The viability of economic sanctions against authoritarian governments

Content
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................2
Case 1: Sanctions against Cuba....................................................................................................3
2.1 Why were sanctions imposed? What was the objective?...................................................3
2.2 Implementation of Sanctions against Cuba............................................................................3
2.3 Impact of Sanctions against Cuba: Did they Achieve the Objectives?.................................4
Case 2: Sanctions against North Korea.........................................................................................5
3.1 Why were sanctions imposed? What was the objective?...................................................5
2.2 Implementation of North Korea Sanctions.......................................................................6
2.3 Impact of North Korea Sanctions: Did they achieve their objectives?................................7
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................8
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION

In the dynamic chessboard of international politics, economic sanctions emerge as a powerful

strategic tool, capable of changing the trajectory of nations without the bloodshed of armed

conflict. Their relevance in contemporary diplomacy is inescapable, being used as an instrument

of pressure and negotiation to persuade, deter or punish state actors (Hufbauer, 2007).

The choice of these two case studies, both under authoritarian regimes, offers an interesting lens

through which to examine the effectiveness of sanctions. They operate on the basis of 'economic

pain theory', i.e., by generating economic hardship, sanctions could trigger domestic discontent

and possibly force the targeted government to change its behaviour (Drezner, 2011).

The central premise of the essay is that economic sanctions, despite being an attractive tool due

to their apparent lack of direct violence and relative ease of implementation, can have limited

1
and sometimes counterproductive results in authoritarian contexts. Unravelling the reasons for

this phenomenon will require not only an understanding of economic sanctions themselves, but

also an analysis of the unique and often challenging nature of authoritarian regimes.

In this essay, we take an in-depth look at the implementation, impact, and effectiveness of

sanctions against Cuba and North Korea, using a variety of primary and secondary sources,

including government reports, economic data, academic research, and expert analysis.

BACKGROUND

The conception of an authoritarian regime emerges from a sophisticated and multidimensional

theoretical perspective, which goes beyond the mere concentration of power in the hands of a

single authority or a small group of leaders. This characteristic, according to Linz although

distinctive, is embedded in a broader web of socio-political factors that make up the essence of

authoritarian rule. Fundamentally, the absence of political pluralism is an inherent feature of

these forms of government. The systematic silencing of opposition parties and the restriction of

civil and political liberties are part of the political fabric of these regimes. These behaviors are

reinforced by extensive control over media and information, used strategically to dominate

public discourse and reduce criticism of the regime (Linz, 2000)

Coercion and fear are recurrent operational tools used to maintain regime stability. The

application of force, arbitrary arrests and other human rights abuses are used to stifle opposition

and maintain control. Authoritarian governments, by their nature, operate with a deficit of

transparency and accountability. This lack of effective checks and balances allows these

governments to operate with minimal scrutiny of their actions. (Amnesty International, 2022)

Economic sanctions are presented as an attempt to influence the behaviors of these authoritarian

regimes. Today, economic sanctions, also referred to as "coercive diplomacy", are defined as

measures that restrict trade, investment, and other normal cross-border activities to the

detriment of a sanctioned country or entity. Sanctions, or the threat of sanctions, are intended to

discourage countries that "act inappropriately" because of the imminent seriousness of being

2
subjected to certain measures by the international community, and thus for many, economic

sanctions would be an intermediate measure between standing aside and employing physical

coercion. (Hufbauer, 2007).

Broadly speaking, three objectives can be identified in the use of economic sanctions: Economic

sanctions could be used for National and international security objectives. Other foreign policy

objectives, such as respect for human rights, care for the environment, protection of workers'

rights, family planning and support for democracy and lastly for international trade and

investment dispute settlement. (Drezner, 2011)

However, these theories encounter significant limitations. For one, they often assume perfect

rationality and decision-making based solely on costs and benefits, which geopolitical realities

often contradict. Moreover, the effectiveness of sanctions can be undermined by factors such as

domestic political resistance, assistance from third countries, or the ability to adapt to new

economic conditions (Early, 2015).

Thus, while economic sanctions are a widely used tool in foreign policy, their effectiveness is

not guaranteed. Understanding these dynamics is essential for analysing specific cases, such as

Cuba and North Korea.

Case 1: Sanctions against Cuba

2.1 Why were sanctions imposed? What was the objective?

Economic sanctions against Cuba were initially imposed by the United States in 1960, however,

after the Cuban revolution, the Eisenhower administration applied a second embargo, this time

much harsher, which was basically a response to Fidel Castro's nationalisations of many foreign

companies, including large US corporations, which suffered the expropriation of all their assets

in Cuba. We are talking about land, agricultural formations and almost all types of assets that

passed into Cuban government hands, making sanctions a central component of US foreign

policy towards Cuba. (Kelly, 2004)

3
The objective of this embargo was clear: to create a situation of poverty and shortages in Cuba

serious enough for the Cuban people to rise up against the Castros and overthrow them by

establishing a democracy in line with US interests. On a more specific level, the sanctions were

intended to pressure the Cuban government to compensate US citizens and companies whose

property had been nationalised.

2.2 Implementation of Sanctions against Cuba

The trade embargo or blockade of Cuba is a series of economic, financial and commercial

sanctions restricting the purchase and sale of goods with Cuba.

However, this measure has many more implications than it appears: -Restriction on Trading of

Goods: Under Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) regulations, any goods that have more

than 10% US-made components are not allowed to be traded. For example, if a car made in

Germany contains US-made parts that constitute more than 10% of the car's value, it cannot be

sold to Cuba. (Lopez, 2020)

- Helms-Burton Act (Libertad Act): It is important to note the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which

allows US citizens to sue foreign companies that make use of property confiscated by the Cuban

government after the 1959 revolution. (Lisio, 1996). This law has had a deterrent impact on

foreign investment in Cuba. United States. For example, in 2019, Canadian mining company

Sherritt International Corp. faced lawsuits in the United States due to its mining operation in

Cuba. (Erisman, 2022)

- Currency Restrictions: Cuba cannot conduct transactions in dollars, the most widely used

currency in the international market. (Sullivan, 2020)

2.3 Impact of Sanctions against Cuba: Did they Achieve the

4
The Cuban economy, which was heavily dependent on trade with the United States prior to the

embargo (70% of Cuba's international commerce was with the United States), has been

drastically impacted by the economic sanctions. In fact, according to Betancourt the Cuban

government estimates that the embargo annually costs the Cuban economy over $685 billion.

This economic damage is reflected in Cuba's deteriorating infrastructure, absence of

technological advancement, and an overall decline in quality of life. (Betancourt, 2014)

In addition to its economic effects, the embargo has had severe humanitarian repercussions.

According to a study published in the British Medical Journal in 2014, the lack of medicines on

the island led to outbreaks of several diseases that could have been easily eradicated,

particularly tuberculosis, and the number of tuberculosis-related deaths increased by 13% after

the embargo was implemented. (Armanda, 2014). In fact, the international community has

acknowledged these effects. The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned

the US embargo on Cuba, and 184 nations voted against the policy in June 2021. (Bolivar,

2022).

Moreover, the embargo has failed to achieve its goals: -democracy has not arrived in Cuba,

human rights are still not enforced on the island, and the embargo has decimated the Cuban

economy but has not sunk it. Since the embargo began, Cuba's GDP has been increasing.

Source: (World Bank,2020)

5
Indicating that the pressure exerted by the embargo was insufficient to force a change in

government. Moreover, the embargo has provided the Cuban regime with the perfect excuse to

blame itself for all the island's ills. For a regime such as Cuba's, having an external adversary to

point to and use provides the ideal narrative for fostering internal social unity around the

regime. (Lopez, 2020)

Case 2: Sanctions against North Korea

Economic sanctions against North Korea have been in the news continuously in our recent

history. To deter the development of North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile program, the

sanctions were implemented with the aim of achieving the peaceful denuclearisation of the

Korean peninsula. (Cheng, 2022)

North Korea has been in the international community's crosshairs due to its continued

transgressions in the area of nuclear proliferation. Since its accession to the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, there have been three notable instances in which North

Korea has broken its commitments to dismantle, freeze or make transparent its nuclear

programme. The first was in 1985, followed by breaches in 1994 and 2003. (Kihl, 2006)

Continued defiance has led the UN, the European Union and the United States to impose severe

economic sanctions against North Korea, seeking to destabilise and discourage the expansion of

its nuclear programme.

2.2 Implementation of North Korea Sanctions

These economic sanctions, which were last modified in 2017, include:

The export prohibition on coal, iron ore, and seafood was included in 2017's UN Security

Council Resolution 2371. These are the three most important exports for North Korea and a

significant source of revenue for the country. According to a 2017 report by Noland, the

6
prohibition could reduce North Korea's export revenue by one-third, or roughly $1 billion

annually.

Restriction on oil imports: The restriction imposed on the amount of oil North Korea can

import, 500,000 barrels per year of petroleum derivatives and 4 million barrels per year of crude

oil, has had a severe impact on the country's economy and military capability, as it relies heavily

on imported oil for its industry and military hardware (Kim, 2019).

An embargo on all military equipment and a prohibition on the import and export of armaments:

This measure aims to restrict the growth of North Korea's nuclear and military programmes. For

example, in 2017, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2375,

which prohibited all exports of arms and associated equipment to North Korea (Zapico, 2021).

In an effort to cut off a vital source of foreign currency for the North Korean regime, the United

Nations in 2017 ordered the repatriation of all North Korean labourers abroad (The Guardian,

2017).

2.3 Impact of North Korea Sanctions: Did they achieve their

The economic sanctions imposed on North Korea have proved to be less effective than

anticipated, despite their impact on the country. Contrary to expectations, the ruling elite of the

country has been able to mitigate the effect of these sanctions on their standard of living. Recent

reports, including one from the United Nations in 2019, indicate that North Korean leaders

continue to enjoy luxury products, such as high-end automobiles and real estate, despite explicit

import restrictions. This reality, despite the stringent sanction’s measures, reinforces the

perception that the sanctions are not affecting the country's elite as severely as anticipated.

(Wertz, 2020)

In addition, despite the economic hardship caused by the sanctions, there has been little civil

unrest in North Korea. By exerting strict control over the media, the regime has been able to

7
dictate the national discourse. This has enabled the North Korean government to attribute the

country's economic difficulties to external sanctions. Consequently, the North Korean populace

views the international community as the primary source of their difficulties, rather than the

government. (Cheng, 2022)

Most alarmingly, North Korea has continued to develop nuclear weapons and missiles despite

the sanctions. North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests since 2006 and has continued to

develop and test ballistic missiles, as reported by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Despite sanctions, North Korea continues to advance its nuclear programme, which calls into

doubt the efficacy of these measures. (Wertz, 2015)

Conclusion
The analysis of economic sanctions against North Korea and Cuba provides insight into the

limitations of such measures in countries with authoritarian regimes. In both cases, these

strategies appear to have had a limited effect in achieving the desired political objectives, while

contributing to exacerbating human and economic suffering. These regimes often show an

apparent disregard for the welfare of their populations and maintain almost absolute control,

severely limiting people's ability to express or act on their discontent.

Take the case of Cuba as an example. The economic embargo imposed by the United States has

had a severe impact on the country's public health. As previously shown in a study by the

British Medical Journal, the number of deaths from tuberculosis increased by 13% after the

implementation of the embargo. This increase is largely attributed to Cuba's inability to obtain

necessary medicines due to trade restrictions. It is alarming and deeply troubling that measures

intended to promote political change and democratisation can have such a direct and destructive

impact on the health and well-being of the population.

In the case of North Korea, despite decades of multilateral economic sanctions, Kim Jong-un's

regime has shown surprising resilience. Far from bringing about a change in behaviour in terms

of nuclear and missile development, sanctions appear to have had minimal impact on the ruling

8
elite. According to UN reports, this elite continues to enjoy luxury goods, despite specific bans

against the import of such items. This raises questions as to whether sanctions are really

reaching those in power, or whether they are inflicting disproportionate suffering on the

population at large. Moreover, the North Korean regime's control of information has allowed

the sanctions to be presented as an attack by the international community, strengthening the

regime's narrative and its ability to mobilise nationalist support.

This dilemma raises a fundamental ethical question: is it acceptable for economic sanctions to

impose a high human cost in an attempt to pressure authoritarian regimes to change their

policies or behaviour? And, more profoundly, are these sanctions truly effective in their goal of

promoting change, or do they simply strengthen these regimes' control over their populations by

providing an external scapegoat for economic hardship?

In conclusion, while economic sanctions may have a role to play in foreign policy, it is crucial

that a critical and thoughtful examination of their use, particularly against authoritarian regimes,

is undertaken. There must be a balance between the intent to promote political change and the

need to minimise human suffering. Alternative strategies, which may range from diplomacy to

more coordinated international pressure, should be explored in depth, always considering the

human rights and welfare of the people of these countries.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kihl, Y.W. and Kim, H.N., 2014. North Korea: The Politics of Regime Survival: The Politics of
Regime Survival. Routledge.
Amnesty International. (2022). Amnesty International Report 2021/22.
Armada, F., Muntaner, C., & Navarro, V. (2014). Health and social security reforms in Latin
America: the convergence of the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and transnational
corporations. International Journal of Health Services, 41(4), 665-680.
Betancourt, R.R., 2014. Should the US lift the Cuban embargo? Yes; it already has; and it
depends!. Cuba in Transition, 23, pp.175-185.
Bolivar, A.V.D., 2022. The US unilateral coercive measures imposed in Latin America: A study
based on the experience of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Sorbonne Student Law Review-
Revue judicious des étudiants de la Sorbonne, 5(2).

9
Cheng, M., 2022. AUKUS: The changing dynamic and its regional implications. European
Journal of Development Studies, 2(1), pp.1-7.
Drezner, D.W. (2011). Sanctions Sometimes Smart: Targeted Sanctions in Theory and
Practice. International Studies Review, 13(1), pp.96–108.
Early, B.R., 2015. Busted sanctions: Explaining why economic sanctions fail. Stanford
University Press.
Erisman, H.M., 2022. CUBAN COBALT. International Journal of Cuban Studies, 14(2),
pp.343-358.
Hufbauer, G.C., Schott, J.J., Elliott, K.A. and Oegg, B., 2007. Economic Sanctions
Reconsidered: History and current policy (3rd edn) Washington DC: Institute for International
Economics. Washington DC.
Kelley, T.M., 2004. Cuba and Economic Sanctions: A Cold War Strategy in the 21st Century.
ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA.
Kim, K.S., 2019. North Korea’s Petroleum Industry-Facilities, Demand/Supply, Distribution
and UN Sanctions. Demand/Supply, Distribution and UN Sanctions (December 30, 2019).
Linz, J.J., 2000. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Lisio, S.A., 1996. Helms—Burton and the point of diminishing returns. International
Affairs, 72(4), pp.691-712.
López, E.D. and Rodríguez, S.B., 2020. La conformación de la política de Estados Unidos hacia
Cuba: las sanciones como política pública. Estudios del Desarrollo Social: Cuba y América
Latina, 8, pp.172-198.
McGrath, M. and Wertz, D., 2015. North Korea’s Ballistic Missile Program. The National
Committee on North Korea, August, 5.
Noland, M., 2009. The (non-) impact of UN sanctions on North Korea. asia policy, (7), pp.61-
88.
Sullivan, M.P., Beittel, J.S., DeBruyne, N.F., Meyer, P.J., Seelke, C.R., Taft-Morales, M. and
Villarreal, M., 2020. Latin America and the Caribbean: US Policy and Issues in the 116th
Congress.
Wertz, D., 2020. Understanding US and International Sanctions on North Korea. National
Committee on North Korea, Issue Brief. November. https://www. ncnk.
org/sites/default/files/issue-briefs/Sanctions_Special_Report. pdf.
World Bank Open Data. (n.d.). World Bank Open Data. [online] Available at:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?
end=2020&locations=CU&start=1970&view=chart [Accessed 19 Jun. 2023].
Zapico Alonso, M.M., 2021. A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE LEGAL AND ILLEGAL
FORMS OF ACQUISITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: FRANCE AND UK vs NORTH
KOREA AND PAKISTAN.

10