风萧萧的个人空间 http://www.kwcg.ca/bbs/?61910 [收藏] [复制] [分享] [RSS]

日志

Economic Sanctions is a tragedy of idle Street Boys Self-Castrating

已有 153 次阅读2016-1-27 14:02 |个人分类:Frank's Writings

Economic Sanctions is a tragedy of idle Street Boys Self-Castrating

Facing with man-made chaotic world, honest people should not be afraid to speak out in facing with those troublemakers who lack of basic humanity.

A meaningful life, is not in the length, but rather, in the value, the contribution to others, to the world.

Frink Aug. 9, 2014 in Waterloo, Canada

http://frank-waterloo.blog.163.com/blog/static/205239029201479111615365/

Today morning, Aug. 9, 2014, I read article that Russia Bans Food Imports From U.S., EU, Australia, Canada, Norway of Aug. 07, 2014, think of the essential cause of such meaningless economic sanctions of each others, I feel sad for the nonsense behavors of some politicians.

No one can deny the great contribution of the United States to world peace in World War II. However, such contribution seems to have stimulated some of American successor politicians over self-expansion to boldly exert overbearing presumptuous behaviors without waking consciousness of as civilized human beings should be.

The economic sanction is acting as a double-edged sword that will hurt the players of both sides with playing a actual role that begin with harm others intentionally, but end with harm initiators unconsciously.

In today, in the Era of economic globalization, all country's economy is increasingly influencing each other, relying on each other, and inseparabe from each other. In the situation that global economyincreasingly integrated, the economic sanction becomes more and more harmful for the world economy.

However, the economic sanction has been used by the mindless U.S. Politicians again and again without the rational consideration of the damage to the world economy.

Continuous years of Financial Crisis of 2008 that U.S. is blamed for main responsibility to have made those decent people who have been hard working in the creation of social wealth, but, can not live a decent life. For many years, whether it is the prominent politicians, or the ordinary people, are all eagerly hoping rapid economic upturn.

Now, the economy is just showing the weak sign of recovery, the politicians of the United States again wave the big stick of the economic sanctions.

Facing the pressure of the Financial crisis, world widely, the rational dignitaries have been actively seeking the way to promote the economic out of recession, in which, the promotion of the global free trade is the preferred.

Such as that Trans-Pacific Partnership – TPP that initiated by Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, the Canada-EU free trade that initiated by Canada, etc..

The TPP talks began in 2005 as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) with the goal of wrapping up negotiations in 2012.

But, on Sept. 22, 2008, US joined the negotiations, after successfully balanced Iraq and Afghanistan, to have made the people there killing each other, now turn to Asia for creating new balance with the Cold War mentality, lest own lack of capacity, to induce Japan lifted the right to self-defense, rearmed military power, become more powerful killing machine, once again, to kill the people of Asia.

With such brutal purpose, as a latecomer, it acts as the leader, to take the free trade negotiations of TPP as the containment tool for undermining the economies of other countries, its unreasonable irrational negotiate conditions for obtaining own interests by harming others to have made the talks difficult to reach a deal.

June 30, 214, in the article TPP has opened door for saving the industry of Dairy and Poultry of Canada, I have talked the irrational behaviors of the U.S. politicians in TPP negotiations.

The US takes the same way in the talks of TPP into the free trade talks with EU, which is the main reason, smart Europeans have discovered such a trick, of the U.S. launching the economic sanctions on Russia.

July 15, 2014, the report 9 EU countries ready to block economic sanctions against Russia said that:

"France, Germany, and Italy are among EU members who don’t want to follow the US lead and impose trade sanctions on Russia. US sanctions are seen as a push to promote its own multibillion free-trade pact with Europe."

"According to the source, the US sees slapping Russia with sanctions as a way to promote its own trade agenda with Europe, a side rarely explored in mainstream media. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the US and Europe would create the world's largest free trade zone, but some worry it could balloon into an "economic NATO" or could end up putting corporation interest above national."

“Last year the EU and the US started difficult negotiations on a free trade agreement, which would force the EU into serious concessions, in particular, agricultural quality standards and regulation on genetically modified products. In this circumstance, restrictions against Russia will force EU countries to expand trade with the US,” the source said, citing shale gas as an example. "

The irrational behaviors of American politicians, there were historic records.

1955, the United States foolishly involved in the civil affairs of Vietnam, and then developed as civil war. The huge cost of the war pushed the United States into the debt quagmire, and caused panic on the dollar in many countries. In August 15, 1971, President Nixon has to announce that the United States stop the free convertibility between the dollar and gold, stopping to perform the obligation for foreign government or central bank using dollars to exchange the gold with the United States to have to end the Bretton Woods system that signed in July 22, 1944, and caused economic recession.

The war in Iraq, U.S. overthrew an effective government in the region that is the most difficult for governing in the world with the consequence of run self huge debts up and activated the terror activities that once under effective control.

We must have a clear sense, the fundamental reason of the Ukraine crisis is that Ukraine's integration into Euro-Atlantic security and NATO membership to have caused reaction of Russian, which also is orchestrated by the politicians of the United States with the irrational Cold War mentality.

For such behaviors, the only reasonable explanation is that, for preventing themselves to be unemployed, those brain defectives have to self-create jobs by constantly stirring disturbances, without the care of endangering the survival of mankind.

The economic sanction on Russia is some irrational politicians exertting their bestial instincts, by the power of the State Apparatus, damaging world economy, and thereby, endangering the survival of humanity.

Please look at following reports, we seem to see a group of idle street boys in gang war, without the shadow of the rational politicians from the rational governments.

List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

EU and US impose sweeping economic sanctions on Russia

Ukraine crisis: Canada levels new sanctions against Russia

Sanctions Against Russia - RIA Novosti

US Component Suppliers Could Lose Global Space Market Share Over Sanctions

Australia's Abbott Threatens Russia With Tougher Sanctions - Reports

NATO Chief Threatens Russia With More Sanctions Over Ukraine

German Arms Manufacturer Downgrades Annual Forecast Amid EU Sanctions on Russia

EU Faces Negative Consequences of Russia’s Imports Ban – Netherlands

Ukraine to Consider Draft Anti-Russian Sanctions on Friday

--- Frank Aug. 9, 2014 In Waterloo Canada

An important note:

In this blog, I wrote so many article to provide suggestions for Canada with great good will, in which I showed great appreciation for the rational of Canadain politicians, but, today, now, the first time, I have to qustion the rantional of some Canadian politicians who insist to economic sanction on Russia.

I feel sad for that I appreciated politicians are too irrational to realize that Economic Sanction on Russia is a handful idle Street Boys in Gang War to make man-made economic disaster with blindly following the mindless deffectives by hurting the interests of Canadian farmers.

The fact is that Canadians' living space is being destroyed by the Overeating Politicians.

--- Frank morning, Aug, 10, 2014 in Waterloo, On. Ca.

Aug. 7, 2014, Russian Import Ban Will Hit European Food Producers.

August 12, 2014, reprot Russia to Boost Trade With Egypt After Banning Western Imports said with that: "Russia will increase wheat exports to Egypt and imports of Egyptian agricultural products. "

"Egypt has already increased agricultural supplies to our market by 30% and is ready to increase supplies by yet another 30% in the near future."

"Russia banned most food imports from the European Union, United States, Canada, Norway and Australia in early August, after the West imposed its toughest sanctions yet on Moscow over the Ukraine crisis."

Aug, 13, 2014, report Russia ban boom for Chinese exporters said with that:" China will directly export fruit and vegetables to Russia after the Russian government banned import of agricultural products from western suppliers, according to rt.com on Tuesday."

Canada may lose the agro-products market in Russia permanently. Russians will never put their neck into noose, and waiting to be tighten again, and to be extortion again.”

Clever enough, full-heartedly intended to lift a rock to smash others, but, instead, smashed own feet.

For a better Canada, Canadian politicians must drink less, sleep more.

--- Frank morning, Aug, 13, 2014 in Waterloo, On. Ca.

Aug 6, 2014, Western Sanctions See Russia Looking to China for Military, Aerospace Components:

"Russian aerospace and military-industrial enterprises will purchase electronic components worth several billion dollars from China, Izvestia reported Wednesday, referencing a source close to Roscosmos, Russia’s Federal Space Agency."

“'We do work with the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) … Its institutions have already offered us a few dozen items, representing a direct alternative to, or slight modifications of the elements we will no longer be able to acquire because of the sanctions introduced by the United States,' Izvestia reported."

--- Frank morning, Aug, 13, 2014 in Waterloo, On. Ca.

We must be clear that the root of Ukraine Crisis is that

Ukraine's integration into Euro-Atlantic security and NATO membership has threatened the safty of Russia. For this issue, the former U.S. secretary of the States, Henry A. Kissinger have discussed with his article To settle the Ukraine crisis, start at the end in March 5 2014, following is the reprints.

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rulesince the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanu?kovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo?shenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

Russia Bans Food Imports From U.S., EU, Australia, Canada, Norway

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-food-embargo/26518515.html

Top Suppliers Of Food To Russia

In retaliation for Western sanctions over Moscow's actions over Ukraine, Russia on August 7 announced a "full embargo" on most food imports from the United States, the European Union, Australia, Canada, and Norway. Here's a breakdown of the top countries that export food to Russia.

By RFE/RL August 07, 2014

Russia says it is launching a "full embargo" on most food imports from the United States, the European Union, Australia, Canada, and Norway.

The embargo -- which will affect the import of beef, pork, poultry, fish, fruit, vegetables, cheese, milk, and other dairy products -- is in retaliation for Western sanctions imposed against Moscow for its perceived support of rebels in eastern Ukraine as well as the annexation of Crimea.

The moves were announced on August 7 by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev during televised remarks at a government meeting. He said the decision was taken on orders from President Vladimir Putin.

"There is nothing good in sanctions and it wasn't an easy decision to take, but we had to do it," Medvedev said.

The sanctions do not include baby food or products purchased by Russians when abroad.

FOLLOW THE TRADE BAN AND OTHER FALLOUT FROM THE UKRAINE CRISIS ON OUR LIVE BLOG

The ban is valid immediately and will last for one year.

"But if our partners display a constructive approach toward cooperation," he added, "then the Russian government will be ready to revise the terms of the imposed measures."

The European Union's executive warned on August 7 that it is ready "to take action" over the Russian decision.

In a statement, the European Commission said, "This announcement is clearly politically motivated. Following full assessment by the commission of the Russian Federation's measures, we reserve the right to take action as appropriate."

INFOGRAPHIC: Top Suppliers Of Food To Russia

A commission spokesman refused to give further details on what action the EU might consider.

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt tweeted on August 7: "President Putin has decided that Russia's consumers should have more expensive and less quality food. Great idea...??"

Medvedev said the move would bolster Russia's domestic agriculture.

Russia buys fruit and vegetables from the EU worth an annual 2 billion euros ($2.8 billion) and food and agricultural products from the United States worth about $1.4 billion.

The United States had said on August 6 that any such move would only deepen Russia's isolation from the international community.

White House spokeswoman Laura Lucas Magnuson said that retaliation by Moscow against Western companies or countries for sanctions imposed earlier by Washington and the European Union will cause further damage to Russia's economy.

She noted that the Russian Central Bank had previously said that a ban on food imports would increase inflation in Russia.

Medvedev said on August 7 that Russia is also considering a "serious measure" banning Western air carriers from flying over Russia on flights to and from Asia.

Any such move would significantly increase costs and lengthen flight times.

Medvedev said a final decision on whether to ban the flights by EU and U.S. airlines had not been taken, but he said Russia has decided to ban transit flights for Ukrainian airlines via its territory.

The low-cost Russian airline Dobrolyot stopped flying recently after being sanctioned by the European Union.

Medvedev also said Russia may introduce restrictions regarding the imports of planes, naval vessels, and cars.

On August 5, Putin said the government should make sure any retaliatory measures against the EU and the United States did not hurt Russian consumers.

Moscow has already imposed bans on certain agricultural imports from Ukraine, Moldova, and several EU countries, including Poland.

The Russian bans follow the latest round of sanctions imposed by the United States and the EU last month, which for the first time targeted entire sectors of the Russian economy.

The sanctions target Russia's oil and defense industries and limit the access of state-owned Russian banks to Western financial markets.

With reporting by Reuters, ITAR-TASS, AFP, dpa, and AP

Russia hits West with food import ban in sanctions row

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28687172

Steve Rosenberg visits a Moscow supermarket to see if the sanctions will affect shoppers

Australian leaders criticise Russian sanctions on food imports

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/australian-leaders-criticise-russian-sanctions-on-food-imports

Exports to Australia’s 31st largest trading partner were worth $901m in 2013, according to Dfat

Thursday 7 August 2014 23.34 BST

Coalition and Labor politicians have criticised Russia’s move to impose sanctions on Australia and other western countries in retaliation against US and EU sanctions against some its banks and individuals.

The Russian sanctions cover foodstuffs from the US, 28 EU countries, Canada, Norway and Australia.

Australian exports of goods and services to its 31st largest trading partner were worth $901m in 2013, primarily in meat, butter and live animals, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Russian food and drink market was worth ?12.2bn to Europe in 2013. It is the EU’s second largest buyer.

In the wake of the shooting down of flight MH17 the US and EU stepped up punitive measures against Russia, cutting off some key banks from European capital markets. A number of billionaire Russians, thought to be close to Putin and linked to the annexing of Crimea, were also earlier sanctioned.

In response, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, told his officials on Wednesday to come up with a list of agricultural produce and materials which the country imported from the western nations named, and ban them.

The Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop, said on Thursday night said it was “disappointing” that Russia had ignored calls to stop the flow of weapons to pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten said the sanctions made him “sick in the guts.”

“Do you want to know what I think? Who are they to put sanctions on us?” Shorten told a business summit in Melbourne.

“They don’t have the ... moral authority to do that in the light of what’s happened. I think that for the Russians to be talking about sanctions against us makes me sick in the guts.”

The deputy opposition leader, Tanya Plibersek, said on Friday morning it was important for the world to tell Russia its support of the rebels was unacceptable, even though Australia had not imposed a second round of sanctions against Russia.

“It’s a punishing of our primary production sector and farmers at a time when it seems the Russians have backed separatists and armed them, and those armed separatists have shot down a plane with Australians on it,” she said. “It’s extraordinary behaviour.”

But Putin’s decision did not mean he should be banned from the G20 leaders meeting in November, she said, as has been called for by some state premiers. “Sometimes the best way to do that is to have someone in the room to say it to their face,” she said.

The communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said it was important the world stand up to Russia. “Putin is reacting against the firm response from the rest of the world and his country, his citizens will lose out of this,” he told Nine.

Russia’s prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, was not concerned. “I am sure that our market will be filled with fresh quality Russian products, which anyway many Russians prefer to the imported ones,” he said on Wednesday.

He said the ban would last for a year and that Russian leaders were still considering banning western airlines from the country’s airspace.

Agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce said the government was looking at alternative markets in Asia to ease the blow.

“I know this is something that’s going to cause hardship in the country for rural producers,” Joyce told ABC radio. “But we will try and work around it.”

Noel Campbell, president of the Australian Dairy Farmers and chairman of the Australian Dairy Industry Council, told Guardian Australia the industry is less concerned with the loss of the Russian exports than they are by the effect of European product flooding the rest of the world market.

“We currently send about 22,000 tonnes of product into Russia, which is mainly butter, and last year it was worth $110-112m,” said Campbell.

“Our bigger concern is how it might affect globally, because obviously Europe’s been impacted by the sanctions as well - they put about 500,000 tonnes of dairy products into Russia. Our concern is more about the effect of all that product coming on to the world market, because it’s got to be placed somewhere.”

The National Farmers’ Federation’s general manager of policy, Tony Maher was also concerned about the affect of flooded markets for the wider farming sector.

“It is a concern but we won’t know until the ramifications play out what impact that will have,” he said. ‘That product has to go somewhere, then it’s likely to have an impact on global supply and prices.”

He said the sector was looking to the government to secure free trade agreements - particularly with China - to provide stability and reliability to the industry.

“We export about two thirds of what we produce in Australia. Our concern is related to any disruption in the export market,” said Maher, adding that around $400m of Australia’s $38bn in farm exports go to Russia.

“In the scheme of things, Russia is a developing market, which we obviously want to continue to develop but it’s not the size of Japan or Korea in terms of magnitude. But that’s not to say that we’re not concerned.”

Russia’s agriculture minister, Nikolai Fyodorov, said more Brazilian meat and New Zealand cheese would be imported to replace the sanctioned produce.

EU Mulling Compensation for Farmers Affected by Russian Food Ban

EU to Assess Potential Impact of Ban on European Farmers Next Week

By Matthew Dalton Aug. 8, 2014 11:16 a.m. ET

http://online.wsj.com/articles/eu-mulling-compensation-for-farmers-affected-by-russian-food-ban-1407510970

BRUSSELS—European authorities have begun examining whether to compensate farmers hit by Russia's bans on food imports, a move that would help neutralize any backlash against the European sanctions that prompted Moscow's retaliation.

European Union officials will take the next week to assess the potential impact of the bans on European farmers, said Roger Waite, a spokesman for the European Commission, the EU's executive arm. Experts from the EU's 28 member states will meet Thursday to discuss the estimates, though they will probably need more time to decide whether compensation is needed.

Cries are already arising from farmers in a number of nations for help from the EU after Moscow announced bans on products ranging from fruit to cheese to shellfish. Exports of these goods to Russia were worth $8.7 billion last year, about 7% of the bloc's total farm exports. Russia is the bloc's largest export market for food and agricultural goods.

Polish apples, Spanish fruits and vegetables and Dutch cheese are among the products hardest hit by the Russian ban. Farmers have reported that prices for a number of goods are beginning to drop as producers scramble to find other buyers for their harvest.

"Producers will try to sell the products they can't deliver in Russia on their home markets at whatever price they can," said Xavier Beulin, president of France's largest farmers union. "The EU can use crisis funds to mitigate the effects the ban could have."

Experts in Brussels will examine whether exporters will be unable to replace the Russian market, Mr. Waite said.

...............................

Testimony

Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Economic Sanctions

by Kimberly Ann Elliott, Peterson Institute for International Economics

http://www.iie.com/publications/testimony/print.cfm?ResearchId=294&doc=pub

Speech given before the Subcommittee on Trade Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC October 23, 1997

A nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in sight of surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly remedy and there will be no need for force. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, but it brings a pressure upon the nation which, in my judgment, no modern nation could resist.
President Woodrow Wilson, 1919¹

The reality, alas, has been far different from what President Wilson envisioned. The global, comprehensive, and vigorously enforced sanctions against Iraq and the former Yugoslavia have produced at best limited and tenuous results. Unilateral sanctions—even when imposed by the largest economy in the world—face far more difficult challenges, especially in an increasingly integrated international economy. Even against such small and vulnerable targets as Haiti and Panama, military force eventually was required to achieve American goals.

Extensive empirical research on the effectiveness of economic sanctions throughout this century suggests that these two cases are not unusual. Since 1970, unilateral US sanctions have achieved foreign policy goals in only 13 percent of the cases where they have been imposed. In addition to whatever effect repeated failure may have on the credibility of US leadership, other recent research suggests that economic sanctions are costing the United States $15 billion to $19 billion annually in potential exports. This, in turn, translates into 200,000 or more jobs lost in the relatively highly compensated export sector.²

Potential Benefits of Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool

The Institute's research program on economic sanctions began in the early 1980s, in the wake of the grain embargo, imposed in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the pipeline sanctions, imposed in response to the Soviet role in the Polish crackdown on the Solidarity trade union. The conventional wisdom then was that sanctions never work, that they are costly politically and economically, and that their use should be constrained.

Our research addresses these issues empirically, through assessment of the outcomes in 115 cases of economic sanctions beginning with World War I and ending in 1990. In addition to assessing outcomes, our research also identifies the conditions under which sanctions are most likely to achieve foreign policy goals.

We judged 35 percent of these cases to be at least partially successful and concluded that sanctions are most likely to be effective when:

The goal is relatively modest. This also lessens the importance of multilateral cooperation, which often is difficult to obtain.
The target country is much smaller than the country imposing sanctions, economically weak, and politically unstable. (The average sanctioner's economy was 187 times larger than that of the average target.)
The sanctioner and target are friendly toward one another prior to the imposition of sanctions and conduct substantial trade. The sanctioner accounted for 28 percent of the average target's trade in success cases but only 19 percent in failures.
The sanctions are imposed quickly and decisively to maximize impact. The average cost to the target as a percentage of GNP in success cases was 2.4 percent and 1 percent in failures.
The sanctioning country avoids high costs to itself.

Our forthcoming third edition will extend this dataset by roughly another 30 to 40 cases. Although the results to date are preliminary, we do not expect these conclusions to change significantly.

Of the 115 cases studied, the United States was a participant in 78, usually as the leading sanctioner and often alone. The results for US sanctions are broadly similar to those described above because the United States has been the dominant user of economic sanctions. Thus, the 33 percent success rate for US sanctions was virtually identical to that for the sample as a whole.

A striking result of our analysis, however, is the declining utility of US economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool, especially when they are unilateral (see table 1). Prior to the 1970s, sanctions in which the United States was involved, either alone or with others, succeeded at least partially just over 50 percent of the time. Between 1970 and 1990, however, US sanctions succeeded in just 21 percent of the cases initiated.

The results for unilateral US sanctions, those in which American policymakers received either no or only minor cooperation from other countries, are even more striking. In 55 post-war episodes, the success rate for such cases was only slightly below that for all cases involving the United States, 29 percent versus 33 percent. However, more than two-thirds of those successes occurred in the early post-war period, when the United States was successful nearly 70 percent of the time. In the 1970s and 1980s, a mere 13 percent of unilateral US sanctions achieved any success at all (see table 1).

Many factors contribute to these results but a large part of the explanation must be the effects of globalization. The United States is no longer as dominant in the world economy as it once was and its leverage has declined concomitantly. Given that these trends have continued in the 1990s, or even accelerated, there is little reason to expect that the utility of unilateral sanctions has improved in recent years.

Costs of Economic Sanctions

While the benefits of economic sanctions are elusive, the costs often are not. Trade sanctions deprive the United States of the gains from trade and frequently penalize exporting firms that are among the most sophisticated and productive in the US economy. As American sanctions have expanded and proliferated over the past 20 years, they have also led to increasing tensions between the United States and its allies and trading partners around the world.

In a recent extension of the IIE research, my colleagues and I estimated that economic sanctions cost the United States $15 billion to $19 billion in forgone merchandise exports to 26 target countries in 1995. The analysis tentatively suggests that even limited sanctions, such as restrictions on foreign aid or narrowly defined export sanctions, can have surprisingly large effects on bilateral trade flows (see table 2).

Lower exports of $15 billion to $19 billion would mean a reduction of more than 200,000 jobs in the relatively higher-wage export sector and a consequent loss of nearly $1 billion in export sector wage premiums.³ Though the estimates were calculated using trade in the base year of 1995, similar costs accrue each year that similar sanctions remain in place.

These effects could be overstated to the extent that exporters are able to redirect their goods to other markets. There are several reasons, however, to think the cumulative effects could be greater than suggested in this analysis. First, the study excludes investment flows and services exports, which in 1995 equalled nearly 40 percent of the value of goods exports. Second, one would expect the long-term effects of sanctions to be relatively more severe for suppliers of sophisticated equipment and infrastructure equipment than for exports as a whole.

Indeed, many American businessmen claim that the effects of even limited unilateral US sanctions go well beyond targeted sectors and that the effects linger long after they are lifted because US firms come to be regarded as “unreliable suppliers.” Sanctioned countries may avoid buying from US exporters even when sanctions are not in place, thus giving firms in other countries a competitive advantage in those markets. Exports lost today may also mean lower exports after sanctions are lifted because US firms will not be able to supply replacement parts or related technologies. Foreign firms may also design US intermediate goods and technology out of their final products for fear of one day being caught up in a US sanction episode. If perceived as precedents that are likely to be repeated, the secondary boycotts and extraterritorial sanctions passed last year in the Iran/Libya Sanctions Act and the Helms-Burton Act could exacerbate this unreliable supplier effect. This effect could explain why the estimated impact on US exports is higher than for the OECD countries as a group (table 2).

In a $7 trillion economy these costs may not be huge but they are tangible. Moreover, they are concentrated on sectors and firms involved in international trade and investment that are often the most sophisticated and competitive in the American economy. Research by my colleague J. David Richardson and Karin Rindal shows that:

workers in plants involved in exporting are more productive and more highly compensated than workers in comparable plants that do not export;
employment growth is nearly 20 percent higher in exporting firms and plants than in those that never exported or have stopped exporting; and,
exporting firms and plants are less likely to go out of business in an average year.

Richardson and Rindal also conclude that the communities that host exporting operations, not just the workers and shareholders in those operations, benefit from having a relatively more stable, growing, and high-performance workforce and tax base.⁴

In sum, a rapidly changing global economy means that unilateral economic sanctions are decreasingly useful yet increasingly costly. If sanctions are to have any chance at all of producing favorable outcomes, they must be multilateral, they must be carefully formulated, and they must be vigorously enforced.

Table 1: Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool

	Number of successes	Number of failures	Success ratio (successes as a percentage of total)

All cases	40	75	35%
Cases involving US as a sanctioner 1945-90 1945-70 1970-90	26 16 10	52 14 38	33% 53% 21%
Unilateral US sanctions: 1945-90 1945-70 1970-90	16 11 5	39 5 34	29% 69% 13%

Table 2: Estimated change in trade due to sanctions, 1995 (percent)

Scope of sanctions imposed^a	All countries, exports plus imports^b	OECD countries, exports only	United States, exports only

Limited	^c	-21.5	^c
Moderate	-31.2	-33.1	-68.0
Extensive	-91.9	-78.0	-96.8

Notes: a. Limited sanctions include narrowly defined trade, financial, trade, or cultural sanctions, such as suspension of foreign aid or restrictions on exports of narrow categories of goods or technologies; moderate sanctions cover more broadly defined categories of trade or finance; extensive sanctions usually encompass most trade and financial flows between two countries. b. There are 88 countries in the database. c. The coefficients on these variables suggest that even limited sanctions depress trade by 15 to 20 percent but in these tests the regression coefficients were not statistically significant at normal confidence levels.

Notes

1. Quoted in Saul K. Padover, ed., Wilson's Ideals (Washington: American Council on Public Affairs, 1942, p. 108).

2. Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Jeffrey J. Schott, and Kimberly Ann Elliott, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered: History and Current Policy, second edition, rvd. (Washington: Institute for International Economics, 1990). The third edition of this research should be available early next year. See also Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Kimberly Ann Elliott, Tess Cyrus, and Elizabeth Ann Winston, "US Economic Sanctions: Their Impact on Trade, Jobs, and Wages," Institute for International Economics Working Paper, April 1997.

3. The US Department of Commerce estimated that, in 1992, $1 billion of goods exported supported 15,500 jobs. Adjusting that figure for subsequent productivity growth gives an estimate of 13,800 jobs; multiplied by $15 billion to $19 billion gives a figure of 200,000 to 260,000 jobs. See US Department of Commerce, US Jobs Supported by Exports of Goods and Services (Washington, November 1996). This same study, along with research by Richardson and Rindal, also estimates that jobs in the export sector pay 12 percent to 15 percent better than comparable jobs in other sectors. Based on an average annual wage in manufacturing in 1995 of $34,020, the export sector wage premium would have been over $4000. See Hufbauer, et al. (1997), and J. David Richardson and Karin Rindal, Why Exports Matter: More! (Washington: Institute for International Economics and the Manufacturing Institute, February 1996).

4. See Richardson and Rindal (1996).
? 2014 Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics. 1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20036. Tel: 202-328-9000 Fax: 202-659-3225 / 202-328-5432
Site development and hosting by Digital Division.