Amazon.com Widgets
  • Imposing sanctions is a useful tool when negotiating with another country.

    I believe that issuing sanctions against another country is a useful tool when in negotiations with them or their allies. Additionally sanctions can also be useful when attempting to stop a country from committing inhuman acts against its people such as rape, apartheid, human trafficking, and slavery.

    Posted by: Quibarce
  • Yes, economic sanctions are useful tools when it comes to international relationships, because they are an effective way to fight without using violence.

    Countries should consider economic sanctions as useful tools when dealing with other countries. To ban trades with countries who are causing international waves is a way of fighting with force, but fighting without violence. It will affect the economy in these countries, and demand that the government respond in a manner that works with the countries who are stopping the trade.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • I agree sanctions are a useful foreign tool, because it punishes those nations who do not serve the will of its people.

    If a country decides to do something and it is not benefiting the people, sanctions should be placed and used. The goal of any government should be to serve its people and country. If a country is not complying to what its people want, then sanctions are useful. With no aid, and if it is not able to survive on its own, maybe then the sanctions can be uplifted.

    Posted by: StripperMor
  • Yes, because sanctions work, and are effective in many different ways.

    Sanctions normally only work to pressure smaller countries into abiding by the laws of the governing NATO nations. A majority of smaller countries rely on bigger countries to supply them with most of their goods, such as foods, building materials and raw goods. Most of the time, these smaller nation will have to give in to the larger nation in order to meet the demand to sustain their government.

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • Yes, they have been proven to work.

    There are two ways to look at this. First, would sanctions against the US hurt us? Certainly, they would. We're dependent on other countries at this time. Secondly, should we put sanctions on other countries. It's the same as a friendship. Sometimes a friend needs to be punished for what they're doing, helped, or corrected. We need to be a good friend to our allies and our enemies, sanctions are a form of discipline that are warranted at times.

    Posted by: R34d3Homey
  • It's a vital, but not that effective.

    Sanctions basically show others that we have the power, but are not willing to go for blood directly. But, sometimes, it creates an opposite reaction of hatred, violence and challenge, which will end in war.

    Posted by: R0xbarm
  • Sanctions can be helpful when dealing with a nation that is unwilling to cooperate.

    Sanctions are a safe and non-lethal way to deal with foreign nations that are not cooperating with the international community. A nation is more likely to be willing to negotiate if it's profits and exports are affected. Although this does negatively affect the citizens of the country; it is a better option than violence.

    Posted by: VasilBuddy
  • Yes, much more effective than using military force.

    I think using sanctions as a foreign policy tool is a much better way to deal with certain countries that insist on trying to make trouble. This is much more diplomatic than using military force which can just lead to more unnecessary violence and more war. To deprive a country of the ability to trade or do business with other countries hits them economically and money kind of makes the world go around.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • I believe sanctions are a useful foreign policy tool because there is evidence to support that sanctions work to reign in oppressive governments.

    It is my belief that sanctions do in fact work. I say that with the caveat that they don't work in every situation however. But let us take into account the history of South Africa and its struggle with apartheid. Sanctions were enforced by the international community in a consistent and considered manner. They hit them (the regime) where it hurts. There were boycotts of their fruit exports, and international banks discontinued loaning the apartheid regime money leading to lack of funding for their operations. The oil embargo had a huge impact on their bottom line as they were dependent on foreign oil. As a result the people of South Africa saw the end of apartheid in 1994 after almost three decades of violence against its peoples.

    Posted by: g0ggleslife
  • I think in most cases a country that is more powerful can convince one less powerful through sanctions.

    The question asks if this is a useful tool, and with that I do agree. Who can argue that a bully standing over you saying 'if you don't give me your lunch money I'm going to clobber you' will be listened to? That being said I don't agree that they should always be used, there should only be special circumstances that allow for their use. They should be restricted to when countries are violating the basic human rights of their people, and the people themselves should not be included in those sanctions only the country. I know this sounds tricky, but it can be done.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • Sanctions are a horrible foreign policy tool, they only hurt the people and rarely those in charge.

    Sanctions as a disciplinary tool rarely harm the government they are aimed at. Instead it is the people who suffer, as supplies and resources they depended upon run out. While eventually something is done, it usually involves a lot of suffering from the average person. How does inflicting more harm solve the problem?

    Posted by: R0II4Icy
  • Sanctions are not a useful foreign policy tool in producing positive results.

    Sanctions are not a useful foreign policy tool because they are too wide in their application and lack the necessary impact to make a change. A government that is attempting to assert their presence as a world leader can only do so by garnering attention to their cause, and sanctions directed at them can often be a good public relations stunt.

    Posted by: ThegaXen
  • Sanctions hurt the poor and do not affect the rich and powerful. We cannot be an example if we are working through cruelty.

    Sanctions tend to harm the poor in a society who do not have the social resources or additional money to get what they need through alternate channels Even if the sanctions are primarily to effect luxury goods and services some of these goods will get through, and when they do class distinctions and characteristics will be more obvious and organized crime will have a natural life support system. It's even worse when medical goods or basic foods are what is sanctioned, they poor and unconnected will be most hurt, not the people who have the power to change policy.

    Posted by: groovybox
  • Objective is clear...................

    What ever the country done it's belongs to their needs and wants. Some one can see that it is totally harmful for others. But it will really help help for them. As a example if country doing some nuclear action for fulfill there power necessities we cant say that harmful to others. If any organization try to against it its totally wrong. Because there objective is very clear. There for at that type of situation getting any sanction against that particular country it is a reason to break there human rights. There for need to give a chance for them.

  • Sanctions hurt the people

    Economic sanctions do not seem to affect the ruling class, they affect the people, their economy, inflation, and ability to buy goods. If the country is a democracy the leader of the country being sanctioned against may not be elected next time, but some elections are rigged. Also sanctioning a country creates an animosity between the people of the sanctioned country and the people of the countries doing the sanctioning which can cause further foreign policy issues.

  • Sanctions are a bad idea.

    When the U.S. sanctions other countries, they can easily become enemies with that country. They can cause wars and inflict suffering on innocent people. When sanctions fail to make an impact on the targeted country, they harm the U.S. instead. It is better to not take the risk of sanctioning a country and causing a war, than sanctioning a country and possibly not affecting it, but the U.S. instead.

  • An example of a Syrian living abroad!

    I'm 24 year old Syrian who moved to Geneva to follow an MBA program majoring in banking and finance. Switzerland is a very expensive country, and my father was the one supporting my financial needs. The EU and US financial sanctions made it almost impossible for my father to send me money from Syria, or from anywhere in the world.

    He can't send me money because he's Syrian, he can't use his accounts in the other countries. The only way to receive money now is for him to carry them "cash" when visiting me, which is absurd, or asking for the help of a non-Syrian friend of his and pay him cash when he sees him next time.

    It's the people who suffer, not the leaders.

  • Not working perfectly

    Sanctions do work, but not always in the way we expected them to. They can be a basis for international cooperation, or a target for feuding within an alliance. It can be easy to impose sanctions, but not so easy to know how or when to lift them. Sanctions can kill and cause wars, just as much as preventing them. It should also be understood that sanctions are not a substitute for policy and that sanctions can hit those citizens in a country one is trying to help. Sanctions can bring untold suffering to the population of a country. Above all, sanctions take time to work, and during that time the suffering of the innocent will increase. It is for this reason that sanctions need to be flanked by a series of measures which can be escalated in order to remain credible and accelerate change. Credibility means that any measures threa- tened will be undertaken and that these measures will hurt.

  • Easy to indoctrine people who are oppressed.

    Sanctions like we know,pushes countries towards an economical corner,which results to a lot of innocent people being effected with this policy,esp the middle class people.They lost their jobs,work to sustain a life.With the tendency for people to be oppressed,Dictators and regimes will seek this opportunity by indoctrinating them tht the whole world is againts them,(esp when if this sanctions comes from UN) and its bcause of them they are also abt to face poverty.And since regimes can always circulate their money in an illegal way.Thts when a lot of this oppressed people will tend to join those regimes because of them wanting to have a sustainable work and to avenge those who destroyed their chances to live.

  • Who is to blame..?

    When people suddenly find food, clothing, medicine, and other goods in short supply, when they find themselves a lot poorer and focusing desperately on day-to-day survival, they will take the time to find out who is responsible. And guess what? They do find out. Although governments in embargoed countries like Iran, Iraq, and Cuba strictly control what newspapers, radio, and television report, one piece of information that is sure not to be censored is the role of outside governments in the country’s economic distress.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.