutal crackdown on Juba's Nuer population that
included targeted killings, house-to-house searches, mass arrests, unlawful detention of
hundreds of men in poor conditions, ill-treatment, and torture. In response to this, the UN
imposed sanctions on South Sudan which included arms embargo, asset freeze, travel
ban and training and assisting ban.
Sanctions against Sudan
The War in Darfur, also nicknamed the Land Cruiser War, is a major armed conflict in the
Darfur region of Sudan that began in February 2003 when the Sudan Liberation
Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel groups began
fighting against the government of Sudan, which they accused of oppressing Darfur's
non-Arab population. The government responded to attacks by carrying out a campaign
of ethnic cleansing against Darfur's non-Arabs. This resulted in the death of hundreds of
thousands of civilians and the indictment of Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, for
genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.
The government of Sudan almost completely banned humanitarian agencies from Darfur
for four crucial months, from late October 2003 through late-February 2004. The
government's continued violence and forced displacement of civilians had and continues
to have enormous humanitarian consequences. In response, the UN imposed asset
freeze, arms embargo, travel ban and training ban in the form of a sanction against
Sudan.
Sanctions against Guinea-Bissau
On 12 April 2012, a coup d'état in Guinea-Bissau was staged by elements of the armed
forces about two weeks before the second round of a presidential election between Carlos
Gomes Júnior and Kumba Ialá. In response to the instability, the UN imposed travel bans
as forms of sanctions on the country.
Sanctions against Iraq
The invasion of Kuwait led to a United Nations Security Council embargo and sanctions
on Iraq and a U.S.-led coalition air and ground war, which began on January 16, 1991,
and ended with an Iraqi defeat and retreat from Kuwait on February 28, 1991.
Sanctions against Lebanon
The 2008 Lebanon conflict was a brief intrastate military conflict in May 2008 in Lebanon
between opposition militias (mainly Shiite Hezbollah) and pro-government Sunnis, which
was an 18-month-long political crisis that spiralled out of control. The UN imposed
sanctions on Lebanon at this time in the form of arms embargo, asset freeze, travel ban
and training and assistance ban.
United States of America
General Information
The Federal Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) is in charge of executing sanction
regimes. Currently, the USA has comprehensive sanctions against Cuba, Iran, North
Korea, Syria and the Crimea region of Ukraine. The US also maintains significant
sanctions against Russia and Venezuela.
After the OFAC has determined the base penalty against the target, the following
measures are taken into account to increase or decrease the penalty:
● Willful or reckless violation of law, including factors such as concealment, a pattern
of conduct, and management involvement;
● Awareness of the conduct at issue;
● Harm to sanctions program objectives, including factors such as economic benefit
to the sanctioned country and whether the conduct would likely have been eligible
for an OFAC licence;
● Individual characteristics of the company in question, such as commercial
sophistication and whether the company has received a penalty notice or a finding
of violation from OFAC in the five years preceding the date of the transaction giving
rise to the violation;
● The existence, nature and adequacy of a compliance program in place at the time
of the violation;
● The remedial response that the company took upon learning of the violation;
● Cooperation with OFAC, through voluntary self-disclosure and/or subsequent
cooperation during the investigation.
Sanctions on Cuba
The United States first imposed a sanction on Cuba in the form of a trade embargo on
the sale of arms to Cuba on March 14 1958. Later, nearly two years after the Cuban
Revolution, on October 19 1960, the US placed an embargo on Cuba (excluding food and
medicine) following Cuba’s nationalisation of American-owned Cuban oil refineries with
no compensation to America. On February 17 1962, the sanctions were extended to
include almost all exports, which continue to be in place at present. The UNGA has
introduced resolutions every year since, demanding the US to lift the sanctions on Cuba
for which only the US and Israel continue to vote against.
The Cuban Missile Crisis
The Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961) of the US was an attempt at removing Fidel Castro (the
new governor after a Cuban coup) from power. The invasion was a failure and an
embarrassment. Castro and Nikita Khrushchev (leader of USSR) agreed to place secret
Russian ballistic missiles in Cuba in a position where it could reach almost any city in the
US in case the US invades in February 1961 as a result of a resolution by the US
Congress to allow military forces in case US interests in Cuba were threatened.
The US launched covert operations (Operation Mongoose) which was also a failure.
American scouts found the missiles being built in Cuba. The US didn’t want any
Caribbean country forming allies with the USSR because that made the Monroe Doctrine
(No European power belongs in the western hemisphere) useless, which the US did not
want. The conflict ended two weeks later when the President of USA and the UN
Secretary-General reached an agreement with the USSR to destroy the missiles in Cuba
if the US didn’t invade Cuba and removed the Thor and Jupiter missiles (USA-owned) in
Turkey.
Sanctions on Iran
The US has imposed several sanctions on Iran since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, most
notable for its nuclear testing and support towards terrorist groups such as Hezbollah,
Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Shia militias in Iraq and the Houthis (Ansar Allah, a
movement from the civil war of Yemen in 2014).
Iran Nuclear Activity
[Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as Iran Nuclear
Deal is an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, reached by Iran, China, Russia, France,
the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and the European Union in July 2015.
This deal restricted Iran’s nuclear agreement] The United States, although initially agreed
with JCPOA, never seemed to like it. The US withdrew from the Deal in May 2018 and
analysts determined that Iran had moved closer to developing a nuclear weapon since
the American withdrawal.
President Trump stated “We will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction. Any
nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned
by the United States”. The first stage of the sanction beginning on 7th August 2018
restricted Iran from buying US dollars as well as trading in gold, aluminium, steel and the
Iranian currency, the Rial.
President Trump believed that JCPOA did nothing to curb Iran’s behaviour around the
Middle East, shown by its support for militant groups in Lebanon and Gaza and its
involvement in the wars of Syria and Yemen. The other members were struggling to keep
the Deal alive since they believe that there is no better way to stop Iran from developing
nuclear weapons.
Several European and multinational companies started withdrawing from Iran to protect
themselves from US sanctions.
Sanctions on North Korea
The US- DPRK relations have been tense ever since the first US sanctions on North
Korea in the 1950s for the violation of the US Export Control Act in 1949 [restrict the
export of strategic materials and equipment to Soviet bloc nations (Russia, Bulgaria,
Cuba, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Mongolia, Vietnam,
Laos, Kampuchea, North Korea and China] and was further tightened after the bombings
of South Korea by North Korea in 1980s, as a result of which, the US listed North Korea
as a state sponsor of terrorism. Later, in 1985, North Korea signed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT)
The sanctions started to ease slightly in the 1990s when South Korea started pushing for
engagement policies with North Korea. In 1994, the US and North Korea signed the
Agreed Framework [The US gave North Korea two light water reactors and 500k tons of
fuel oil annually in exchange of the freezing of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program
and step-by-step normalisation of US-DPRK relations] which went great until North Korea
continued its nuclear program and officially withdrew from the Nuclear NPT in 2003.
Yet another agreement, the Six-Party Talks was signed by North Korea, South Korea,
USA, China, Russia and Japan where the nuclear facilities were dismantled and North
Korea was removed from US’s list of ‘state sponsors of terrorism’. North Korea restarted
its nuclear program several years later. Several sanctions from several countries were
reinstated, being the only option left.
UNSC resolutions were passed after North Korea’s nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 20013,
2006 and 20017, which initially included trade bans on weapons-related materials and
goods, which later extended to luxury goods to target elites. Further sanctions were
expanded to cover financial assets, banking transactions, food, general travel and trade
and even basic humanitarian aid.
Why the sanctions did not work
While the sanctions did result in a drop of 3.5% and 4.1% in GDP in 2017 and 2018 as
well as a decline in exports by 90% in 2018, they still did not prevent further nuclear
testing. The sanctions caused damage, but they did not work as intended.
China began supplying North Korea with just enough coal, oil and food to prevent it from
completely collapsing.
Real change occurs only when it’s the elites that suffer, however, sanctions often only
affect the working-class and below. Cost-push inflation decreases the standards of living
and while technically ‘that’s how sanctions are supposed to work’ since the pressure of
the suffering people threatens the government’s loss of power, which encourages the
government to implement change. However, this only works in a democracy, and
sanctioned countries are rarely ever democracies.
Since North Korea is isolated from the rest of the world, it can easily change the narrative
to blame the enemy for the rise in prices, which increases patriotism. However, North
Korea is not the only party at fault. Libya halted its nuclear development program in 2003
and 8 years later, Muammar Gaddafi’s dead body was on public display. In the leadup to
the 2018 Singapore Summit, President Trump threatened that the President of North
Korea would meet the same fate as Gaddafi if a deal wasn’t reached. While this doesn’t
mean that North Korea is exempted from blame, the USA is not completely innocent
either.
Sanctions on Syria
The US added Syria to its list of ‘state sponsors of terrorist’ in 1979. It also imposed further
sanctions on Syria between March and August 2004 following its weapons of mass
destruction program, grip on Iran and willingness to destabilise Iraq and its support of
terrorist groups such as the Hezbollah and Hamas.
The US also placed sanctions on Syria in April 2011 during the civil uprising phase of the
Syrian civil war by blocking property of those involved in the violations. Later, in August,
the US imposed an embargo on the oil sector, froze financial assets and prohibited the
export of any US products (or products that get at least 10% of its value from the US) to
Syria.
In April 2017, the US imposed financial freeze and travel bans against 270 Syrian
government officials following the Khan Sheikhoun attack.
Sanctions against Crimea
The United States among other countries imposed sanctions on Russia and the Crimea
region of Ukraine following the Russian annexation of Crimea in late February 2014.
Russia responded with counter-sanctions in the form of a total ban on food imports from
the US (among other countries). The US and the EU imposed significantly extended
sanctions against Russia that included Putin and other officials following the Russian
invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 which included a ban on provision of technology for
oil and gas exploration, ban on provision of credits to Russian oil companies and state
banks, travel restrictions on the influential Russian citizens close to President Putin and
involved in the annexation of Crimea
Sanctions against Afghanistan
Sanctions were placed on the al-Qaeda and Taliban groups after the September 11
attacks in Afghanistan. The US froze the Afghan government reserves, primarily in US
bank accounts (the country had the authority to impose these sanctions from previous
sanctions placed on the Taliban). Since Afghanistan was highly dependent on US aid, the
economic future of the country was questionable.
Sanctions against Venezuela
The crisis in Venezuela is an ongoing socioeconomic and political crisis that began in
Venezuela during the presidency of Hugo Chávez and has worsened in Nicolás Maduro's
presidency. It has been marked by hyperinflation, escalating starvation,disease, crime
and mortality rates, resulting in massive emigration from the country.
During the crisis in Venezuela, governments of the United States, the European Union,
Canada, Mexico, Panama and Switzerland applied individual sanctions against people
associated with the administration of Nicolás Maduro. The sanctions were in response to
repression during the 2014 Venezuelan protests and the 2017 Venezuelan protests, and
activities during the 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election and the 2018
Venezuelan presidential election. Sanctions were placed on current and former
government officials, including members of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) and
the 2017 Constituent National Assembly (ANC), members of the military and security
forces, and private individuals accused of being involved in human rights abuses,
corruption, degradation in the rule of law and repression of democracy.
Beginning in January 2019, during the Venezuelan presidential crisis, the United States
applied additional economic sanctions in the petroleum, gold, mining, food and banking
industries. Although the "pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began
before the imposition of the first economic sanctions", the new sanctions could worsen
the situation.
April 2019, the U.S. sanctioned more than 150 companies, vessels and individuals, in
addition to revoking visas of 718 individuals associated with Maduro. The sanctions
included freezing of individuals' accounts and assets, prohibiting of transactions with
sanctioned parties, seizing of assets, arms embargoes and travel bans. The OAS
commissioner for Venezuelan migrants and refugees, David Smolansky, has said the
sanctions targeted Maduro and Chavismo "elites" while having little impact on average
Venezuelans.
The United States has been concerned about Venezuelan narcotics trafficking since 2005
and its lack of cooperation in combating terrorism since 2006.
Some ships' captains and owners sympathetic to Venezuela are "going dark", turning off
their transponder locations, to avoid the U.S. sanctions and deliver oil to Russia, China,
and India. Turning off the transponders creates an environmental risk of ship collisions.As
of 2020, Mexico defied the United States sanctions by allowing fuel shipments to Nicolás
Maduro. In May 2020, despite the sanctions on both Iran and Venezuela, Iran sent five
oil tankers to Venezuela during fuel shortages in the country.
United Kingdom
Sanctions are restrictive measures that can be put in place to fulfil a range of purposes.
In the UK, these include complying with UN and other international obligations, supporting
foreign policy and national security objectives, as well as maintaining international peace
and security, and preventing terrorism.
A number of UK government departments are responsible for overseeing sanctions.
● The Foreign & Commonwealth Office has overall responsibility for sanctions, which
includes negotiating the content and scope of international regimes.
● OFSI was established by HM Treasury in March 2016. It is responsible for
publishing guidance on financial sanctions, making designations under the UK
sanctions regime, and implementing and administering the sanctions regime.
OFSI can also impose monetary penalties for sanctions violations.
● Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is responsible for enforcing breaches
of trade sanctions, and the Department for International Trade (acting through the
Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU)) implements trade sanctions and embargoes.
● The Home Office implements travel bans.
● The National Crime Agency (NCA) investigates breaches of financial sanctions.
● The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) ensures that regulated firms have in place
adequate systems and controls to enable them to meet their financial sanctions
obligations.
● The UK Export Control Joint Unit is responsible for overseeing the UK's system of
export controls and licensing for military and dual-use items.
Unlike the US, secondary sanctions are not part of the UK sanction regimes. The UK has
sanctions against Afghanistan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Central
African Republic, North Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Republic of
Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, ISIL and al-Qaeda, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Myanmar,
Nicaragua, Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and
Zimbabwe.
India
With the world's third largest military expenditure, second largest armed force, fifth largest
economy by GDP nominal rates and third largest economy in terms of purchasing power
parity, India is a prominent regional power, a nuclear power, an emerging global power
and a potential superpower. India assumes a growing international influence and a
prominent voice in global affairs.
General Position
India has historically supported multilateral sanctions but is against unilateral sanctions.
For instance, India was one of the first to place an embargo on the South African apartheid
government which was a success.
India’s reluctance when it comes to imposing sanctions in spite of being a large country
with a good economy and good military force is tied to its history of being subject to
sanctions.
India is a country that believes in ‘ahimsa’ or non-violence. It has a ‘no-first-use policy for
nuclear weapons.
Cases Studies
Indian Sanctions Against South African Apartheid Government
India imposed sanctions on the South Africa Apartheid government. Complete embargodiplomatic, commercial, cultural and sports. India constantly tried to make the apartheid
issue an agenda of the UN and other big groups. The India- South Africa relations were
officially restored in 1933. Economic and financial situation is great. Bilateral trade
agreement was established and has seen an upward trend over the years. In the financial
year of 2021-22, the bilateral trade has reached $89.5 billion, which is 60% more than the
year before.
The aims of the anti-apartheid sanctions were fulfilled. Possible reasons: Mass action
from all over the world.
Sanctions Against India for Nuclear Tests
In the 1970s and 1990s, India had several trade restrictions as forms of sanctions
imposed on it by the United States, Japan, Canada and around 12 other countries in the
wake of its nuclear tests.
At this time, China was growing its nuclear strength and Pakistan was seeking help from
China. When two of India’s most prominent rivals with the closest geographical proximity
develop weapons of mass destruction as devastating as nuclear weapons, naturally, India
felt threatened.
India only developed its weapons as a defensive measure. India has a declared nuclear
no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on
"credible minimum deterrence" which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for
deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only". The document also
maintains that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond
with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail". According to the NRDC, despite the
escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan in 2001–2002, India remained
committed to its nuclear no-first-use policy.
It was around this time that India was attempting to deregulate and internationalise its
economy but these sanctions prevented that. At the same time, the sanctions were also
unsuccessful in stopping further nuclear testing, which was its primary goal.
Indian Entanglement in the US sanctions Against Russia
India is maintaining a neutral position in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
As Ukraine continues to be in the middle of a war with Russia, India showed its support
as it handed over 7,725 kilograms of humanitarian aid to the people of Ukraine. The 7,725
kilograms of aid comprised essential medicines and medical equipment. It is important to
note that this is not the first time India has shown support to Ukraine as India sent the first
tranche of humanitarian assistance to Ukraine in March. Notably, since the beginning of
the conflict in Ukraine, India has consistently called for an immediate cessation of
hostilities and an end to the violence, even as India has called upon both sides to return
to the path of diplomacy and dialogue, and also expressed its support for all diplomatic
efforts to end the conflict. New Delhi will continue to work with the International
Community to mitigate economic hardships resulting from the Ukraine conflict.
India hoped that the international community will continue to respond positively to the call
for humanitarian assistance. India has recently dispatched its twelfth consignment of
humanitarian aid to Ukraine. This humanitarian aid and assistance is in keeping with the
human-centric approach of the Indian Government.
Russia has been a long-term strategic partner of India. It aided the internationalisation of
the Indian economy and also continues to supply India with weaponry and (more recently)
oil and natural gas. Russia has, therefore, become quite irreplaceable to India. However,
in continuing to trade with Russia, India is faced with the threat of US secondary
sanctions, being ousted from the dollar-dominant global financial system and being
blocked from doing business with the United States due to India’s violation of US
sanctions on Russia.
Senators are working on legislation that would impose secondary sanctions on foreign
firms that trade Russian oil and on countries that increase their purchases of the
commodity. “We want a uniform international standard and we want it to have teeth. A
price cap only works if everyone in the world complies with it. We do not want any
loopholes. We don’t want leaks.”
The new legislation sets up a clash with the Biden administration, which has previously
rejected secondary sanctions as a way to enforce the oil price cap. Biden’s team argues
that the economic incentives of a cap are sufficient to induce cooperation and that
secondary sanctions would create tensions with nations such as India, which continue to
buy Russian oil. Under the two senators’ proposal, the US and its allies would be required
to impose a cap on the price of Russian seaborne oil by March 2023. The cap would then
be reduced by one-third every year until it reaches the break-even price within three
years, depriving Putin of any revenue above the price of production. The president can
waive the price reduction if the administration determines it would cause the global price
of oil to spike.
The cap would be enforced by secondary sanctions on any firms involved in the sale or
transportation of Russian oil, including banks, insurance and reinsurance companies and
brokerages.
The legislation, which hasn’t yet been introduced, would also penalise countries found to
be importing Russian oil, oil products, gas and coal above their pre-war levels.
India’s main allies are UAE, Russian Federation, Israel, Afghanistan, France, Bhutan
, Bangladesh, USA and Japan.
India’s main enemies are China and Pakistan.
India’s trade agreements
● Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA)- India, UAE
● Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement (ECTA)- India, Australia
● Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Partnership Agreement (CEPCA)- India,
Mauritius
● Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA)- Bangladesh, India, China, Laos, Republic
of Korea, Sri Lanka
● India ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (India ASEAN TIG)- Brunei, Burma,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam
and India.
● Global System of Trade Preferences (GSTP)- Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh,
Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cameroon, Chile, Columbia, Cuba, Republic of
Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Gayana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libia,
Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru,
Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Tanzania, Vietnam, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.
● South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA)- India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal,
Bangladesh, Bhutan and Maldives.
India and NATO (North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation)
[NATO members- Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark,
Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States]
In September 2011, The NATO alliance invited India to be a partner in its ballistic missile
defence (BMD). Then-U.S. NATO Ambassador Ivo H. Daalder has suggested that India
should turn away from its non-aligned role and join NATO.The United States and India
have already studied the possibility of a joint missile defence system, although former
Defence Secretary Robert Gates stated that "talks were only in their early stages." Boris
Volkonsky of the Russian Strategic Research Institute was quoted as saying, "an ally like
India would strengthen Washington's hand in South and Southwest Asia and other world
areas.
And while most members of the Indian strategic community readily admit that NATO's
Afghanistan mission coincides with India's own strategic interest in stabilising that
country, they do not necessarily conclude from this that India and NATO should develop
closer cooperation. It is believed that many Indian analysts harbour doubts about the
possible implications for their country's international position should it develop closer ties
with NATO. In a report published by NATO review it said, "The choice should be clear:
exploiting NATO's potential as a forum for consultation and cooperation is a 'win-win'
situation, both for India and for the Alliance.
Controversial Indian foreign relations
Russia
Russia has been a long-term strategic trade partner of India and has helped India
deregulate its economy, supplied arms to the Indian military and more recently, it supplies
India with crude oil and natural gas. Russia has also vetoed on behalf of India on six
different occasions, while the US was against India all six times.
Afghanistan
Afghanistan geo-strategic importance
●
Afghanistan enjoys a strategic location in South Asia and is particularly relevant to
India as a geographical neighbour.
●
The country has the Central Asian Republics to the North, Pakistan to its East, and
through Iran and Pakistan the Indian Ocean deeper south.
●
India’s first and most important interest in Afghanistan is to ensure that Pakistan
does not gain an edge within governing structures of Afghanistan. India feels that
if Pakistan succeeds in installing Taliban or a Taliban-sponsored regime in
Afghanistan, it will be detrimental to the cause of the regional security of India.
●
For Indian trade with the Central Asian Republics, the flow could be through the
sea lanes of communications of the Indian Ocean to Gwadar port, and thereafter
by land astride the Delaram highway that India has built-in Afghanistan, to
destinations in CAR states.
●
A stable Afghanistan bordering India is crucial for regional and domestic security
and stability in South Asia and within India. Hardliners in Afghanistan have often
been used by Pakistan to export terrorism in Kashmir.
●
A favourable Afghanistan is a sine-qua-non for accessing Central Asia and Eurasia
by India through the Chabahar, which bypasses Pakistan.
●
Central Asia has large deposits of oil and natural gas. Afghanistan is an energy
bridge and thus key to achieving India’s strategic objectives.
●
Huge deposits of energy raw materials and high-value mineral deposits. A
substantial concentration of such resources is along Afghanistan’s borders with
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, and Turkmenistan. Further, most Afghan resources
remain untapped.
●
Afghanistan is of vital importance as a tool of counterbalance to Pakistan and
China.
●
Afghanistan also denies strategic depth to Pakistan. The Pakistan-Afghanistan
border remaining active denies Pakistan the opportunity of positioning additional
military capabilities along its borders with India.
Implications of the NATO withdrawal on India
●
India’s strategic, economic and security related interests depend on how the
current Afghan government keeps the Taliban at bay after the Biden administration
pulls its military presence from the region.
●
Any political instability in the region will affect the countries. Pakistan has been
supportive of Taliban in the past and now, Pakistan can again scale up its support
to Taliban
●
As the US military presence kept a check on the radically extremist forces and
created the possibility of a conducive environment for India to work with
Afghanistan.
●
Threat of terrorism – The withdrawal can lead to a surge in international and
regional terrorism, re-emergence of Taliban’s influence on Pakistan and the
political instability it will create in the region.
●
The extremist elements in Kashmir and other parts of India through India-focused
militant groups such as Lashkar- e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed will increase.
●
Conditions for women and minorities-.Previously, the Taliban has banned girls
from schools and women from public life. India's belief in human rights and
democratic values will come under question.
●
Strategic challenges- with more powerful Taliban India may cutoff with central Asia
and its resource
●
Developmental challenges- various indian projects are under construction in
Afghanistan, what will be the future of such projects in Taliban era.
Measures that can be taken
●
India must adopt a balanced diplomacy without favouring any particular section by
sacrificing its own interests.
●
India’s emphasis on good relations with all the regional actors without a reference
to their conflicts has been vindicated by the turn of events.
●
Barring Turkey, which turned hostile to India under Erdogan, India has managed
to expand its ties with most regional actors.
●
India must ensure that it remains in the loop of consultations or otherwise arrange
for alternative means to safeguard its commercial and security concerns in the
aftermath of the withdrawal of coalition forces.Leaving the past behind, India may
also unilaterally open dialogue with the Taliban to protect its interests.
●
India should harness the strategic depth and goodwill of Afghan citizens to become
a prominent player in the Afghan process in future.
●
Gwadar port development needs to gather speed. We could tap the Afghan market
for Indian origin defence equipment, and extend our marketing to the CAR
countries.
●
Taliban is not exactly a monolith; it has multiple Pashtun tribes and factions. Many
groups within the Taliban have been wary of Pakistan and make common cause
with Pakistani Pashtun in opposing Pakistan’s oppressive policies.
●
The Afghan peace deal would see Pakistan lose its leverage with the US, which
India can capitalise to realign geopolitical interests.
●
India and Afghanistan Air Corridor—The air corridor will be a big enabler to bilateral
trade and will send a strong message to Pakistan that despite its obstructionist
behaviour, India will continue to engage with Afghanistan.
●
If India has been pragmatic, Pakistan has struggled to recalibrate its policies
towards the Middle East.
●
Learning to live with neighbours has then become an urgent priority.
Israel
The diplomatic relationship between India and Israel started on the 29th of January
1992.India and Israel both have focused on defence cooperation, investment and trade
policies. The bilateral ties between these two countries have been strong since 1950.
India is the largest buyer of Israel’s military equipment, both countries have seen too
many ups and downs together and India-Israel has developed from bilateral relations to
strategic relationships.
Rise and Growth of Israel
Mahatma Gandhi was among the first global leaders to support the call for a separate
homeland for the Jewish people. The Balfour Declaration had supported the creation of
this homeland by dividing the Palestinian territories. It was only in the year 1948 after the
end of World War II that the state of Israel was established and was immediately within
24 hours attacked by its neighbouring countries Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.
The young country fought bravely and defeated all its neighbours and successfully
defended its territories. India and Israel gained their independence from colonial rule in
1947 and 1948 respectively, but Israel got its position as a stable country later in the
decade.
● In September 1950 Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian prime minister, finally recognised
the State of Israel. It was only in 1992 that the two sides established full diplomatic
relations and it took another 25 years for the establishment of strategic partnership.
● During the Indo-Pak war in 1971, Israel supported India. India formally established
open and formal relations with Israel in 1992, after decades of pro-Arab policy and
non-aligned agreement. Israel showed support to India by providing arms and
ammunition during the Kargil War.
● India and Israel both fought for independence and were respectively divided into
two parts on the basis of religion. India voted against the plan of partition of
Palestine also India was one of the few nations which provided refuge to the
persecuted Jewish population.
● India from its independence was committed to the Palestinian cause and was a
leader of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Israel, on the other hand, supported
the US during the cold war period.
● The end of the cold war and the disintegration of the former USSR in 1991,
provided not only opportunities for growth in the Indo-US relations but also in that
of many US allies such as Japan, ASEAN nations, and Israel.
Pillars of Cooperation between India and Israel
●
Defence strategic and Arm deals.
●
In 1996, IAI Searcher Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Electronic Support
Measure sensors and Air Combat Manoeuvres Instrumentation simulator systems
were purchased by India from Israel. In 2008, Indian military officials visited Israel
to discuss anti-terrorism strategies, additional sales of Israeli equipment and joint
weapons development projects. On 9 November 2021, a Bilateral Innovation
Agreement was signed between the Defence Research and Defence Organisation
and the Directorate of Defence Research and Development.
●
Israel has a Two-State Solution policy and supports India on matters related to its
defence and national security. Phalcon AWACS, IAI radar equipment fitted with
Russian IL-76 transport aircraft were purchased by India.
Science and Technology Cooperation
●
India and Israel have signed a science and technology agreement, which allows
both countries to have scientific cooperation, technology, information, biomass and
lasers are specific fields mentioned in the agreement.
●
To clean Ganga, the Israeli government offered help to Indian management. The
countries also initiated technological and economic cooperation in the agriculture
sector.
●
Economic Cooperation
●
Precious stones and metals, minerals, chemicals. Machinery and transport
equipment are majorly imported from Israel. A free trade agreement was signed in
2010 between India and Israel.
●
During the pandemic in 2020, India exported a 5-ton shipment of medicine and
drugs.
●
Cultural Relations
●
India was one of the few nations which provided refuge to the persecuted Jewish
population.
●
Also, India has a Jewish community. They have been given minority status in the
states of Maharashtra and West Bengal.
●
There are over 85,000 Indian Jews staying in Israel.
The Road Ahead
●
Israel is a land of opportunities and as the region embraces peace over conflict,
India can play a positive role as it becomes a non-permanent member of the United
Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 2021.
●
Following the post-Soviet world, India’s foreign policy in West Asia has shifted from
a bi-directional to a tri-directional approach. Along with Saudi Arabia and Iran as
two pillars, India has now accommodated Israel as a third pillar in its West Asian
policy.
●
The 21st century has marked a welcome partnership between India and Israel and
this needs to be further cultivated. Today, India stands as Israel’s number one
customer for arms. However, in return, India gives vocal support to Israel which
boosts its diplomatic and political approach, especially when more than 30
countries of the UN do not recognize Israel.
Conclusion
The dramatic changes in the relationship between India-Israel cannot go unnoticed. From
cultural relation to defence and strategic relation, both the countries have grown to
understand each other. Both the countries have gained independence from the UK within
months. Israel has helped India with defence and national security whereas India has
helped Israel in economic cooperation. And now India is the 10th largest trading partner
of Israel. Both the countries have developed in science and technology and are now
working together in matters of space technology. Both the countries have seen the ups
and down together. Both have developed themselves from diplomatic partnerships to
strategic partnerships.
Committee Draft Resolutions and India’s vote
(1)
Human rights and unilateral coercive measures : draft resolution / China,
Cuba and Russian Federation 2022 [on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned
Countries]
Stopping the use of unilateral sanctions especially when it inhibits sdg and other
inappropriate places.
India- Yes
UAE- Yes
Russian Federation- Yes
Israel- No
Afghanistan- Yes
France- No
Bhutan- Yes
Bangladesh- Yes
USA- No
Japan- No
China- Yes
Pakistan- Yes
(2)
Comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against the racist regime of South
Africa : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly 1989
India- Yes
UAE- Yes
Russian Federation- Non-voting
Israel- No
Afghanistan- Yes
France- No
Bhutan- Yes
Bangladesh- Non-voting
USA- No
Japan- No
China- Yes
Pakistan- Yes
(3)
Elimination of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a
means of political and economic compulsion : resolution / adopted by the General
Assembly 2002
India- Yes
UAE- Yes
Russian Federation- Yes
Israel- No
Afghanistan- Non-voting
France- Yes
Bhutan- Non-voting
Bangladesh- Yes
USA- No
Japan- Yes
China- Yes
Pakistan- Yes
Times Russia has used the veto power in favour of India
1957
The USSR first used the veto power for India in 1957 over the Kashmir issue. When Nikita
Khrushchev, the then leader of the Soviet Union, visited India in 1955, he said that
Moscow was just ‘across the border’ and in case of any trouble in Kashmir, Delhi should
just give a shout to the USSR. He stayed true to his words, and when Pakistan proposed
the use of a temporary UN force in connection with the demilitarisation and the bilateral
issue was close to becoming an international issue, USSR used the veto power in favour
of India.
1961
In 1961, Portugal sent a letter to the UNSC concerning Goa. At that time, Goa was still
under the power of Portugal and India was trying to liberate the region and make it a part
of our nation. Unlike France, Portugal refused to let go of its territories in India and even
opened fire on the protesters in Goa.
As per reports, Nikita Khrushchev sent a telegram to former Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru in which he said India’s actions “to do away with outposts of colonialism in its
territory were absolutely lawful and justified”.
Portugal tried to invoke the UN Charter and proposed a resolution that India should
withdraw their forces from Goa. The proposal was supported by the United States, the
United Kingdom and France. But the USSR came to India’s rescue and blew away the
proposal by using the veto power. It strengthened India’s cause, and on December 19,
1961, Goa was finally liberated from the rule of Portugal.
It is important to note that it was the USSR's 99th veto.
1962
USSR used its 100th veto in 1962, and this time again, in favour of India. An Irish
Resolution in the UNSC urged India and Pakistan to directly negotiate with one another
to settle the Kashmir issue. Seven UNSC members supported it, and among them were
four permanent members – the US, France, UK and China. The Indian delegation refused
to accept the resolution and then, the Russian delegate Platon Dmitrievich Morozov used
the veto power to make the resolution null and void.
1971
In 1965, after the India-Pakistan War began, the then Pakistani foreign minister Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto raised the Kashmir issue at the UN, and the Indian delegation walked out in
protest. According to reports, Kunwar Natwar Singh, the former Minister of External
Affairs termed the walkout as a ‘turning point’ for the UN regarding the Kashmir issue.
The Kashmir issue became dormant in the UNSC except in 1971 when resolutions were
proposed over the Kashmir issue, but in December 1971, when India was engaged in a
war against Pakistan to liberate Bangladesh, the USSR used its veto power thrice for two
reasons: To ensure that the issue remains a bilateral one instead of becoming a global
concern that could attract interference from third-party nations and that the UN could not
pass a resolution in favour of ceasefire between India and Pakistan.
Points for Solutions
The sanctions most likely to facilitate political change in the target country are those
designed to cause income losses on groups benefiting from the target country’s policies.
Sanctions have their limitations: they can be insufficiently coercive, easily sidestepped,
harmful to civilians, and even beneficial to authoritarian regimes.
But when implemented properly, with specific goals in mind, and combined with other
foreign policy tools—such as diplomacy or armed force—sanctions can help influence
others and advance a country’s foreign policy priorities.
Other Points of Argument
Today, the USA largely gets its way because there is no alternative to the dollar and no
export market as attractive as the United States. But if Washington continues to force
other nations to go along with policies that they consider both illegal and unwise, over the
next 20 to 30 years, they are likely to shift away from the United States’ economy and
financial system
In United Nations, Russia has exercised veto power on behalf of India 6 times and the
US has been against India on all 6 occasions
Q. Why does NATO exist & continue to expand when the USSR & Warsaw-Pact are
already dissolved?
Q. Why are such sanctions not imposed on the US and UK for their Invasion of Iraq?
Q. Why does the US deal with China's authoritarian refugees in a different way as
compared to how it deals with that of North-Korea, Venezuela & Iran?
Q. If the US can have Monroe-Doctrine & cannot tolerate Missiles in Cuba then why does
it expect Russia & China to tolerate US & NATO presence near it?
USA's federal democratic republic system doesn't mean that the USA is different from
Imperial-Empires of the past like that of Britain, Russia etc.
Other Pieces of Information
List of Human Rights
ICCPR
● Freedom from discrimination
ICESCR
● Freedom from discrimination
● Right to equality between men and
● Right to equality between men and
women
Right to life
Freedom from torture
Freedom from slavery
Right to liberty and security of
person
Right to be treated with humanity in
detention
Freedom of movement
Freedom of non-citizens from
arbitrary expulsion
Right to fair trial
Right to recognition before the law
Right to privacy
Freedom of religion and belief
Freedom of expression
Right of peaceful assembly
Freedom of association
Right to marry and found a family
Right of children to birth registration
and a nationality
Right to participate in public affairs
Right to equality before the law
Minority rights
women
Right to work
Freedom to choose and accept
work
Right to just and favourable
conditions at work
Right to form trade unions
Right to strike
Right to social security
Right of mothers to special
protection before and after birth
Freedom of children from social and
economic exploitation
Right to an adequate standard of
living
Freedom from hunger
Right to health
Right to education
Freedom of parents to choose
schooling for their children
Right to take part in cultural life
Right to enjoy benefits of science
Right of authors to moral and
material interests from works
Freedom to undertake scientific
research and creative activity
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
HMUN 2023 Research and
Information
Introduction
Sanctions are an economic policy intending to coerce a targeted country or entity into
complying with foreign policy and internationally accepted norms by limiting the country’s
trade relations and economically isolating the entity.
Sanctions are an economic tool of foreign policy that essentially involve a major
interruption if not a withdrawal of normal economic exchanges of trade, aid and financial
dealings in order to obtain a political goal.
Sanctions are restrictions imposed on a country by one or more other countries with the
intent to pressure in effect some desirable outcome, or conversely to condemn and punish
some undesired action already taken.
It is used as a ‘peaceful’ and non-violent method of punishment, instead of wars.
Working principle: if you increase the economic pain on a target to extract political
concessions, you will get the outcomes that you would not have gotten any other way
short of military force.
Measures include:
● Asset freezes- A government directs banks and financial institutions within its
jurisdiction to withhold assets and funds connected to sanctioned individuals or
entities.
For example, the United States froze the assets of numerous Russian leaders and
banks as punishment following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. The
targeted individuals and entities reportedly lost access to hundreds of millions of
dollars held in U.S. financial institutions.
● Travel Bans- A government denies sanctioned individuals entry into its country.
In 2020, the United States imposed travel bans on fourteen Chinese officials for
undermining democracy in Hong Kong. The following year, China barred several
former senior U.S. officials, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, from
entering the country, in response to actions pursued by President Donald Trump’s
administration that “seriously disrupted China-U.S. relations.”
● Arms Embargoes- A government bans the sale or transfer of weapons,
ammunition, and other related materials.
In 2011, the United Nations imposed an arms embargo on Libya, which was quickly
descending into a civil war. The sanctions prohibited all countries from selling arms
to Libya or purchasing weapons from the country.
● Foreign Aid Reductions- A government reduces the amount of money, services,
or physical goods given to another country as a form of coercion or punishment.
In 1988, for instance, the United States sharply cut its foreign aid to Sudan after
the Sudanese military overthrew the government and proceeded to support
terrorist efforts. The level of aid dropped from $216 million in 1987 to an average
of $48 million a year from 1988 to 2001.
Categorising Sanctions
● Unilateral sanctions are sanctions imposed by only one targeting country or
entity.
● Multilateral sanctions are sanctions imposed by several countries together, or by
organisations such as the UN.
● Comprehensive sanctions are sanctions imposed on an entire country.
● Smart/targeted sanctions are sanctions imposed on an individual, a group of
individuals, an organisation or a group of organisations.
● Primary sanctions are sanctions imposed on a country who is violating
international norms.
● Secondary sanctions are sanctions imposed on third-party countries that
continue trade with black-listed countries. Trying to convince a country to join in on
a sanction regime against a target that it is unwilling to sanction by threatening to
impose secondary sanctions on it only makes matters worse and gives rise to
hostility.
Unilateral vs Multilateral Sanctions
Multilateral sanctions are considered more effective than unilateral sanctions because
they make use of the combined force of several countries cutting off the target. This does
a better job at isolating the target and delivering the economic pinch that is intended to
put the target in a position where it is more open to change. However, it is sometimes
tricky to gain consensus of committee members of the UN Security Council and decide
on a sanction proposal to implement. Also, a lot of the time, coordination between senders
can weaver which causes mixed signals and confusion with the target. Such
miscommunication causes multilateral sanctions to sometimes be ineffective.
Sanctioning Process in the UN
The UN Security Council (UNSC) is the trouble-shooting body for any international crises.
On the occasion of a global crisis, The UNSC responds by cutting economic and trade
ties with the responsible country or entity.
For a sanction resolution to pass, the draft resolutions are passed through the fifteen
members with a majority vote and no veto from the P5 countries (Russia, China, France,
US and UK).
Important points to end sanctions
Senders must end sanctions in a way that best contributes to their initial object, or in a
way that doesn’t damage their reputation as committed sanctioners when the sanction
was unsuccessful.
●
Review provisions and sunset clauses ensure regular assessment of the
measures’ political utility.
●
Sanctioners should send a strong and transparent signal upon the imposition of
sanctions as sanctions have higher chances to succeed at the early stages. This
necessitates the articulation of clear – and ideally attainable – goals required for
the eventual lifting of the imposed measures.
●
Sender coordination is important for the removal of sanctions, not only for their
implementation. If different actors such as the EU, UN, and US lift sanctions at
notably different paces, this sends mixed signals to the regimes under sanction to
which these governments can hardly react in a consistent way.
●
Timing is key. The gradual removal of sanctions can incentivise incremental
change in the target state if that rolling back is tied to clear political benchmarks.
Sanction Effectiveness and Impacts
Sanctions are known to be ineffective majority of the time, however, still cause harm to
vulnerable groups in the targeted country’s economy.
Why are sanctions ineffective?
● Sanctions sometimes already fail in the threat stage. Sometimes even the most
clear and credible sanction threat is ignored by the potential target because it does
not seem like something that the target cannot handle. Unless the target
underestimated the sanction in terms of the severity of its score or the time of
implementation, the sanction regime will fall flat.
● Sanctions are also a very blunt instrument. Even with targeted sanctions, the
intended objective is rarely achieved but sanctions are almost always
accompanied by ‘collateral damage’ affecting a lot of groups in the country that
have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
● Targeted countries can sidestep them by finding support elsewhere.
● Over time, the effectiveness of sanctions diminishes as targeted groups become
better at avoiding these economic restrictions. Moreover, sanctions can in some
ways actually help authoritarian governments, as they restrict an open market and
can provide regimes with more control over the economy and distribution of goods.
● Sanctions can have severe consequences—for political or business elites as well
as everyday civilians. Broad sanctions can cut the public off from economic
opportunities and cause harmful supply-chain disruptions. This can create
shortages of food, gas, and medical supplies, exacerbating already precarious
humanitarian situations.
For example, look at U.S. sanctions against Venezuela during the COVID-19
pandemic. Despite exemptions for humanitarian efforts, U.S. sanctions have
reportedly slowed or prevented critical medical products—including COVID-19
vaccines—from entering the country. The issue, Venezuelan officials and human
rights organisations say, is that international financial institutions and logistics
providers delay or refuse deliveries to avoid running afoul of U.S. sanctions.
Successful sanctions end quickly. If a sanction were to be successful, it would be early
on in the process because if a country does not consider itself capable of withstanding
the external pressure of being cut off from the imposing countries, the target will be willing
to concede early to avoid the unnecessary costs that come with enduring.
Sometimes, in cases where the endurance of sanctions is expected to be highly
challenging for the target, the government of the target implements the changes at the
mere threat of the sanction without actual imposition. So the sanction ends before it even
starts.
An ex­ample of short-lived measures that result in some degree of desired political
change are sanctions imposed by the AU in response to coup d’états. The AU
unequivocally condemns such unconstitutional changes of government and imposes
sanctions – most notably, suspension of the respective country’s membership in the
organisation – until constitutional order has been restored. These sanctions usually end
quickly once political actors agree on a transition of power to civilian rule. Examples
include the AU sanctions against Mauritania (2005–2007), Guinea (2008–2010), and
Niger (2010–2011), none of which ultimately lasted for more than two years.
Factors affecting the effectiveness of sanctions
● Well-rounded- sanctions should start with moderately strict action with the threat
of more punitive action on the occasion of disobedience (flexibility) while also
proposing a package of relevant economic incentives and aid to encourage the
target to comply.
● Attainable and realistic- the more objectives of the sanctions or the more
concessions the sanction demands, the more unrealistic it is and the more difficult
it is to actually achieve the objective. Even when singular, objectives such as the
change of a whole country's regime, for example, are unrealistic.
● Multilateral support- The point of sanctions is to economically isolate the target.
Sanctions placed by only one country are easy to recover from, whereas there is
an actual pinch when the country is restricted from doing trade with several
countries.
● Credibility and flexibility- the target should believe that how punitive sanction
measures are depends on its behaviour. The sanctions should start to loosen up
when the targeted country starts becoming inclined to comply.
● Diplomacy- the position of the target should be assessed before tightening
sanctions. The objectives shouldn’t be rigid, instead, after a certain point a
compromise can be made.
● Reasonable and humane- overly-strict, strangling sanctions that intend to
collapse the entire economy do not work. They make matters worse and create
hostile relations.
● Trade relations- the sanctions imposed are effective only if the targeted and
targeting nations carry out a significant amount of trade and exchange because
that is when it will affect the economy of the target.
● Duration of threat- long durations of threat without actual action can buy the target
time to protect itself from the effects of the sanction, especially if the target is
stubborn.
Other Foreign Policy Tools
Foreign policy is how countries try to influence each other in order to advance their own
interests. There are several foreign policy tools that countries could use to achieve this.
They fall under three broad categories: political, economic and military.
The primary political tool is diplomacy. This is simply when the concerned countries
communicate directly. This can be a high-level meeting/gathering of the country leaders
or a regular interaction between delegates or ambassadors of the country. It could either
be a friendly consultation or a heated negotiation. Direct diplomacy between countries
allows for clear understanding of each other’s goals and priorities. It is also good for clear
communication when negotiating agreements and coordinated action.
Loans, aid, and other economic statecraft can generate goodwill, help stabilise another
country and increase its capacity to govern. It also makes the recipient country more open
to the providing country's influence. Trade policies can also influence behaviour by
providing countries with access to domestic markets and foreign investment to provide
countries with incentives to act in favourable ways. Economic sanctions are also
economic foreign policy measures.
The most ‘powerful’ measures lie in the military department. When all other measures
have failed, or when a country feels directly threatened, the country will use armed forces
against the other country until it alters its behaviour. This could be through limited air
strikes or through a full-on invasion. Armed forces cause wars between two countries and
creates a situation where there is no clear winner or loser but there is destruction on all
sides. Armed force action is often prevented using the tool of deterrence. This is
convincing country A that if they were to attack country B, country B and its allies are
capable of causing serious damage to country A. This acts as disincentive to country A
and prevents it from attacking in the first place.
Another way to lower the temperature is through an arms control agreement, which can
create transparency and limit the development, deployment, number and use of the
world’s most dangerous weapons. This decreases the likelihood and potential costs of
any possible conflict.
Military actions may not always be about forcing another country, sometimes it could have
to do with supporting or helping a country; for example to resolve a conflict between two
other countries or a civil war in a country. This is called peacekeeping, when a country
tries to resolve the conflict by sending in their military and restoring stability.
Tools like Intelligence fall into multiple categories. This involves gathering information on
another country. If leaders have insight on what is going on in other countries, and what
their leaders and citizens are thinking and/or doing, they can use other foreign policy tools
more effectively and strategically. They can also share this information with their allies.
This could also include covert actions working to influence political, economic and military
situations abroad without the other country knowing about their efforts.
Another such tool that falls into multiple categories is nation-building, where countries try
to build functioning political, economic and security institutions in other countries, such as
international embassies. This requires several tools like military, intelligence,
humanitarian assistance, trade and diplomacy.
Soft power is a tool that doesn’t really fit into one specific category. It is when one country
A gets another country B to adopt the same goals as country A by providing evidence
that its measures such as domestic and foreign policies for achieving these objectives
are successful and worth following. This can be done by internationally promoting the
country’s cultural and political values abroad.
It is up to policy makers to decide on the most appropriate and effective combination of
these policy measures for the situation at hand.
United Nations Sanctions
The United Nations imposes sanctions for a reason. The subject might be a terrorist,
criminal, or trader that might harm your business. The United Nations sanctions
individuals, organisations, and countries to prevent terrorism, the proliferation of
weapons, violation of international treaties, money laundering, drug trafficking, and
destabilisation of sovereign nations.
● Diplomatic Sanctions: Removals of diplomatic ties such as country's councils or
embassies
● Economic Sanctions: Trade prohibitions on certain economic sectors such as
agriculture, arms, medical
● Sport Sanctions: Disqualification of a particular nation from participating in
international events
● Environmental Sanctions: Preserving the environment and safeguarding natural
resources
The UN currently imposes sanctions on Afghanistan,Central African Republic, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, ISIL and
Al-Qaeda, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Yemen, Eritrea, GuineaBissau, Iraq, Lebanon.
Sanctions against Afghanistan
Related to Taliban. Travel restrictions.
Sanctions against Central African Republic
In the wake of a civil war in the Central African Republic in 2013, worsening security and
humanitarian situation in the CAR, including a breakdown of law and order, inter-sectarian
tensions and widespread human rights abuses by armed groups, the UN has imposed
sanctions on the CAR in the form of an arms embargo on all persons, except those with
a licence that permits them to use certain weapons.
Sanctions against the Democratic Republic of Congo
The UNSC has imposed sanctions in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC) since 2003, in response to acts of violence systematically perpetrated against
civilians including violations of international humanitarian law and human rights.
Sanctions against North Korea
UN Security Council Resolutions were passed after North Korea conducted nuclear tests
in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, and 2017. Initially, sanctions were focused on trade bans on
weapons-related materials and goods but expanded to luxury goods to target the elites.
These include arms embargo, asset freeze, export bans on fossil fuels and other listed
items, import bans on listed items such as gold, machiners, textiles, etc., financial
services, travel bans, etc.
Sanctions against Iran
Between 2006 and 2010, the UNSC passed five resolutions imposing sanctions in relation
to Iran in response to Iran's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program. On 20
July 2015, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2231, which endorsed the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA). After Iran’s breach of JCPOA, sanctions were placed on Iran
once again. The sanctions placed include asset freezes, export prohibition on nuclear or
ballistic missile materials, restricted transactions, training on nuclear or ballistic missile
related areas, doing business with Iran, etc.
Sanctions against ISIL and al-Qaeda
The UN imposed sanctions against ISIL and al-QAEDA as part of the global effort to fight
terrorism and promote international peace and security. Under this regime, the UNSC
ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee can designate persons and entities
subject to sanctions.
Sanctions against Libya
The Battle of Tripoli was a series of clashes in Tripoli, Libya from 27 August to 25
September 2018 during the Second Libyan Civil War. As a result of this, the UN imposed
sanctions on Libya in the forms of arms embargo, asset freeze, prohibitions related to
aircraft, petroleum and ships, training and assistance bans, travel bans etc.
Sanctions against Mali
A series of human rights violations in Mali in 2017 by armed Islamists lead the UN to
impose sanctions on the country in the form of asset freezes and travel bans in 2018
Sanctions against Somalia
Many faced dire living conditions, with limited assistance, and faced a range of abuses,
including indiscriminate killings, forced evictions, and sexual violence. Between
November and May, at least 60,000 people were forcibly evicted, including by
government forces. The UN imposed sanctions on Somalia in the form of arms embargo,
IED components embargo, asset freeze, travel ban, training ban and import prohibition
on charcoal.
Sanctions against Yemen
In the wake of the Yemeni civil war that began in 2014, the UN imposed sanctions in the
form of an arms embargo, asset freeze, travel ban and training and assistance ban in
May 2014.
Sanctions against South Sudan
Following fighting between government and defecting Nuer soldiers in Juba on December
15, government forces conducted a brutal crackdown on Juba's Nuer population that
included targeted killings, house-to-house searches, mass arrests, unlawful detention of
hundreds of men in poor conditions, ill-treatment, and torture. In response to this, the UN
imposed sanctions on South Sudan which included arms embargo, asset freeze, travel
ban and training and assisting ban.
Sanctions against Sudan
The War in Darfur, also nicknamed the Land Cruiser War, is a major armed conflict in the
Darfur region of Sudan that began in February 2003 when the Sudan Liberation
Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel groups began
fighting against the government of Sudan, which they accused of oppressing Darfur's
non-Arab population. The government responded to attacks by carrying out a campaign
of ethnic cleansing against Darfur's non-Arabs. This resulted in the death of hundreds of
thousands of civilians and the indictment of Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, for
genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.
The government of Sudan almost completely banned humanitarian agencies from Darfur
for four crucial months, from late October 2003 through late-February 2004. The
government's continued violence and forced displacement of civilians had and continues
to have enormous humanitarian consequences. In response, the UN imposed asset
freeze, arms embargo, travel ban and training ban in the form of a sanction against
Sudan.
Sanctions against Guinea-Bissau
On 12 April 2012, a coup d'état in Guinea-Bissau was staged by elements of the armed
forces about two weeks before the second round of a presidential election between Carlos
Gomes Júnior and Kumba Ialá. In response to the instability, the UN imposed travel bans
as forms of sanctions on the country.
Sanctions against Iraq
The invasion of Kuwait led to a United Nations Security Council embargo and sanctions
on Iraq and a U.S.-led coalition air and ground war, which began on January 16, 1991,
and ended with an Iraqi defeat and retreat from Kuwait on February 28, 1991.
Sanctions against Lebanon
The 2008 Lebanon conflict was a brief intrastate military conflict in May 2008 in Lebanon
between opposition militias (mainly Shiite Hezbollah) and pro-government Sunnis, which
was an 18-month-long political crisis that spiralled out of control. The UN imposed
sanctions on Lebanon at this time in the form of arms embargo, asset freeze, travel ban
and training and assistance ban.
United States of America
General Information
The Federal Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) is in charge of executing sanction
regimes. Currently, the USA has comprehensive sanctions against Cuba, Iran, North
Korea, Syria and the Crimea region of Ukraine. The US also maintains significant
sanctions against Russia and Venezuela.
After the OFAC has determined the base penalty against the target, the following
measures are taken into account to increase or decrease the penalty:
● Willful or reckless violation of law, including factors such as concealment, a pattern
of conduct, and management involvement;
● Awareness of the conduct at issue;
● Harm to sanctions program objectives, including factors such as economic benefit
to the sanctioned country and whether the conduct would likely have been eligible
for an OFAC licence;
● Individual characteristics of the company in question, such as commercial
sophistication and whether the company has received a penalty notice or a finding
of violation from OFAC in the five years preceding the date of the transaction giving
rise to the violation;
● The existence, nature and adequacy of a compliance program in place at the time
of the violation;
● The remedial response that the company took upon learning of the violation;
● Cooperation with OFAC, through voluntary self-disclosure and/or subsequent
cooperation during the investigation.
Sanctions on Cuba
The United States first imposed a sanction on Cuba in the form of a trade embargo on
the sale of arms to Cuba on March 14 1958. Later, nearly two years after the Cuban
Revolution, on October 19 1960, the US placed an embargo on Cuba (excluding food and
medicine) following Cuba’s nationalisation of American-owned Cuban oil refineries with
no compensation to America. On February 17 1962, the sanctions were extended to
include almost all exports, which continue to be in place at present. The UNGA has
introduced resolutions every year since, demanding the US to lift the sanctions on Cuba
for which only the US and Israel continue to vote against.
The Cuban Missile Crisis
The Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961) of the US was an attempt at removing Fidel Castro (the
new governor after a Cuban coup) from power. The invasion was a failure and an
embarrassment. Castro and Nikita Khrushchev (leader of USSR) agreed to place secret
Russian ballistic missiles in Cuba in a position where it could reach almost any city in the
US in case the US invades in February 1961 as a result of a resolution by the US
Congress to allow military forces in case US interests in Cuba were threatened.
The US launched covert operations (Operation Mongoose) which was also a failure.
American scouts found the missiles being built in Cuba. The US didn’t want any
Caribbean country forming allies with the USSR because that made the Monroe Doctrine
(No European power belongs in the western hemisphere) useless, which the US did not
want. The conflict ended two weeks later when the President of USA and the UN
Secretary-General reached an agreement with the USSR to destroy the missiles in Cuba
if the US didn’t invade Cuba and removed the Thor and Jupiter missiles (USA-owned) in
Turkey.
Sanctions on Iran
The US has imposed several sanctions on Iran since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, most
notable for its nuclear testing and support towards terrorist groups such as Hezbollah,
Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Shia militias in Iraq and the Houthis (Ansar Allah, a
movement from the civil war of Yemen in 2014).
Iran Nuclear Activity
[Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as Iran Nuclear
Deal is an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, reached by Iran, China, Russia, France,
the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and the European Union in July 2015.
This deal restricted Iran’s nuclear agreement] The United States, although initially agreed
with JCPOA, never seemed to like it. The US withdrew from the Deal in May 2018 and
analysts determined that Iran had moved closer to developing a nuclear weapon since
the American withdrawal.
President Trump stated “We will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction. Any
nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned
by the United States”. The first stage of the sanction beginning on 7th August 2018
restricted Iran from buying US dollars as well as trading in gold, aluminium, steel and the
Iranian currency, the Rial.
President Trump believed that JCPOA did nothing to curb Iran’s behaviour around the
Middle East, shown by its support for militant groups in Lebanon and Gaza and its
involvement in the wars of Syria and Yemen. The other members were struggling to keep
the Deal alive since they believe that there is no better way to stop Iran from developing
nuclear weapons.
Several European and multinational companies started withdrawing from Iran to protect
themselves from US sanctions.
Sanctions on North Korea
The US- DPRK relations have been tense ever since the first US sanctions on North
Korea in the 1950s for the violation of the US Export Control Act in 1949 [restrict the
export of strategic materials and equipment to Soviet bloc nations (Russia, Bulgaria,
Cuba, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Mongolia, Vietnam,
Laos, Kampuchea, North Korea and China] and was further tightened after the bombings
of South Korea by North Korea in 1980s, as a result of which, the US listed North Korea
as a state sponsor of terrorism. Later, in 1985, North Korea signed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT)
The sanctions started to ease slightly in the 1990s when South Korea started pushing for
engagement policies with North Korea. In 1994, the US and North Korea signed the
Agreed Framework [The US gave North Korea two light water reactors and 500k tons of
fuel oil annually in exchange of the freezing of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program
and step-by-step normalisation of US-DPRK relations] which went great until North Korea
continued its nuclear program and officially withdrew from the Nuclear NPT in 2003.
Yet another agreement, the Six-Party Talks was signed by North Korea, South Korea,
USA, China, Russia and Japan where the nuclear facilities were dismantled and North
Korea was removed from US’s list of ‘state sponsors of terrorism’. North Korea restarted
its nuclear program several years later. Several sanctions from several countries were
reinstated, being the only option left.
UNSC resolutions were passed after North Korea’s nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 20013,
2006 and 20017, which initially included trade bans on weapons-related materials and
goods, which later extended to luxury goods to target elites. Further sanctions were
expanded to cover financial assets, banking transactions, food, general travel and trade
and even basic humanitarian aid.
Why the sanctions did not work
While the sanctions did result in a drop of 3.5% and 4.1% in GDP in 2017 and 2018 as
well as a decline in exports by 90% in 2018, they still did not prevent further nuclear
testing. The sanctions caused damage, but they did not work as intended.
China began supplying North Korea with just enough coal, oil and food to prevent it from
completely collapsing.
Real change occurs only when it’s the elites that suffer, however, sanctions often only
affect the working-class and below. Cost-push inflation decreases the standards of living
and while technically ‘that’s how sanctions are supposed to work’ since the pressure of
the suffering people threatens the government’s loss of power, which encourages the
government to implement change. However, this only works in a democracy, and
sanctioned countries are rarely ever democracies.
Since North Korea is isolated from the rest of the world, it can easily change the narrative
to blame the enemy for the rise in prices, which increases patriotism. However, North
Korea is not the only party at fault. Libya halted its nuclear development program in 2003
and 8 years later, Muammar Gaddafi’s dead body was on public display. In the leadup to
the 2018 Singapore Summit, President Trump threatened that the President of North
Korea would meet the same fate as Gaddafi if a deal wasn’t reached. While this doesn’t
mean that North Korea is exempted from blame, the USA is not completely innocent
either.
Sanctions on Syria
The US added Syria to its list of ‘state sponsors of terrorist’ in 1979. It also imposed further
sanctions on Syria between March and August 2004 following its weapons of mass
destruction program, grip on Iran and willingness to destabilise Iraq and its support of
terrorist groups such as the Hezbollah and Hamas.
The US also placed sanctions on Syria in April 2011 during the civil uprising phase of the
Syrian civil war by blocking property of those involved in the violations. Later, in August,
the US imposed an embargo on the oil sector, froze financial assets and prohibited the
export of any US products (or products that get at least 10% of its value from the US) to
Syria.
In April 2017, the US imposed financial freeze and travel bans against 270 Syrian
government officials following the Khan Sheikhoun attack.
Sanctions against Crimea
The United States among other countries imposed sanctions on Russia and the Crimea
region of Ukraine following the Russian annexation of Crimea in late February 2014.
Russia responded with counter-sanctions in the form of a total ban on food imports from
the US (among other countries). The US and the EU imposed significantly extended
sanctions against Russia that included Putin and other officials following the Russian
invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 which included a ban on provision of technology for
oil and gas exploration, ban on provision of credits to Russian oil companies and state
banks, travel restrictions on the influential Russian citizens close to President Putin and
involved in the annexation of Crimea
Sanctions against Afghanistan
Sanctions were placed on the al-Qaeda and Taliban groups after the September 11
attacks in Afghanistan. The US froze the Afghan government reserves, primarily in US
bank accounts (the country had the authority to impose these sanctions from previous
sanctions placed on the Taliban). Since Afghanistan was highly dependent on US aid, the
economic future of the country was questionable.
Sanctions against Venezuela
The crisis in Venezuela is an ongoing socioeconomic and political crisis that began in
Venezuela during the presidency of Hugo Chávez and has worsened in Nicolás Maduro's
presidency. It has been marked by hyperinflation, escalating starvation,disease, crime
and mortality rates, resulting in massive emigration from the country.
During the crisis in Venezuela, governments of the United States, the European Union,
Canada, Mexico, Panama and Switzerland applied individual sanctions against people
associated with the administration of Nicolás Maduro. The sanctions were in response to
repression during the 2014 Venezuelan protests and the 2017 Venezuelan protests, and
activities during the 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election and the 2018
Venezuelan presidential election. Sanctions were placed on current and former
government officials, including members of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) and
the 2017 Constituent National Assembly (ANC), members of the military and security
forces, and private individuals accused of being involved in human rights abuses,
corruption, degradation in the rule of law and repression of democracy.
Beginning in January 2019, during the Venezuelan presidential crisis, the United States
applied additional economic sanctions in the petroleum, gold, mining, food and banking
industries. Although the "pervasive and devastating economic and social crisis began
before the imposition of the first economic sanctions", the new sanctions could worsen
the situation.
April 2019, the U.S. sanctioned more than 150 companies, vessels and individuals, in
addition to revoking visas of 718 individuals associated with Maduro. The sanctions
included freezing of individuals' accounts and assets, prohibiting of transactions with
sanctioned parties, seizing of assets, arms embargoes and travel bans. The OAS
commissioner for Venezuelan migrants and refugees, David Smolansky, has said the
sanctions targeted Maduro and Chavismo "elites" while having little impact on average
Venezuelans.
The United States has been concerned about Venezuelan narcotics trafficking since 2005
and its lack of cooperation in combating terrorism since 2006.
Some ships' captains and owners sympathetic to Venezuela are "going dark", turning off
their transponder locations, to avoid the U.S. sanctions and deliver oil to Russia, China,
and India. Turning off the transponders creates an environmental risk of ship collisions.As
of 2020, Mexico defied the United States sanctions by allowing fuel shipments to Nicolás
Maduro. In May 2020, despite the sanctions on both Iran and Venezuela, Iran sent five
oil tankers to Venezuela during fuel shortages in the country.
United Kingdom
Sanctions are restrictive measures that can be put in place to fulfil a range of purposes.
In the UK, these include complying with UN and other international obligations, supporting
foreign policy and national security objectives, as well as maintaining international peace
and security, and preventing terrorism.
A number of UK government departments are responsible for overseeing sanctions.
● The Foreign & Commonwealth Office has overall responsibility for sanctions, which
includes negotiating the content and scope of international regimes.
● OFSI was established by HM Treasury in March 2016. It is responsible for
publishing guidance on financial sanctions, making designations under the UK
sanctions regime, and implementing and administering the sanctions regime.
OFSI can also impose monetary penalties for sanctions violations.
● Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is responsible for enforcing breaches
of trade sanctions, and the Department for International Trade (acting through the
Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU)) implements trade sanctions and embargoes.
● The Home Office implements travel bans.
● The National Crime Agency (NCA) investigates breaches of financial sanctions.
● The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) ensures that regulated firms have in place
adequate systems and controls to enable them to meet their financial sanctions
obligations.
● The UK Export Control Joint Unit is responsible for overseeing the UK's system of
export controls and licensing for military and dual-use items.
Unlike the US, secondary sanctions are not part of the UK sanction regimes. The UK has
sanctions against Afghanistan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Central
African Republic, North Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Republic of
Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, ISIL and al-Qaeda, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Myanmar,
Nicaragua, Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and
Zimbabwe.
Other Pieces of Information
List of Human Rights
ICCPR
ICESCR
● Freedom from discrimination
● Right to equality between men and
● Freedom from discrimination
● Right to equality between men and
women
● Right to life
women
● Right to work
● Freedom from torture
● Freedom from slavery
● Right to liberty and security of
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
person
Right to be treated with humanity in
detention
Freedom of movement
Freedom of non-citizens from
arbitrary expulsion
Right to fair trial
Right to recognition before the law
Right to privacy
Freedom of religion and belief
Freedom of expression
Right of peaceful assembly
Freedom of association
Right to marry and found a family
Right of children to birth registration
and a nationality
Right to participate in public affairs
Right to equality before the law
Minority rights
● Freedom to choose and accept
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
work
Right to just and favourable
conditions at work
Right to form trade unions
Right to strike
Right to social security
Right of mothers to special
protection before and after birth
Freedom of children from social and
economic exploitation
Right to an adequate standard of
living
Freedom from hunger
Right to health
Right to education
Freedom of parents to choose
schooling for their children
Right to take part in cultural life
Right to enjoy benefits of science
Right of authors to moral and
material interests from works
Freedom to undertake scientific
research and creative activity