Failed Sanctions: Why the U.S. Embargo against Cuba Could Never Work

1 Transnationalism in the Context of Economic Sanctions

Transnationalism in the Context of Economic Sanctions Transnational linkages are broadly defined as movements of information, money, objects, and people across borders that are not controlled by organs of governments (Vertovec 2003, 642). The concept of “transnationalism ” in the study of international relations came into prominent use in the early 1970s amid rapid growth of international organizations and particularly relations between nongovernmental bodies. Several scholars, mostly with a liberal background, began to question the prevailing state-centric view of international relations by analyzing the impact on interstate politics of transnational activities carried out by multinational businesses, revolutionary movements, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), trade unions, scientific networks, and the Catholic Church (Keohane and Nye 1971). More recently, the growing interconnectedness of the world as a consequence of globalization and technological change has stimulated a proliferation of literature concerning various types of transnational practices by private individuals and groups, including tourists, migrants, students, NGOs, and corporations. Transnationalism is closely associated with globalization but its scope is generally narrower. The crucial difference between the two is that transnational activities, unlike global ones, refer to economic, political, and social processes that transcend nation-states yet remain linked to one or more national territories. International migration 1 2 / Failed Sanctions (which is embedded in globalization) is considered a transnational phenomenon because it involves the movement of people across national borders . Similarly, transnational corporations (TNCs) carry out operations worldwide but retain an identifiable home base in one nation (Kearney 1995, 548). The growing number of non-state participants in international activities and the expansion of capital, cultures, and people across borders have provoked discourses on the crisis of the nation-state and the complex transnational linkages that bind societies together in today’s interdependent and shrinking world. As Guarnizo and Smith (1998, 3) observed, the nation-state is seen as weakened “from above” by multinational capital, global media, and supra-national political institutions, and “from below” by informal economic channels, ethnic nationalism, and grass-roots activism . However, while there is little doubt that transnational activities escape control and domination by the state, an analysis of power relations and economic interactions in the context of sanctions must take into account an additional element. The movement of capital from above and from below sustained through transnational linkages might actually strengthen the target country by providing it with crucial financial wherewithal to weather the impact of economic sanctions. The Effectiveness of U.S. Unilateral Economic Sanctions Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has been the dominant user of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool. Besides joining some multilateral attempts and participating in sanctions taken by the United Nations Security Council, the United States frequently resorted to unilateral coercive measures against a broad range of countries. It applied a variety of restrictions on U.S. citizens’ and entities’ dealings with target governments, including the suspension of foreign aid or limitations on exports of narrow categories of goods and technologies (limited sanctions), limitations on more broadly defined categories of trade or finance (moderate sanctions), and prohibitions of most trade and financial flows (extensive sanctions). It also imposed or threatened sanctions against foreign companies or institutions that invest in or provide financial supports to certain countries (Carter 2002). Yet, since the demise of Transnationalism in the Context of Economic Sanctions / 3 the Soviet Union in the early 1990s there has been a significant decline of new cases of U.S. unilateral initiatives as broad coalitions under the umbrella of the United Nations began to play a bigger role in sanctions diplomacy (Hufbauer 1999). The success or failure of economic sanctions obviously depends on their scope and the goals they are intended to achieve, the size of the target country, and its relationship with the sender (Elliott 1997). Nonetheless , there seems to be general acceptance that sanctions, mainly when they are unilateral, are often unable to achieve ambitious foreign policy objectives such as changing the behavior or governments of target countries (Drury 1998; Pape 1997; Hufbauer et al. 1990; Wagner 1988). The United States, above all, is no longer as dominant in the world economy as it was in the aftermath of the Second World War and at least until the early 1970s. In addition, the efficacy of economic coercion and the leverage of a single country are hindered by the effects of globalization. In an increasingly interdependent global economy, it is easier for target governments...