The first antecedents of the use of sanctions in foreign policy date back to ancient Greece, when a city called Megara became the origin of a decree after a dispute with Athens. With the Decree of Megara, Athens commercially blocked the small city to see it humiliated and starving, rather than destroying it militarily.
In modern history, economic sanctions have preceded or accompanied war.
The horrors of World War I led President Woodrow Wilson to seek an alternative to armed conflict such as economic sanctions.
Wilson then described “the economic weapon” as “something more tremendous than war”; “absolute isolation…” …that makes a nation come to its senses, in the same way that it suffocates it and eliminates all inclination to fight.”
Sanctions vary and include: unilateral or collective measures against a State that violates international law, denying diplomatic recognition, boycott of sporting or cultural activities, confiscation of personal property or restrictions on the sale of weapons or international trade.
But are they effective?
Since 1962, the United States has maintained a comprehensive economic embargo against Cuba when President John F. Kennedy proclaimed a bilateral trade embargo in response to certain actions taken by the Cuban regime.
Since 1990, selective sanctions have been used against political leaders, drug traffickers or terrorists, in an attempt to avoid the humanitarian consequences resulting from general sanctions.
According to a report from the US Congress, since 2005, the United States has sanctioned Venezuelan individuals and entities that have participated in criminal or undemocratic and/or corrupt activities. The administration of President Donald Trump expanded sanctions by sectors and specifically against the regime of Nicolas Maduro, but international pressure has failed to remove him from power.
Faced with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other Western allies imposed sanctions on Moscow, in the absence of other viable options, but they do not appear to have weakened the enemy.
On November 14, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Department of the Treasury imposed its third round of sanctions against individuals and entities affiliated with Hamas following the terrorist attacks against Israel on October 7, “to protect the international financial system from the abuse of Hamas and its facilitators.”
However, as the war in Gaza enters its ninth week, it is unclear how to annihilate Hamas, keeping in mind the 130 remaining hostages held by the terrorist organization.
Fear for the fate of women still detained, who may be suffering sexual abuse, has increased concern in Washington.
Spokespeople for both the National Security Council and the State Department have discussed how Hamas may be using the sexual abuse of hostages as a weapon of war, based on images released by the Israel Defense Forces showing Israeli girls and women. being raped and murdered during the assault on October 7.
Although 110 hostages, many of them women, have been freed after negotiations in Qatar, the precise whereabouts and fate of the other 130, including American citizens, has presented President Joe Biden with one of the worst crises since he entered the House. White, in 2021.
So how to weaken the enemy?
Biden has sent senior officials such as CIA Director William Burns to try to jump-start negotiations that failed after the resumption of fighting between Israeli troops and Hamas.
It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of the hostages could be a key factor in Biden’s hopes of winning a second term.
In the last Republican presidential debate, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie promised that if he wins he would send US troops to free the hostages.
Arms control and diplomacy may remain essential strategies to stop war, but it is equally necessary to address its roots as the military approach can weaken terrorist groups, but it can also increase popular support for their cause and endanger the possibility of lasting peace.
