A Weekly Training Session 1 Embargo Sanctions

If a country is cooperative, the promise of rewards will help to achieve the dominate countries goals. For countries to refuse to cooperate, the easiest way for the superior country to achieve desired results is to impose sanctions on the country. Economic sanctions can be disastrous for a country that’s economy is export driven and are relatively low risk for the imposing nation. Cuba is an example of world powers imposing their will on a county of lesser means in such a way.

Through my lifetime, I have witnessed the ever-changing world of business and the myriad of global and regional, socioeconomic and political changes accompanied with it. This has not only shaped my actual reality, but has also sparked a genuine interest in global affairs and International economics and finance. From events of the 2008 global financial crisis, to more recent events in my home country Nigeria, who is currently in an economic recession, triggered by a drop in oil prices and financial mismanagement, it is a given that the world is a reflection of global interrelations, and with this, I describe economics as the core of world discussion and finance as its driving tool. This is the reason I am determined to devote myself to the cause of developing an expertise in the interaction between politics, international finance and global markets with the hopes of contributing to the building of an accountable and democratic economy both at home front and on an international platform.

But first, what is the definition and scope of the economic sanctions that US is threatening to put on Russia? From NewRepublic.com (2014), these sanctions would:

n October 19th 1960, the United States of America implemented an embargo on American exports to Cuba. This undertaking was in response to the Cuban state nationalizing American owned property without any compensation. The embargo, which included just about all imports, is one example of US-Cuban relations that have been poor ever since the overthrow of the Batista regime (Haufbauer et al). In recent years, trade sanctions have finally began to open up and in 2000 the United States passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act which allows for food and agricultural products to be exported to Cuba (Engage Cuba Coalition). However, despite this act opening up the market for food and agricultural products the Trade Sanctions Reform

The sanctions center around the country’s ballistic missile program has also claimed human rights abuses and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps(IRGC). The new law says the IRGC plays a large role in Iran’s international destabilization program, including terrorism and the ballistic missile program. The sanctions include the blocking property, exclusion from entering the US and pausing current transactions. However the Iranian government has accused the United States of Using the Sanctions to undermine the current nuclear deal. “President Trump has long criticized the agreement and vowed to pull the country out of it during his election campaign.”(CNN). Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi warned that “hostile” measures taken by the US would impact international relations and affairs.

Economic sanctions placed on Cuba by the US as a result of cold war era problems have resulted in a halt in Cuban economic growth. This problems included their friendliness with the soviets, and the missile crisis as a result of this. Other factors that contributed to the hatred between the two nations, the one having the most effect being the travel and economic embargo placed on the island nation. This occurred shortly after Fidel Castro’s entrance into power, mainly on his decision to nationalize private US oil companies. The embargo that has been in place for more than 54 years has not only been widely rejected globally, due to its effect on the island’s economy which has led to a reduction in the quality of life of many working class Cubans and its effect it has had on the establishment of the Cuban government. This includes shortages of food, crumbling infrastructure, and lack of jobs. Secret peace talks

sanctions, such as the withholding of funds (Nye, 12). Arguably, the most severe hard power and

The United States must have a solid international relations and an effective domestic policy in order for the country to be well off and protected from any sorts of extortions.

With this understanding in mind, it would be wise to consider how these potential economic sanctions will impact safety. The threat of these

United States policymakers employ economic sanctions not only to equalize trade and investment disputes, but also to

“Economic sanction” is frequently used in discourse with the incorrect implication that it is a single course of economic action. In fact, the opposite is true. It actually refers to an entire class of nonviolent actions that are each unique and cannot be argued as whole. Part of the appeal is that sanctions can be a mere nuisance, such as a limit on luxury goods like Rolex watches or Cuban cigars, but on the other hand they have the potential to cripple entire economies or level entire sectors of commerce. To understand it is necessary to make distinctions between them in each individual case. Failure to do so can result in ill-informed, sweeping assertions that have the potential to be dangerous if left uncorrected. Common explanations argue that the most important factors to consider when trying to understand the nature of sanctions are the power dynamic between the sender and receiver and level of international support, but I argue that the most important thing to consider when trying to understand the nature of sanctions is the motivation behind them. Put differently, the behavior is that is being pressured to change. Depending on the behavior both sides may be very committed or only marginally committed to the sanction effort. Why does the goal have the strongest effect on the type that is used and why shouldn’t the argument for or against the “success” of sanctions continue? Using a few specific cases this

“Since 2005, U.S. policymakers have increasingly turned to sophisticated types of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool of first resort. From the development of banking sanctions limiting Iran’s ability to secure financing from Western capital markets to new sanctions targeting Russia’s financial system and the development of its oil resources, U.S. policymakers have touted these innovative tools as extremely powerful while also being tailored and precise.” (Feaver & Lorber, 2015)

Generally speaking we live in a world that is safer than at any other point in our history. Even so, we have become accustomed to the inevitability of conflict because there is no central authority. There is only a large number of actors participating in an arena with very limited rules and enforcement, so uncertainty is an accepted and expected part of global politics. Given the level of uncertainty and self-interest in such a setting there is unavoidable conflict, but conflict doesn’t necessarily equate to violence. History has proven time and time again the perils of interstate fighting which makes tools of statecraft that do not involve violence attractive politically and even tactically. Economic sanctions are by no means a perfect one-size fits all solution and the ultimate tool to change behavior is still military intervention, but non-violent tools of coercive diplomacy are used every day and have more power than ever before. As the strongest tool of coercive diplomacy that we have today they carry more weight than diplomatic pressures and can convey seriousness without resorting to the costly consequences of force. Sanctions are an attractive solution to many cases of discord, but it is important to note that the consequences of economic coercion can be great for both parties involved and have unforeseen consequences, so they must be used with discretion.

Resolution 1737 (2006); the Security Council today imposed sanctions on Iran, blocking the import or export of sensitive nuclear material and equipment and freezing the financial assets of persons or entities supporting its proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems

In the ECOWAS there are signs of progress towards a higher level of financial integration. This can be seen through the establishment of the single banking commission (Commission Bancaire de l’UMOA) that was created in 1990 to strengthen regional banking supervision. A regional commercial legal framework (Organisation pour l’Harmonisation du Droit des Affaires en Afrique— OHADA) was put in place in 1996. And cross-border restrictions have been lifted on banking and other financial services excluding insurance. (Amadou, 2006)