Sanctions: A futile exercise or political power tool?.
According to Leyton-Brown in World Politics economic sanctions, seeing that this is the form it usually takes on, are "deliberate government actions to inflict economic deprivation on a target state or society, through the limitation or cessation of customary economic relations".
Economic sanctions are an increasingly popular way of economic statecraft available to governments. It is an alternative to applying military force; it is enacted to express outrage and to change the behaviour of the target. According to Hufbauer et al there have been 120 episodes of foreign policy sanctions since World War I, 104 of which were enacted since World War II.
Despite their frequent use, most efforts to apply economic sanctions have failed. This is why many have questioned their effectiveness. Why is failure so prevalent? And why have economic sanctions become the weapon of choice in diplomatic confrontations in the wake of the Cold War? I will look at this, based on the use of sanctions against South Africa in the apartheid years.
The usefulness of economic sanctions as instruments of foreign policy enjoys at best a chequered history. In the case of South Africa, it illustrates the ability of sanctions to produce policy dividends.
To force an end to apartheid the United Nations implemented a voluntary arms and oil embargo in 1963 against South Africa, which became mandatory in 1977.
Because the US was a big importer of South African mineral reserves, the US attitude towards South Africa was of special concern to the opponents of apartheid. The question was asked, who would be the victims of international sanctions: South African blacks, already suffering under an oppressive white government or the white minority regime that perpetuated apartheid? In 1981, Ronald Regan adopted a policy of constructive engagement against South Africa, which was a soft diplomatic approach.