There is no doubt that international economic interests influence domestic policy. As Frieden and Rogowski elucidate, that influence extends from "common markets and investment" to "widespread repudiation of tax, regulatory, and macroeconomic policies that inhibit international competitiveness" (25). In many ways countries' economic success depends on their imports and exports, and their ability to compete in the international arena. But what happens when a state's politics provokes economic consequences, namely, sanctions or an embargo? Here we will examine the effects of the U.S. sanctions on Iran and embargo on Cuba, as well as the recent changes in the U.S. approach to those countries
The U.S. has imposed an embargo on Cuba since 1960, which means that almost all imports and exports from and to Cuba are forbidden. However, this is U.S. domestic law and means that Cuba is still free to trade with other nations; it is currently a member of the World Trade Organization. The reasons for the embargo have endured over time: A lack of democracy in Cuba and U.S. financial claims on that state. However, critics might claim that the U.S. maintains the embargo for political, not ethical or financial, reasons. Buttressing this claim is the fact that despite the embargo, Cuba has made no moves towards establishing a democratic state.
This year, 2015, President Obama has charted a new approach to Cuban-American relations. He intends to relax the travel restrictions dramatically, and set higher limits for imports and exports between the two countries. [1] This is not a complete lifting of the embargo, but given the U.S.'s unchanging stance over the last 55 years, his move is significant and may means there is a future for normalizing economic, if not political, relations.
On the other hand, Iran has suffered more visibly from the sanctions imposed by the U.S. since 1984. The sanctions are not all-encompassing, and over time certain regulations have been relaxed, but the U.S. has kept sanctions in place among growing concern about Iran's development of nuclear weapons, specifically their uranium enrichment program. The U.S. has gone one step further and promoted a worldwide boycott against Iran.
Some critics perceive that continued sanctions mean the U.S. is shooting itself in the foot, given Iran's petroleum reserves. The U.S. would stand to save tens of billions of dollars annually were the sanctions lifted.
But it seems that the long-lasting sanctions may finally be turning into a useful bargaining chip, as discontent among Iranians about their economic situation is creating political pressure for negotiations with the U.S. over Iran's nuclear program. President Obama is trying to negotiate a deal with Iran, in which Iran would slow or suspend its nuclear development program in return for a relaxing of sanctions by the U.S.
This is a fascinating moment in U.S. international economic history, as Obama makes moves towards changing longstanding economic relations with Cuba and Iran. The outcome of the two diplomatic efforts may chart a course for future U.S. policy - or provoke an equally impactful backlash.
[1] The White House: Charting a New Course on Cuba. 15 March 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/cuba.
[2] Dean A. DeRosa & Gary Clyde Hufbauer, "Normalization of Economic Relations, National Foreign Trade Council, 21 November 2008.
The U.S. has imposed an embargo on Cuba since 1960, which means that almost all imports and exports from and to Cuba are forbidden. However, this is U.S. domestic law and means that Cuba is still free to trade with other nations; it is currently a member of the World Trade Organization. The reasons for the embargo have endured over time: A lack of democracy in Cuba and U.S. financial claims on that state. However, critics might claim that the U.S. maintains the embargo for political, not ethical or financial, reasons. Buttressing this claim is the fact that despite the embargo, Cuba has made no moves towards establishing a democratic state.
This year, 2015, President Obama has charted a new approach to Cuban-American relations. He intends to relax the travel restrictions dramatically, and set higher limits for imports and exports between the two countries. [1] This is not a complete lifting of the embargo, but given the U.S.'s unchanging stance over the last 55 years, his move is significant and may means there is a future for normalizing economic, if not political, relations.
On the other hand, Iran has suffered more visibly from the sanctions imposed by the U.S. since 1984. The sanctions are not all-encompassing, and over time certain regulations have been relaxed, but the U.S. has kept sanctions in place among growing concern about Iran's development of nuclear weapons, specifically their uranium enrichment program. The U.S. has gone one step further and promoted a worldwide boycott against Iran.
Some critics perceive that continued sanctions mean the U.S. is shooting itself in the foot, given Iran's petroleum reserves. The U.S. would stand to save tens of billions of dollars annually were the sanctions lifted.
But it seems that the long-lasting sanctions may finally be turning into a useful bargaining chip, as discontent among Iranians about their economic situation is creating political pressure for negotiations with the U.S. over Iran's nuclear program. President Obama is trying to negotiate a deal with Iran, in which Iran would slow or suspend its nuclear development program in return for a relaxing of sanctions by the U.S.
This is a fascinating moment in U.S. international economic history, as Obama makes moves towards changing longstanding economic relations with Cuba and Iran. The outcome of the two diplomatic efforts may chart a course for future U.S. policy - or provoke an equally impactful backlash.
[1] The White House: Charting a New Course on Cuba. 15 March 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/cuba.
[2] Dean A. DeRosa & Gary Clyde Hufbauer, "Normalization of Economic Relations, National Foreign Trade Council, 21 November 2008.
Hannah, I think you provide an interesting perspective on sanctions, especially within the context of policy changes towards Cuba and Iran. Tiffany had a similar perspective here: http://diplomaticdebates.blogspot.com/2015/03/time-to-rethink-economic-sanctions.html.
ReplyDeleteMy girlfriend is a Iranian national studying as PhD student here, and we discussed her perspective on the efficacy of sanctions. Our conclusion was that the sanctions have not succeeded in creating sufficient popular support and momentum for reform because the Iranian government has censored political dissidents and stifled protests.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125978649644673331
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/us/politics/24webobama.html?_r=0
http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/the-bright-spot-in-irans-latest-political-repression/
Ultimately, I would argue sanctions work when they can create internal momentum for reform, and Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and Russia all provide compelling examples of how the sanctions can fall short.