The United States has faced global criticism for using sanctions to protest the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others.
According to a CGTN poll, 90.1 per cent of international respondents believe that US sanctions lack legitimacy and show a disregard for international organisations and order.
This is not the first instance of US sanctions targeting the ICC. In 2020, then-President Donald Trump issued an executive order imposing sanctions on ICC officials involved in investigating US actions in the Afghanistan war.
The poll indicated that 85.2 per cent of respondents think these sanctions undermine the multilateral international order centred around the UN.
The US has been a leading user of sanctions since 1950. Data from the US Treasury Department last year revealed sanctions against more than 20 countries. In the survey, 78.9 per cent of respondents expressed shock at these figures, labelling the US as the world’s sole “sanctioning superpower.” These sanctions are not endorsed by any international body or law, highlighting the US’s tendency to prioritise its domestic law over international law as embodied by the United Nations.
Moreover, 86.1 per cent of respondents noted that the US uses unilateral sanctions to maintain global hegemony, suppress competitors, meddle in other nations’ internal affairs and even overthrow governments. One internet user commented, “Some countries are used to imposing sanctions on others. They think they own the truth and act as judge and jury.”
Sanctioned countries often experience economic stagnation and hardship. The survey found that 93 per cent of respondents were deeply concerned about the severe humanitarian crises caused by American sanctions.
The poll was conducted on CGTN’s English, Spanish, French, Arabic, and Russian platforms, with over 15,000 participants within 24 hours.
Now, criticizing the US for unfairly sanctioning countries involves examining the motives, methods and impacts of these sanctions. Sanctions often lead to severe economic consequences for the general population of the targeted countries. Necessities such as food, medicine and clean water become scarce, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable.
Restrictions on medical supplies and financial transactions can lead to dire public health situations, as seen in countries like Iran and Venezuela, where sanctions have exacerbated shortages of essential medicines and medical equipment.
Rather than weakening targeted regimes, sanctions can sometimes consolidate their power by rallying nationalist sentiment against foreign aggression. Leaders can blame the external economic pressure for internal problems, deflecting criticism from their governance.
Sanctioned countries may form new economic alliances, often with US adversaries like China or Russia, undermining US geopolitical objectives and creating new power dynamics that can be contrary to American interests.
The US has been criticized for applying sanctions selectively, often based on strategic interests rather than consistent moral or legal principles. For example, countries with poor human rights records but strategic value to the US, like Saudi Arabia, often avoid sanctions.
There are arguments that some sanctions violate international law, particularly when they are unilaterally imposed without the backing of the UN. This unilateral approach can be viewed as an overreach of US authority. Sanctions are often seen as an infringement on the sovereignty of other nations, coercing them to change policies that align with their own national interests and values rather than those of the US.
The broad and punitive nature of some sanctions, targeting entire economies rather than specific entities or individuals, can be perceived as a form of economic warfare, causing widespread suffering without necessarily achieving political goals. Heavy-handed use of sanctions can fuel anti-American sentiment around the world, damaging the US’s reputation and soft power. Countries affected by sanctions and their allies may view the US as a bully, undermining international goodwill and cooperation.
Over-reliance on sanctions may isolate the US diplomatically, as allies and international organisations may not always support these measures, preferring engagement and dialogue over coercive tactics.
While sanctions are a tool of foreign policy aimed at coercing states into altering undesirable behaviour, their broad and often punitive application raises significant ethical, legal and strategic concerns.
The humanitarian toll, the potential for counterproductive outcomes, the perception of double standards and the infringement on national sovereignty all contribute to a critical view of US sanction policies.
Ultimately, more balanced and multilateral approaches, prioritising diplomacy and targeted measures might yield better outcomes both for the US and the global community.
