What do Russia, the Taliban, the Nicolás Maduro regime and the PCC (Primeiro Comando da Capital) have in common? All were targets of US sanctions, but continue with their activities, in a sample of how the economic barriers adopted by the Americans have limited results.
Being punished with sanctions means entering a block list: generally speaking, the person or entity affected is prohibited from doing business with the government and companies of a country. Assets linked to it that are in a territory or under the control of companies of a nation are frozen. Entities that interact with the names on the list can be fined and, in the worst case, blocked.
Today, there are at least 37 US sanctions programs in place, affecting 21 countries. In recent decades, the White House has applied the tactic against many cases of internal conflict and human rights abuses, such as in Afghanistan, North Korea, Libya, Nicaragua and Syria.
There were also measures against terrorist groups and criminals. The PCC, for example, entered the list of restrictions in 2021 in an effort to curb drug trafficking. Anyone deemed to be a member of the faction may have assets frozen or be prevented from traveling to the US. But the problems that the embargoes seek to solve often continue for years, as governments or armed groups change little.
A study by the PIIE (Peterson Institute for International Economics), based in Washington, analyzed 174 sanctions cases throughout the 20th century. Among them, 34% had some success in their initial objective.
Cases involving simpler demands, such as the release of political prisoners, were successful in half of the cases. More ambitious goals, such as regime change (31% success) and an end to military actions (21%), in the case of Russia in the midst of the Ukraine War, are less common.
“If you have to use sanctions, something has already gone wrong. Studies done 20 years ago already showed that trade disputes are more successfully resolved when sanctions are just a threat. Once in use, the success rate drops,” says Colin Rowat , professor at the University of Birmingham and researcher on the topic.
Experts point out that measuring their success accurately is difficult because their goals are not always clear. Take the case of Russia: when announcing the measures against the country in recent weeks, President Joe Biden said they were aimed at punishing Vladimir Putin for the invasion of Ukraine.
The Democrat sought to highlight the harshness of the sanctions as the strongest ever applied. But when asked if they would be able to quickly contain the invasion, he admitted that it would not be so. “No one expects sanctions to prevent something from happening. They take time. He [Putin] won’t say, ‘Oh my God, these sanctions are coming, I’m leaving,” joked Biden, on February 24, the day the conflict began.
The American leader pointed out that the measures would gradually drain Russia’s ability to pay for its military machine. After 50 days of war, Moscow is advancing slowly, but it’s hard to say how much sanctions have helped. Other actions, such as sending weapons to Ukraine, also played a role.
For Paolo Pasquariello, a professor of finance at the University of Michigan, one difficulty in assessing the tactic’s impact is not knowing what would have happened if the measures were not adopted.
“Sanctions are designed to prevent negative outcomes. If they work and they prevent them, we don’t see the impact. But just because we don’t see it, we can’t ignore it.” [o que não aconteceu] when evaluating the result of the measures”, he says. “What would have happened in Ukraine if the measures had not been applied? Russia has so far failed to turn its neighbor into a satellite state. Has Cuba become a serious military threat to the US? Would North Korea and Iran have developed stronger weapons?”
Another aspect that economic punishments aim to provoke, in the affected society, is popular dissatisfaction, generating domestic pressure on leaders. Just as Maduro has so far not left power in Venezuela, the punishments against Moscow have ended up uniting the Russian population around President Vladimir Putin, who now enjoys 83% popularity, according to the independent institute Levada.
The researchers also point out that, to ensure the effectiveness of the strategy, it is necessary to garner as much international support as possible. The case of Iran is the greatest example: economic blockades adopted with the approval of the UN led the country to negotiate the reduction of its nuclear research. A deal was struck in 2015 whereby Tehran accepted Western demands in exchange for economic relief. However, the US withdrew from the deal three years later and unilaterally reimposed sanctions.
Iraq, in the 1990s, also suffered massive punishment from the international community, but the outcome was different. The measures greatly impoverished the country, but did not lead dictator Saddam Hussein to leave power. It would only fall after the American invasion in 2003.
The case led countries to seek more calibrated sanctions, to try to prevent humanitarian crises, but the model did not work well either. “If the purchase of food is technically allowed, but the sale of products such as oil is not, the target country will not have the resources to buy food,” says Rowat of the University of Birmingham.
Seeking vetoes on leaders rather than products or countries also creates loopholes. Individuals can open accounts abroad under false names or travel with doctored passports. In the Russian case, countries like China, India and Brazil have not adhered to the sanctions and can help Moscow seek alternatives to keep the economy running. “India, for example, may be interested in buying oil at a slightly cheaper price from Russia”, evaluates Vinícius Vieira, professor of international relations at FGV.
The move is reminiscent of that of Venezuela: prevented from trading oil with the US, it sought buyers elsewhere. There are reports of schemes to disguise the origin of the product, thus preventing punishments to those who purchased barred Venezuelan items or even to the owners of ships used in transport.
Russia also has Europe’s dependence on its products in its favor. In March, the country earned 38% less than expected from the sale of oil and gas, but still received the equivalent of $3.6 billion that month, according to Moscow.
“Sanctions against the sale of fuels have not yet taken place because the costs for the countries that apply them would be very high. I suspect that only extreme acts by Russia could make Europe impose this drastically”, evaluates Pasquariello.
The US began to bet more heavily on sanctions after World War I. “A boycotted nation is close to surrender. Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, and deadly remedy and you will not need to use force. It is a pressure that no modern nation can resist,” President Woodrow Wilson said in 1919. But 20 years later, in 1939, Germany went to war against its neighbors even after suffering severe economic punishment, giving rise to the biggest world confrontation ever occurred.
In the 1960s, Cuba was the target of embargoes that last until today, but the communist dictatorship remains in power. And the Taliban, targeted since the 1990s, managed to regain control of Afghanistan in 2021.
Now, it’s Russia’s turn, which continues against Ukraine despite “the strongest sanctions ever applied”.
