The Human Cost of Economic Sanctions

In today’s increasingly integrated global economy, economic sanctions became the center of public policy debate and the primary way by which developed countries, particularly the United States, enforce their foreign policy objectives. In principle, sanctions offer a seemingly “proportional,” less violent, and cheaper response to issues of public policy and an alternative to the usage of military force. However, during today’s global pandemic and economically challenging times, the impact of US sanctions and embargoes extend far beyond their initial purposes. More often than not, sanctions raise ethical concerns given their outstanding impact on everyday civilians and their reduced effect on the actions of the targeted government. 

Economic sanctions became the most commonly used policy tool for the United States and other powerful parties in the post-Cold War era, imposed on countries such as Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba, and, more recently, Syria. Economic sanctions place restrictions on activities like trade and investment to reinforce commitments to behavioural norms, such as the protection of human rights. However, the general understanding of the term “economic sanction” contradicts the reality of its consequences. Economic sanctions represent powerful weapons that often produce inadvertent and adverse consequences, and their effect proves noticeably highest on countries that are already suffering economic distress.

In August 2017, when the United States imposed financial sanctions on Venezuela, the country was already facing a severe economic crisis, primarily linked to its oil production plummeting and to the beginning of a catastrophic hyperinflation. These sanctions were imposed amidst PSUV leader Nikola Maduro’s brutal regime characterized by human rights violations, authoritarianism, and rampant corruption. Former president Donald Trump expanded sanctions implemented by the Obama administration in 2015 by adding an oil embargo that blocked the purchase of petroleum from Venezuela’s public oil company, which generates 90% of the government’s revenue from the oil industry. Additionally, the US government froze $5.5 billion in Venezuelan assets held in over fifty banks and institutions worldwide.

Although the country was facing economic hardship prior to the implementation of US economic sanctions, the harsh restrictions plunged the country into further distress. The monthly decline in oil production reached levels five times that of pre-sanction numbers, and many foreign companies stopped doing business with Venezuela under pressure from the United States. In addition, the Venezuelan bolivar experienced marked depreciation after the sanctions were implemented, surpassing 1400 bolivars to the American dollar by the end of 2019.While the sanctions do not restrict the purchase of food and medicine by the Venezuelan state, the hyperinflation makes even the cheapest medicine a fortune for average citizens that only hold bolivars. All in all, the majority of the struggle of Venezuelans stems from lost revenue from Venezuelan oil sanctions,  and only partially by the corruption in Maduro’s government. One could argue that in an effort to free Venezuelan civilians from the harsh impacts of the Maduro administration, the sanctions placed the average Venezuelan into more dire straits than ever before.

Similarly, since the beginning of the Syrian war in 2011, the US government started pursuing heavy economic sanctions on Syria. In November 2016, the Trump administration built on Obama-era sanctions by imposing another set of strict economic sanctions on Syria, despite the fact that Syrians had already been suffering from a six-year humanitarian crisis, an economic depression, and degrading living conditions. These sanctions entailed stricter trade restrictions condemning not only US-Syrian relations, but also any country that entered into an economic relationship with Syria. Although the sanctions allowed for humanitarian aid, very little was mentioned in relation to what is acceptable and what is not. As a result, the Caesar Act was introduced in 2019  “to enhance the protection of civilians” by focusing on targeting economic activity, thus excluding medical and food supplies intended for civilian use. However, the reduction of economic activity and the downfall of the Syrian currency were enough to annihilate the ability of civilians to satisfy their basic human needs, including bread, water, electricity, and even medicine.

As the little that had remained of Syria’s economy relied heavily on exporting foodstuffs, humanitarian aid, and the Syrian diaspora sending money back home, the sanctions slowed down - if not eliminated - most sources of economic continuity within the country. Consequently, the Syrian currency experienced an exponential decrease in value, and the country faced fuel shortages, hyperinflation, extreme levels of poverty, unemployment, and a 90% decline in Syrian per-capita budget between 2012 and 2021. Such conditions would be devastating for any country without the added effects of sanctions; in Syria – a country in which more than 13 million people are currently dependent on humanitarian assistance – such effects only serve to plunge civilians into a deeper state of crisis. 

President Biden recently took initiatives to remove the ban of travellers from Muslim-majority countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen, which represents a first step towards acknowledging the impartiality of civilians from the political turbulence they faced back home. However, Biden has thus far shown no initiative in renegotiating Venezuelan sanctions beyond a vague mention of “more effectively targeted” sanctions and humanitarian assistance. In addition, Biden hasn’t addressed the need for loosening sanctions on Syrian civilians. Thus, Biden’s declaration of the end of the “America-first era” seems to only exist in words, and not in action. Given the weakening of the influence of the United States in the global hierarchy, implementing fewer degrading strategies spare average citizens will reduce reliance of the targeted countries on growing economic powerhouses such as China and Russia. Given today’s global pandemic, the US deals with the highest numbers of COVID-19 cases in the world and seems to have paused its involvement in matters of foreign affairs. This fades the cruciality of the Syrian crisis and implies that the US has “more important things” to deal with than the welfare of long-suffering Syrians. 

Economic sanctions raise the ethical question as to whether the suffering imposed on vulnerable civilians in the target country present an effective method of applying pressure on political leaders. Despite seemingly targeting a corrupt ruling class, economic sanctions cause the most vulnerable sections of society to struggle the most. Clearly, economic sanctions have consequences that are too indefinite and arbitrary; they must remain focused on those responsible for the offending behavior, not on the entirety of the people within the region in question. In order to avoid jeopardizing the interests of the general populations affected by sanctions, the Biden administration must issue a more focused response. Failing to do so only raises the question as to whether sanctions truly aim towards “enhancing the protection of civilians,” rather than serving only as political posturing by western powers.